HomeMy WebLinkAbout24th Street_D_REIR__010616
24th Street Improvement Project
Bakersfield, Kern County, California
EA 06-493900 Project ID: 0600000495
06-KER-58-51.7/51.8
06-KER-178-0.0/0.4
06-KER-99-24.9/25.7
EA 06-484700 Project ID: 0600000485
06-KER-178-0.4/1.9
Project ID: NCIIPLN 5109 (111), NCIIPLN 5109 (110)
SCH# 2008041070
Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report
Prepared by the
City of Bakersfield
The environmental review, consultation, and any other action required in accordance with applicable federal laws for
this proposed project is being, or has been, carried out by the California Department of Transportation under its
assumption of responsibility pursuant to 23 U.S. Code 327.
January 2016
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR i
General Information About This Document
This document is a Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (R-DEIR) for the 24th Street
Improvement Project, prepared by the City of Bakersfield (City), in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5(a) and (c). The proposed project is located along the 24th Street
corridor (State Route 178) from just west of the State Route 99 interchange to just east of
M Street in the City of Bakersfield in Kern County.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (DEIR/EA) for this
proposed project was previously prepared and circulated for public review in mid-2012, and the
Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment was completed in December
2013. The final environmental document was decertified by the City of Bakersfield City Council
in September 2015, and that document is now referred to as the 2015 Draft Environmental
Impact Report (2015 DEIR). The City has prepared this R-DEIR based on the 2015 DEIR to
comply with an Order from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Kern, to
include six additional cul-de-sacs in the proposed project description that were separately
approved, and to expand the explanations about alternatives that were considered, but rejected.
This R-DEIR analyzes the impacts of various environmental resources considered with the
proposed cul-de-sacs included in the proposed project, and also provides additional evidence to
support the reasons why the eight alternatives considered in the previously circulated DEIR/EA
for this proposed project were rejected. This R-DEIR consists of only the revised portions of the
2015 DEIR, as they relate to the actions advised by the Court.
This R-DEIR is available for public and agency review from January 11, 2016 to February 25,
2016 (a 45-day period). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(f)(2), the City
needs only to respond to those comments that pertain to the revised and recirculated portions of
the 2015 DEIR, as set forth herein.
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR ii
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR v
Executive Summary
Project Background
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), as assigned by the Federal Highway
Administration, in cooperation with the City of Bakersfield (City), proposes improvements to the
24th Street corridor (State Route 178) from just west of State Route 99 to just east of M Street,
including widening 24th Street between Olive Street and D Street, widening the 23rd Street/24th
Street couplet, and making intersection improvements at Oak Street and 24th Street in the City of
Bakersfield in Kern County. Originally, two cul-de-sacs (Elm Street and B Street) would be
constructed on the south side of 24th Street in conjunction with the widening of 24th Street. In
addition to the proposed improvements along 24th Street, a northbound auxiliary lane for a
northbound off-ramp along State Route 99 south of 24th Street is planned.1 The improvements
are intended to relieve existing traffic congestion and to provide for anticipated future growth in
traffic volume through central Bakersfield.
A joint environmental document (Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Assessment) was prepared in 2012 (2012 DEIR/EA) for the proposed project in compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (FEIR/EA) was
completed in December 2013 and was approved by Caltrans as a NEPA Lead Agency and
certified by the City as a CEQA Lead Agency in February 2014.
Following certification of the 2013 FEIR/EA, a legal challenge to the adequacy and
completeness of the Final Environmental Impact Report (2013 FEIR) was filed in Kern County
Superior Court (Court). Citizens Against the 24th Street Widening Project filed a petition for a
Writ of Mandamus against the City and Caltrans, alleging defects in the 2013 FEIR under
CEQA. In its May 1, 2015 preliminary ruling in the Citizens Against the 24th Street Widening
Project v. City of Bakersfield proceeding [Case No. S-1500-CV-281556KCT], the Court ruled
that the 2013 FEIR certified by the City of Bakersfield in February 2014 was deficient in two
respects: (1) the project description and environmental analysis in the 2013 FEIR should have
included six additional cul-de-sacs requested by local residents (for a total of eight cul-de-sacs),
and (2) the 2013 FEIR did not adequately and completely consider and analyze the eight
potentially feasible alternatives discussed under Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from
Further Discussion.
On July 10, 2015, the Court finalized its ruling ordering the City to void the certification of the
2013 FEIR and the approval of the proposed project, and issued an injunction on the proposed
project. In response to the Court’s ruling, the Bakersfield City Council decertified the 2013 FEIR
in September 2015; with its decertification, the 2013 FEIR became the 2015 Draft
1A complete description of the proposed project is provided in Section 1.2.
Executive Summary
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR vi
Environmental Impact Report (2015 DEIR). The City is now releasing this Recirculated Draft
Environmental Impact Report (R-DEIR) for public review and comment to comply with the
Court’s ruling on the cul-de-sacs and the alternative analysis, as described above.
This R-DEIR is intended to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the
additional information and analysis included in the revised 2015 DEIR in response to the Court’s
ruling. The City will only respond to comments on the new material included in this R-DEIR.
After comments on this R-DEIR are reviewed and responses are prepared, the R-DEIR will be
finalized as the 2016 FEIR and considered for certification by the City as having been prepared
in compliance with CEQA. If the City certifies the 2016 FEIR, the City will then consider
whether to approve the proposed project.
Key Issues Addressed in this R-DEIR
Inclusion of Cul-de-Sacs in Project Description
The construction of cul-de-sacs at Beech, Myrtle, Spruce, Pine, Cedar, and A Streets on the south
side of 24th Street was originally requested by local residents in response to the release of the
2012 DEIR/EA. The City considered and approved the cul-de-sacs as an individual project, with
a separate environmental document (Initial Study/Negative Declaration) prepared to comply with
CEQA. In its May 1, 2015 ruling, however, the Court held that these six cul-de-sacs should have
been a part of the proposed project description in the 2013 FEIR, along with two cul-de-sacs
(Elm Street and B Street) that were already included in the proposed project. The Court held that
the absence of these six cul-de-sacs in the 2013 FEIR rendered the document inadequate to meet
the requirements of CEQA. Specifically, the Court stated:
“… The additional resident-requested cul-de-sacs [were] improperly piecemealed from
the project and … the respondents have not proceeded in the manner required by CEQA
law.”
(Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript of Proceeding page 32, Friday, May 1, 2015, Citizens Against the 24th Street
Widening Project, an unincorporated association vs. City of Bakersfield, a Municipal Corporation.)
In response, the City has included in this R-DEIR cul-de-sacs at six additional locations on the
south side of 24th Street in the description of the proposed project, and has re-evaluated the
proposed project’s environmental impacts with those additional cul-de-sacs taken into
consideration. As detailed in the errata sheet to Chapter 3 of the 2015 DEIR (see Appendix A of
this R-DEIR), the cul-de-sacs would have minor effects on traffic circulation, storm water runoff,
and partial property acquisitions in a historic district. The additional cul-de-sacs were found to
have negligible or minor effects on other environmental resources that did not alter the City’s
overall conclusions about the significant impacts of the proposed project as a whole.
Executive Summary
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR vii
Consideration of Potentially Feasible Alternatives
With respect to alternatives, the Court ruled that the 2013 FEIR did not adequately and
completely consider or analyze eight potentially feasible alternatives that were briefly described
in that report and then eliminated, nor did the document clearly provide a rationale for their
selection. The Court further indicated that the discussion of those potential project alternatives
that had been considered and then eliminated did not provide sufficient detail or evidence about
why they had been eliminated to allow for a meaningful comparative analysis and understanding
by those who did not participate in the environmental document preparation.
Specifically, the Court stated:
“… the EIR did not adequately and completely consider and analyze the eight potentially
feasible alternatives that were briefly described in the EIR and then eliminated.”
“The eight alternatives were each described in the FEIR in a very brief and general
manner; without including sufficient analyses and evidence about each that would allow
meaningful analyses and comparison with the proposed project. The discussion of those
eight rejected alternatives includes only conclusions and opinions with no substantial
evidence to support them. There is not sufficient detail included that would allow those
who did not participate in the EIR preparation to understand and consider the issues
raised by the proposed project, as required by CEQA.”
(Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript of Proceeding page 15-16, Friday, May 1, 2015, Citizens Against the 24th
Street Widening Project, an unincorporated association vs. City of Bakersfield, a Municipal Corporation.)
In response to the Court ruling, the City has included in this R-DEIR an expanded analysis of the
potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project, using the approach the Court identified
for determining suitable alternatives, and provided additional technical information about the
potential alternatives, together with corresponding figures. This additional analysis supports the
City’s determination that each of the eight eliminated alternatives fails to meet one or more of
the four threshold criteria for selecting alternatives that are cited in the CEQA Guidelines and, for
this reason, should not be selected for further detailed analysis in the R-DEIR.
Potential Impacts of Cul-de-Sacs on Historic District South of 24th Street
The Court noted the City’s acknowledgement that the six additional cul-de-sacs could adversely
affect adjacent historic districts, reading into the record the following:
“In addition, new cul-de-sacs where local streets cross 24th Street, other than Elm Street,
would potentially create additional new impacts to the historic districts north and south
of 24th Street. These impacts include the introduction of new hardscape features, cul-de-
sacs, that would introduce new visual features that indirectly affect the historic context
and setting. Also, if the cul-de-sac streets were built, the City-required design turning
radius of 84 feet would need additional property acquisitions from contributors, historic
Executive Summary
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR viii
resources such as houses from either of the two historic districts north and south of 24th
Street. These impacts would potentially require additional evaluation through the Section
106 process requiring approvals from Caltrans and the State Historic Preservation
Officer, potentially creating additional impacts and mitigation measures not previously
disclosed in the draft environmental document.”
(Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript of Proceeding page 32, Friday, May 1, 2015, Citizens Against the 24th Street
Widening Project, an unincorporated association vs. City of Bakersfield, a Municipal Corporation.)
In response to the Court ruling, the City has included in this R-DEIR a discussion of the potential
impacts of the additional cul-de-sacs on visual and cultural resources. With respect to visual
resources, a new viewpoint along 24th Street that incorporated one of the additional cul-de-sacs
was added to the analysis. The conclusion was that the proposed project with the cul-de-sacs
included would have a moderate to moderately high impact on the aesthetic environment along
24th Street, which is the same level of impact that the proposed project would have had without
the additional cul-de-sacs. In other words, the widening of 24th Street between Elm Street and
B Street would change the visual character of that corridor, and the addition of six cul-de-sacs
along the south side of 24th Street would not substantially increase or decrease that change.
The impacts on cultural resources as a result of adding the six cul-de-sacs to the project
description are also addressed. Based on the results of the analysis (see revisions to Section 2.1.6
in Appendix A), the City determined that the six additional cul-de-sacs on the south side of 24th
Street would have no impact on the historic district to the north of 24th Street. On the south side
of 24th Street, the partial parcel acquisitions required to construct the additional cul-de-sacs
would not alter the conclusions reached in the 2013 FEIR about the proposed project’s effects on
the historic district south of 24th Street. The Section 106 process addresses a federal requirement
that has been met by the proposed project and that does not require additional evaluation.2
However, the State Historic Preservation Office will have an opportunity to comment on this R-
DEIR when it is distributed to State of California agencies by the State Clearinghouse.
2Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of
projects they carry out, approve, or fund on historic properties, defined as properties that are included in the
National Register of Historic Places or that meet the criteria of the National Register. The proposing agency
consults with the State Historic Preservation Officer during the Section 106 process. The Section 106 regulations
are published in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties,” and can
be found on the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Web site at www.achp.gov
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR ix
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Overview .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................... 4
1.3 Policy History of South of 24th Street Cul-de-Sacs ............................................ 11
1.4 Key Issues Addressed in this R-DEIR ............................................................... 13
1.4.1 Inclusion of Cul-de-Sacs in Project Description ................................... 13
1.4.2 Consideration of Potentially Feasible Alternatives ............................... 13
1.4.3 Potential Impacts of Cul-de-Sacs on Historic District South of 24th
Street ..................................................................................................... 14
1.5 Overview of Environmental Document Processing for this Proposed Project .. 15
1.5.1 Environmental Document Processed to Date ........................................ 15
1.5.2 Public Review of R-DEIR ..................................................................... 16
1.5.3 Final Environmental Impact Report Preparation and Certification ...... 16
1.6 Organization of the R-DEIR .............................................................................. 16
CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY OF CHANGES INCLUDED IN THE R-DEIR .................. 19
CHAPTER 3 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER DISCUSSION ........... 23
CHAPTER 4 DOCUMENT PREPARERS ...................................................................... 75
CHAPTER 5 DISTRIBUTION LIST ............................................................................... 77
CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 81
APPENDIX A ERRATA SHEET TO THE 2015 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT ................................................................................................... 83
APPENDIX B ALTERNATIVES COST ESCALATION .............................................. 125
Table of Contents
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR x
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Project Vicinity .......................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1-2. Project Location ......................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 1-3. Proposed Project (Widen to the North with Cul-de-Sacs on the South) .................................. 10
Figure 1-13. Alternatives Screening Process .............................................................................................. 26
Figure 1-14. Alternative A - Northeast/Northwest Loop Ramps Interchange ............................................ 31
Figure 1-15. Alternative B - Single Point Interchange ............................................................................... 34
Figure 1-16. Alternative C - Kern River Crossing ...................................................................................... 38
Figure 1-17. Alternative D – Interchange ................................................................................................... 41
Figure 1-18. Alternative E - Jug Handle ..................................................................................................... 44
Figure 1-19. Alternative F1 - Depressed Arterial with Retaining Walls .................................................... 47
Figure 1-20. Alternative F2 - Depressed Arterial without Retaining Walls ............................................... 48
Figure 1-21. Alternative G1 - Widening on 24th Street on South Side with Frontage Road on North
Side ........................................................................................................................................ 52
Figure 1-22. Alternative G2 - Widening on North Side with Frontage Road on North Side ...................... 53
Figure 1-23. Alternative G3 - Widening Both North and South Side with Frontage Road on North
Side ........................................................................................................................................ 54
Figure 1-24. Alternative G4 - Widening on South Side with Frontage Road off of Northerly Curb ......... 55
Figure 1-25. Alternative H - Widening Both Sides of 24th Street ............................................................... 59
Figure 1-26. Alternative I – Restriping 24th Street ...................................................................................... 62
Figure 1-27. Cross-Section for Alternative I Compared to Major Arterial Standard ................................. 64
Figure 1-28. Alternative J - Hageman Flyover in Regional Context .......................................................... 68
Figure 1-7. Alternative 1, Widen to the North – West of Oak Street to Cedar Street ................................. 95
Figure 1-8. Alternative 1, Widen to the North – Cedar Street to Eye Street ............................................... 96
Figure 2-6. Potential Acquisitions/Relocations – Alternative 1 – Widen to the North (Sheet 3 of 5) ...... 106
Figure 2-6. Potential Acquisitions/Relocations – Alternative 1 – Widen to the North (Sheet 4 of 5) ...... 107
Figure 2-11. Key View Locations ............................................................................................................. 110
Figure 2-18A. Key View 8 Existing and Proposed Conditions ................................................................ 111
Figure 2-19. Impacts to Properties within the Historic Districts North and South of 24th Street –
Alternative 1 ......................................................................................................................... 114
Figure 2-24. Modeled Sound Barriers and Receiver Locations – Alternative 1 (Sheet 3 of 5) ................ 119
Figure 2-24. Modeled Sound Barriers and Receiver Locations – Alternative 1 (Sheet 4 of 5) ................ 120
List of Tables
Table 2.1. Summary of Revisions to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report .................................. 19
Table 2.2. Sections of the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report that Require No Changes ................ 21
Table 1.4. Twelve Busiest Arterial Roads in Bakersfield ........................................................................... 27
Table 1.5. Evaluation of Potentially Feasible Alternatives Against CEQA Threshold Criteria ................. 73
Table S.1. Summary of Potential Impacts from Alternatives ..................................................................... 87
Table 1.3. Comparison of Project Alternatives ........................................................................................... 98
Table 2.7. Summary of Property Acquisitions for the Build Alternatives ................................................ 105
Table 2.13. Permanent Uses and Temporary Occupancies at the Historic Properties .............................. 113
Table 2.28. Cumulative City of Bakersfield Projects within the Study Area ........................................... 122
Table B.1. Cost Estimates for Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion ........... 126
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR xi
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic
ac acre
APE Area of Potential Effects
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Bakersfield
Court Kern County Superior Court
dBA A-weighted decibels
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
EA Environmental Assessment
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impacts
N North
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NOA Notice of Availability
PM Post Mile
P.E. Professional Engineer
R-DEIR Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report
R/W right of way
SCH State Clearinghouse
SR State Route
ST Street
TCE Temporary Construction Easement
TRIP Thomas Roads Improvement Program
U.S. United States
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 1
Chapter 1 Introduction
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), as assigned by the Federal Highway
Administration, in cooperation with the City of Bakersfield (City), proposes improvements to the
24th Street corridor from just west of State Route 99 to just east of M Street, including widening
24th Street (State Route 178) between Olive Street and D Street, widening the 23rd Street/24th
Street couplet, and making intersection improvements at Oak Street and 24th Street in the City of
Bakersfield in Kern County. Eight cul-de-sacs would be constructed on the south side of 24th
Street by the City in conjunction with the widening of 24th Street. In addition to the proposed
improvements along 24th Street, a northbound auxiliary lane for the northbound off-ramp along
State Route 99 south of 24th Street is planned. The project vicinity and project location are shown
in Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2, respectively.3
The 24th Street Improvement Project will require reviews and approvals by the City and Caltrans.
The City is the lead agency for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), and Caltrans is the lead agency for compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). The 24th Street Improvement Project is a joint state and federal project included in
the Thomas Roads Improvement Program (TRIP). Compliance with NEPA for the proposed
project has been completed with Caltrans’ approval of a Final Environmental Assessment and
issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impacts. This Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact
Report (R-DEIR) has no federal scope or participation. Following public review of this R-DEIR
and responses to public and agency comments on this R-DEIR, the 2015 Draft Environmental
Impact Report (2015 DEIR) will be finalized as the 2016 Final Environmental Impact Report
(2016 FEIR) and considered by the City for certification under CEQA. If the City certifies the
2016 FEIR, the City will then consider whether to approve the proposed project.
1.1 Project Overview
The 24th Street Improvement Project initially consisted of two separate projects, the Oak
Street/24th Street Interchange Project (Interchange Project) and the 24th Street Widening Project
(Widening Project). Transportation studies of the 24th Street area prepared from 1986 to the early
2000s indicated a need to relieve traffic congestion at the Oak Street/24th Street intersection, and
to provide more capacity along 24th Street to the east of that intersection into the downtown
Bakersfield area. Project Study Reports for the Interchange Project (URS Corporation 2005a)
and the Widening Project (URS Corporation 2005b) were finalized in 2005. These reports
provided a foundation for the Interchange Project and Widening Project environmental studies in
2007.
3See Section 1.2 for a detailed description of the proposed project.
Chapter 1 Introduction
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 2
Figure 1-1. Project Vicinity
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
1
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
3
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
-
2
.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Chapter 1 Introduction
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 4
Continuing traffic and environmental studies of the conditions on 24th Street indicated a need to
update the Project Study Reports for the Interchange Project (URS Corporation 2005a) and the
Widening Project (URS Corporation 2005b). The results of traffic modeling indicated a systems
approach should be used because the two separate projects would not eliminate current and
future traffic congestion independently. In addition, the proposed improvements at the Oak
Street/24th Street intersection would affect traffic conditions to its west. Therefore the
Supplemental Project Study Reports for the Interchange Project and the Widening Project were
prepared (RBF Consulting 2011a and 2011b) to account for the linkages between the two
projects and incorporate the necessary elements of a systems approach.
The major changes in the Interchange Project from its 2005 Project Study Report to its 2011
Supplemental Project Study Report were that the Oak Street/24th Street intersection would
require some improvements, but not a full interchange, and that improvements to State Route 99
would also be needed. The major changes in the Widening Project from its 2005 Project Study
Report to its 2011 Supplemental Project Study Report were that the limits of the proposed
project needed to extend to the east of M Street and needed to include widening the 23rd
Street/24th Street couplet. Together, these two projects with the additional elements included in
the two Supplemental Project Study Reports provided a comprehensive solution to the demand
for roadway capacity on 24th Street from State Route 99 to the downtown area (M Street).
The 2011 Supplemental Project Study Report for the Widening Project identified two feasible
approaches to achieving the project’s goals – widening 24th Street on the north side and widening
it on the south side. The two build alternatives of the proposed project evaluated in the 2015
DEIR, Alternative 1 – Widening to the North and Alternative 2 – Widening to the South,
represent these two feasible approaches. The Oak Street/24th Street intersection modifications
outlined in the 2011 Supplemental Project Study Reports are the same under both build
alternatives.
The rationale for selecting Alternatives 1 and 2 for further evaluation in the 2015 DEIR is based
on an analysis of the four threshold criteria used for selecting alternatives to be addressed in an
Environmental Impact Report, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(c). After the
circulation of the draft environmental document in May 2012 and consideration of the public
comments on that document, Alternative 1 (Widen to the North) was selected as the Preferred
Alternative. For the purposes of complying with CEQA, Alternative 1 is addressed in this R-
DEIR as the proposed project.
1.2 Project Description
The 24th Street Improvement Project evaluated in this R-DEIR addresses traffic congestion
along the 24th Street corridor (State Route 178) which, for purposes of environmental review,
begins just west of the State Route 99 interchange with State Route 58 and ends just east of
M Street. The proposed project is an integration and enhancement of various improvements that
were all found to be necessary to relieve traffic congestion along 24th Street and provide for
Chapter 1 Introduction
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 5
future growth in traffic volumes in central Bakersfield. Together, these improvements achieve
acceptable levels of service along the 24th Street corridor during morning and evening peak
traffic periods. The “proposed project” referred to in this R-DEIR is the project described in this
section.
The proposed project consists of improvements along 24th Street from west of State Route 99 to
0.2 mile east of M Street, a distance of about 2.1 miles, and improvements on State Route 99 for
a northbound auxiliary lane from 1,500 feet south of and to the Kern River Bridge. The main
features of the proposed project are improvements at the Oak Street/24th Street intersection, just
east of the Kern River Bridge, and the widening of 24th Street between Olive Street and D Street.
Other proposed actions include widening the 23rd Street/24th Street couplet between D Street and
M Street, and improvements at State Route 178. The proposed project is divided into the
following four segments (see Figure 1-2):
Segment 1: State Route 99/Rosedale Highway (State Route 58)/24th Street (State
Route 178) interchange improvements, including Northbound State Route 99 Auxiliary
Lane and southbound State Route 99 ramp improvements to the west end of the Kern
River Bridge;
Segment 2: 24th Street/Oak Street intersection and 24th Street improvements from the
west end of the Kern River Bridge to Olive Street;
Segment 3: 24th Street widening from Olive Street to D Street, with a reverse curve (S-
curve); and
Segment 4: 23rd Street/24th Street couplet improvements from D Street to 0.2 mile east of
M Street.
Each of these segments is described in detail below.
Segment 1—State Route 99/State Route 58/24th Street (State Route 178)
Interchange Improvements and Northbound State Route 99 Auxiliary Lane
Segment 1 project features would consist of improvements to the State Route 99 ramps,
including the following changes at the interchange with 24th Street (State Route 178) and
Rosedale Highway (State Route 58):
Improve the westbound loop on-ramp from Rosedale Highway (State Route 58) to
southbound State Route 99 from one lane to two lanes within the existing pavement
width.
Improve northbound State Route 99 to include a 1,500-foot auxiliary lane (an extra lane
to help traffic enter and exit the freeway smoothly) before the State Route 99 northbound
off-ramp at 24th Street (State Route 178). With the auxiliary lane option, the northbound
off-ramp would be expanded from a one-lane off-ramp to a two-lane off-ramp. A
retaining wall up to 11 feet high (exposed height) with a concrete barrier on top would be
Chapter 1 Introduction
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 6
built at the edge of the shoulder from the beginning of the improvements to the existing
Kern River Bridge. No structural improvements would be made to the Kern River Bridge,
but the existing roadway would be restriped to create the auxiliary lane and a two-lane
departure.
Improve the westbound 24th Street (State Route 178) approach to Buck Owens Boulevard
from three through lanes and one right-turn lane to three through lanes and two lanes
aligning with the southbound State Route 99 loop on-ramp — one on-ramp lane and one
shared through/right-turn lane. The section would include a bike lane, a 12-foot-wide
lane, a 5-foot-wide shoulder, a 5-foot-wide sidewalk, a 10- to 12-foot-high (exposed
height) retaining wall, and a 3-foot-high concrete barrier. The three westbound lanes,
which would go under the State Route 99 superstructure, would be separated from the on-
ramp lanes by a raised median. The bike lane would begin at the beginning of the right
turn pocket, approximately 200 feet west of the Kern River Bridge, and extend to Buck
Owens Boulevard. The bike lane would align with the 8-foot-wide right shoulder of the
westbound through lanes along 24th Street (State Route 178) under State Route 99. The
three westbound through lanes would continue westerly on 24th Street. A retaining wall
would be required under State Route 99 to support the north abutment slope. The lanes
would be 12 feet wide with an 8-foot-wide shoulder, an 8-foot-wide sidewalk, and a 4- to
8-foot-high (exposed height) retaining wall.
Improve the southbound Buck Owens Boulevard approach to 24th Street from two left-
turn lanes and one right-turn lane to two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes. All lanes
of the approach would be 12 feet wide.
Improve the northbound State Route 99 off-ramp from two left-turn lanes and one free
right-turn lane to three left-turn lanes and one free right-turn lane. The additional left-turn
lane would be 12 feet wide with a 4-foot-wide left shoulder. Eastbound 24th Street would
remain as-is, with three through lanes and an additional lane at the northbound State
Route 99 off-ramp free right turn.
Segment 2—24th Street/Oak Street Intersection and 24th Street Improvements
from the West End of the Kern River Bridge to Olive Street
Segment 2 improvements would include the following:
Improve the existing 24th Street Bridge over the Kern River, between Oak Street and
Buck Owens Boulevard within the limits of the existing bridge to remove the existing
raised median and build a 3-foot 3-inch wide (39-inch wide) raised median near the
middle of the bridge to accommodate four 12-foot-wide lanes, a 6-foot-wide right
shoulder, and a 1-foot-wide left shoulder in each direction. The existing curb and 5-foot-
wide sidewalks in the westbound direction and the existing concrete barrier in the
eastbound direction would remain.
Chapter 1 Introduction
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 7
Improve the northbound Oak Street approach to 24th Street from one left-turn lane, one
shared left-turn/through lane, and one right-turn lane to two left-turn lanes, one shared
left-turn/through lane, and two right-turn lanes. A raised/striped median or an island
would be installed for right-turn movements onto eastbound 24th Street. The section
would consist of three through lanes, shoulders, a bike lane, and an 8-foot-wide parkway
(the area between the travel lanes and sidewalks, ordinarily used as a planting area).
Build a new 6-foot-wide sidewalk next to the existing curb on the west side of Oak Street
from the 24th Street intersection toward 22nd Street. A curb, gutter, and sidewalk would be
built on the east side of Oak Street from the 24th Street intersection toward 22nd Street.
Restripe the southbound Oak Street lane approach to 24th Street from one shared left-
turn/through lane and one right-turn lane to one left-turn lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane.
Improve the eastbound 24th Street approach to Oak Street from two through lanes to four
through lanes, leaving the existing one left-turn lane and one right-turn lane. A 9-foot-
high (exposed height) retaining wall with a 3-foot-high barrier at Beach Park in the
southwest quadrant of the intersection would be built.
Improve the westbound 24th Street approach to Oak Street from one through lane to three
through lanes.
Build bus stop turnouts on eastbound and westbound 24th Street near Oak Street.
Enhance landscaping in the median and parkway areas (the area outside the shoulder of
the roadway) on both the north and south sides of 24th Street. The parkway (the area
between the travel lanes and sidewalks, ordinarily used as a planting area) on the north
side, between Olive Street and Carrier Canal, would vary in width from 10 feet to 15 feet
to accommodate drivers’ sight distance (the distance drivers can see ahead) at Olive
Street.
The proposed project would include reconstructing Carrier Canal on the north and south sides of
24th Street to accommodate the widening of 24th Street. On the north side of 24th Street, Carrier
Canal would require about 10 feet of culvert extension, in addition to reconstructing about
30 feet of transition area. On the south side of 24th Street, Carrier Canal would require about
100 feet of culvert extension, in addition to reconstructing about 30 feet of transition.
Segment 3—24th Street Widening (from Olive Street to D Street), with a Reverse
Curve (S-curve)
The proposed project would widen 24th Street between Olive Street and D Street to the north,
adding two travel lanes — one in each direction. The proposed roadway alignment would be
shifted about 17 feet to the north of the existing alignment to minimize the acquisition of rights-
of-way on the south side of 24th Street. Eleven driveways on the north side of 24th Street would
be eliminated. Segment 3 improvements would include the following:
Chapter 1 Introduction
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 8
Build raised medians along 24th Street, restricting cross-street access to right-in/right-out-
only vehicular movements, with left turns off of 24th Street allowed at two eastbound
intersections (Beech Street and C Street), but not at any westbound intersections.
Add a two-way frontage road on the north side of 24th Street between Elm Street and
Beech Street. A frontage road connecting Elm Street and Beech Street would provide
additional access to Elm Street.
Construct cul-de-sacs on the south side of 24th Street at Elm, Beech, Myrtle, Spruce, Pine,
Cedar, A, and B Streets. Residents may construct decorative walls on their properties
behind the cul-de-sacs, subject to City approval.
Enhance the landscaping in the median and parkway areas (the area outside the shoulder
of the roadway) on the north and south sides of 24th Street from Olive Street to C Street.
This segment of the 24th Street widening includes a reverse curve (the street curves from one
direction to the other in the shape of an “S”) that begins along 24th Street near A Street and ends
along 23rd Street near D Street. The reverse curve would include the following features:
Close D Street’s north leg at the 23rd Street intersection due to sight distance limitations.
A turn-around design pursuant to City standards would be built on D Street at this
location. A permanent easement would be required within the existing parking area north
of the alley on the west side of D Street to provide a turnaround for emergency fire
trucks.
Add a lane on 23rd Street at B Street.
Open the southbound approach of C Street onto 23rd Street to allow left-in, left-out access
and to help circulation to and from existing buildings.
Segment 4—23rd Street/24th Street Couplet (from D Street to 0.2 mile east of M
Street)
Segment 4 improvements would include the following:
Improvements to be made to the 23rd Street/24th Street couplet (a pair of one-way streets) would
include removing existing on-street parking along both sides of 23rd and 24th Streets,
rehabilitating the roadway, and restriping to allow an additional travel lane in each direction. The
roadway rehabilitation would include rebuilding the pavement, improving curb and drainage
facilities, providing Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant pedestrian curb ramps, changing
traffic signals, and adding bus turnouts.
The limits of the couplet area extend from D Street to 0.2 mile east of M Street, consisting of
four through lanes in each direction (24th and 23rd Streets) and shoulders on each side. The
existing sidewalk and parkway would remain. The design of the couplet area would include the
following:
Chapter 1 Introduction
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 9
The intersection of 24th Street and K Street would be modified to prevent a right turn
from southbound K Street onto westbound 24th Street. A raised curb and sidewalk would
extend halfway into K Street to prevent right turns. A permanent easement within the
existing parking area would be required on the west side of K Street, just north of the
intersection, to provide a hammerhead cul-de-sac design for fire truck movements.
Along westbound 24th Street, the proposed project would end at the State Route 178
undercrossing, about 0.2 mile east of M Street. The existing undercrossing consists of
three through lanes. A fourth lane would be added just west of the undercrossing. No
construction on the undercrossing is expected. The 24th Street Frontage Road would join
24th Street just east of M Street as it is under existing conditions, and a fifth through lane
of traffic would be added at the M Street intersection. The right-most lane would be
dropped between M Street and K Street.
Along eastbound 23rd Street, the proposed project would end at the Union Avenue off-
ramp, about 0.2 mile east of M Street. Four eastbound through lanes would be built
through the M Street intersection. The fourth through lane would become the off-ramp,
and the three existing through lanes would continue to the undercrossing. No construction
on the undercrossing is planned.
A mid-block bus turnout would be constructed on westbound 24th Street between E Street
and F Street. A far side bus turnout would be provided on eastbound 23rd Street just east
of G Street.
D Street would be closed on the north side of 23rd Street.
Construction Costs
The proposed project would cost an estimated $46 million.4 For purposes of comparing the
proposed project with alternatives, this cost has been broken down by project segment, as shown
in Figure 1-3. (Note that this estimate does not include engineering or construction support
costs).
4Project costs presented here include right-of-way acquisition and construction costs.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
1
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
10
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
-
3
.
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
W
i
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
N
o
r
t
h
w
i
t
h
C
u
l
-
d
e
-
S
a
c
s
o
n
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
)
Chapter 1 Introduction
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 11
1.3 Policy History of South of 24th Street Cul-de-Sacs
Since the late 1990s, residents and homeowners in the City’s Downtown neighborhood
expressed concerns that traffic on 24th Street (State Route 178) was causing safety issues on local
residential streets running south of and perpendicular to 24th Street. With high traffic volumes
and congestion, drivers stuck in traffic on 24th Street often cut through these residential streets
(Elm, Beech, Myrtle, Spruce, Pine, Cedar, A, and B Streets) and travel at excessive speeds.
In 2005, property owners on Elm Street petitioned the City to approve and implement a plan to
close Elm Street at the 24th Street intersection. The Bakersfield City Council passed Resolution
247-06 in September 2006, allowing the closure of Elm Street at 24th Street. At the time,
improvements were being considered but the specific design parameters for the Oak Street/24th
Street intersection and for widening 24th Street had not yet been developed. The projects had not
yet undergone federal (NEPA) or State of California (CEQA) environmental review. The City
deferred construction of the cul-de-sac and barricaded Elm Street with temporary concrete
barrier rail with the intent of including the cul-de-sac construction in the 24th Street
improvements, should that project be approved.
While system improvements to 24th Street (State Route 178) were undergoing engineering and
environmental studies by Caltrans and the City, other neighborhood property owners expressed a
need to close their particular streets by constructing cul-de-sacs on the south side of 24th Street.
Residents reported that there had been numerous accidents and near misses in the neighborhood
as a result of cut-through traffic, and requested the cul-de-sacs be constructed as soon as possible
for the safety of area residents.
City staff and City Council members declared a neutral stand on the proposed closures, but
agreed to resident’s requests to facilitate the process. The City’s Planning Department certified
that a project that allowed construction of cul-de-sacs on eight streets south of 24th Street would
implement the goals and polices of the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield
General Plan. In compliance with CEQA, the City prepared an Initial Study that evaluated the
potential impacts of the six cul-de-sacs not already studied in the 2012 Draft Environmental
Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (2012 DEIR/EA) circulated for public review. A
proposed Negative Declaration (including the Initial Study) was circulated for public review and
comment during October 2012, followed by a public hearing held on November 1, 2012.
During the Negative Declaration circulation period, the City distributed a fact sheet to property
owners on the affected streets, between 24th and 22nd Streets, clarifying the City’s role in the
resident-requested cul-de-sac project. This included the proposed requirement that all property
owners on a given street would have to agree to the cul-de-sac, that end-of-street property
owners (adjacent to 24th Street) would have to agree to donate sufficient property to construct the
cul-de-sacs to City standards, and that the City would provide no improvements beyond curbs
and gutters. End properties adjacent to 24th Street were also staked to demonstrate the amount of
property required to construct each cul-de-sac to City standards.
Chapter 1 Introduction
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 12
On November 14, 2012, the City Council adopted the Negative Declaration, and passed
Resolution No. 128-12 which allowed for the closure and construction of cul-de-sacs on Beech,
Myrtle, Spruce, Pine, Cedar, A, B, and C Streets, south of 24th Street, provided that (1) all
property owners between 24th and 22nd Streets on the street requesting the cul-de-sac agree to the
closure by signing a petition; and (2) the owners of properties adjacent to 24th Street on each
street requesting the cul-de-sac agree to donate sufficient property for its construction built to
City standards.
At its January 8, 2014 meeting, the City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to Resolution
No. 128-12, to clarify the timing of construction on those streets requesting a cul-de-sac. At that
Council meeting, and at subsequent Council meetings on January 22, February 12, and
March 19, 2014, several area residents appeared before the City Council to discuss the desire and
urgent need to build cul-de-sacs on their streets to reduce traffic and make their streets safer,
particularly for children.
Many of the residents appearing before the City Council had expressed frustration over the
requirement for 100 percent signature approval from all property owners on those streets desiring
cul-de-sacs, as was City policy, per the original resolution. In one case, neighbors reported
having 19 of 20 property owners in support, but that a single non-resident property owner had
thwarted efforts by opposing the petition for a cul-de-sac. After further consideration and in
response to the community, at its January 22 meeting, the City Council passed a second
amendment to City policy by revising qualification requirements which would allow a petition in
which 75 percent of property owners on any street identified in Resolution No. 128-12 could
request a cul-de-sac. The Council noted that the 75 percent threshold is well above the two-thirds
approval rate considered by definition to be a “super majority” in citizen-voted issues.
City staff would then provide the City Council with a recommendation for those requests, and
the City Council would vote to approve or deny the request. Streets with 100 percent property
owner-signed petitions and the associated land dedications, as required, would continue to be
automatically approved. Subsequently, homeowners petitioned the City under this amendment
and the Bakersfield City Council granted their requests for cul-de-sacs.
Following approval of the homeowners’ petitions and the proposed Negative Declaration, the
City began to install temporary cul-de-sacs on Beech, Myrtle, Spruce, Pine, Cedar, and A Streets
with barrier rail, curb, and gutter in March 2014. Elm Street remained closed with temporary
barrier rail. Permanent construction of the cul-de-sacs is subject to final design and approval of
the proposed project, which would include sidewalks and landscaping improvements to 24th
Street. Project improvements would be coordinated with the homeowners’ installation of
decorative features behind the cul-de-sacs, as approved by the City.
Chapter 1 Introduction
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 13
1.4 Key Issues Addressed in this R-DEIR
1.4.1 Inclusion of Cul-de-Sacs in Project Description
The construction of cul-de-sacs at Beech, Myrtle, Spruce, Pine, Cedar, and A Streets on the south
side of 24th Street was originally requested by local residents in response to the release of the
2012 DEIR/EA. The City considered and approved the cul-de-sacs as an individual project, with
a separate environmental document (Initial Study/Negative Declaration) prepared to comply with
CEQA. In its May 1, 2015 ruling, however, the Court held that these six cul-de-sacs should have
been a part of the proposed project description in the Final Environmental Impact Report
released in December 2013 (2013 FEIR), along with two cul-de-sacs (Elm Street and B Street)
that were already included in the proposed project. The Court held that the absence of these six
cul-de-sacs in the 2013 FEIR rendered the document inadequate to meet the requirements of
CEQA. Specifically, the Court stated:
“… The additional resident-requested cul-de-sacs [were] improperly piecemealed from
the project and … the respondents have not proceeded in the manner required by CEQA
law.”
(Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript of Proceeding page 32, Friday, May 1, 2015, Citizens Against the 24th Street
Widening Project, an unincorporated association vs. City of Bakersfield, a Municipal Corporation.)
In response, the City has included in this R-DEIR cul-de-sacs at six additional locations on the
south side of 24th Street in the description of the proposed project, and has re-evaluated the
proposed project’s environmental impacts with those additional cul-de-sacs taken into
consideration. As detailed in the errata sheet to Chapter 3 of the 2015 DEIR (see Appendix A of
this R-DEIR), the cul-de-sacs would have minor effects on traffic circulation, storm water runoff,
and partial property acquisitions in a historic district. The additional cul-de-sacs were found to
have negligible or minor effects on other environmental resources and those negligible or minor
impactsdid not alter the City’s overall conclusions about the significant impacts of the proposed
project as a whole.
1.4.2 Consideration of Potentially Feasible Alternatives
The Court ruled that the 2013 FEIR did not adequately and completely consider or analyze eight
potentially feasible alternatives that were briefly described in that report and then eliminated, nor
did the document clearly provide a rationale for their selection. The Court further indicated that
the discussion of those potential project alternatives that had been considered and then
eliminated did not provide sufficient detail or evidence about why they had been eliminated to
allow for a meaningful comparative analysis and understanding by those who did not participate
in the environmental document preparation.
Chapter 1 Introduction
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 14
Specifically, the Court stated:
“… the EIR did not adequately and completely consider and analyze the eight potentially
feasible alternatives that were briefly described in the EIR and then eliminated.”
“The eight alternatives were each described in the FEIR in a very brief and general
manner; without including sufficient analyses and evidence about each that would allow
meaningful analyses and comparison with the proposed project. The discussion of those
eight rejected alternatives includes only conclusions and opinions with no substantial
evidence to support them. There is not sufficient detail included that would allow those
who did not participate in the EIR preparation to understand and consider the issues
raised by the proposed project, as required by CEQA.”
(Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript of Proceeding page 15-16, Friday, May 1, 2015, Citizens Against the 24th
Street Widening Project, an unincorporated association vs. City of Bakersfield, a Municipal Corporation.)
In response to the Court ruling, the City has included in this R-DEIR an expanded analysis of the
potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project, using the approach the Court identified
for determining suitable alternatives, and provided additional technical information about the
potential alternatives, together with corresponding figures. This additional analysis supports the
City’s determination that each of the eight eliminated alternatives fails to meet one or more of
the four threshold criteria for selecting alternatives that are cited in the CEQA Guidelines and, for
this reason, should not be selected for further detailed analysis in the R-DEIR.
1.4.3 Potential Impacts of Cul-de-Sacs on Historic District South of 24th Street
The Court noted the City’s acknowledgement that the six additional cul-de-sacs could adversely
affect adjacent historic districts, reading into the record the following:
“In addition, new cul-de-sacs where local streets cross 24th Street, other than Elm Street,
would potentially create additional new impacts to the historic districts north and south
of 24th Street. These impacts include the introduction of new hardscape features, cul-de-
sacs, that would introduce new visual features that indirectly affect the historic context
and setting. Also, if the cul-de-sac streets were built, the City-required design turning
radius of 84 feet would need additional property acquisitions from contributors, historic
resources such as houses from either of the two historic districts north and south of 24th
Street. These impacts would potentially require additional evaluation through the Section
106 process requiring approvals from Caltrans and the State Historic Preservation
Officer, potentially creating additional impacts and mitigation measures not previously
disclosed in the draft environmental document.”
(Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript of Proceeding page 32, Friday, May 1, 2015, Citizens Against the 24th Street
Widening Project, an unincorporated association vs. City of Bakersfield, a Municipal Corporation.)
In response to the Court ruling, the City has included in this R-DEIR a discussion of the potential
impacts of the additional cul-de-sacs on visual and cultural resources. With respect to visual
Chapter 1 Introduction
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 15
resources, a new viewpoint along 24th Street that incorporated one of the additional cul-de-sacs
was added to the analysis. The conclusion was that the proposed project with the cul-de-sacs
included would have a moderate to moderately high impact on the aesthetic environment along
24th Street, which is the same level of impact that the proposed project would have had without
the additional cul-de-sacs. In other words, the widening of 24th Street between Elm Street and
B Street would change the visual character of that corridor, and the addition of six cul-de-sacs
along the south side of 24th Street would not substantially increase or decrease that change.
The impacts on cultural resources as a result of adding the six cul-de-sacs to the project
description are also addressed. Based on the results of the analysis (see revisions to Section 2.1.6
in Appendix A), the City determined that the six additional cul-de-sacs on the south side of 24th
Street would have no impact on the historic district to the north of 24th Street. On the south side
of 24th Street, the partial parcel acquisitions required to construct the additional cul-de-sacs
would not alter the conclusions reached in the 2013 FEIR about the proposed project’s effects on
the historic district south of 24th Street. The Section 106 process addresses a federal requirement
that has been met by the proposed project and that does not require additional evaluation.5
However, the State Historic Preservation Office will have an opportunity to comment on this R-
DEIR when it is distributed to State of California agencies by the State Clearinghouse.
1.5 Overview of Environmental Document Processing for this
Proposed Project
1.5.1 Environmental Document Processed to Date
A Notice of Preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment
(DEIR/EA) for the 24th Street Improvement Project was published on April 11, 2008. The
DEIR/EA and a Section 4(f) Evaluation for this proposed project were released in May 2012.
Public hearings were held in June and July 2012. All comments received during the public
review period were considered and addressed in the Final Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Assessment (FEIR/EA) and Section 4(f) Evaluation that were completed
in December 2013. The 2013 FEIR/EA was certified by the City and Caltrans, and the proposed
project was approved on February 12, 2014. For purposes of analysis under CEQA, this
FEIR/EA is referred to as the 2013 FEIR.
Following certification of the 2013 FEIR/EA, a legal challenge to the adequacy and
completeness of the 2013 FEIR was filed in Kern County Superior Court (Court). Citizens
Against the 24th Street Widening Project filed a petition for a Writ of Mandamus against the City
and Caltrans, alleging defects in the 2013 FEIR under CEQA. In its May 1, 2015 preliminary
5Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of
projects they carry out, approve, or fund on historic properties, defined as properties that are included in the
National Register of Historic Places or that meet the criteria of the National Register. The proposing agency
consults with the State Historic Preservation Officer during the Section 106 process. The Section 106 regulations
are published in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties,” and can
be found on the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Web site at www.achp.gov
Chapter 1 Introduction
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 16
ruling in the Citizens Against the 24th Street Widening Project v. City of Bakersfield proceeding
[Case No. S-1500-CV-281556KCT], the Court ruled that the 2013 FEIR certified by the City of
Bakersfield in February 2014 was deficient in two respects: (1) the project description and
environmental analysis in the 2013 FEIR should have included six additional cul-de-sacs
requested by local residents (for a total of eight cul-de-sacs), and (2) the 2013 FEIR did not
adequately and completely consider and analyze the eight potentially feasible alternatives
discussed under Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion. On July 10,
2015, the Court finalized its ruling ordering the City to void the certification of the 2013 FEIR
and the approval of the proposed project, and issued an injunction on the proposed project. The
Court’s ruling did not affect the Final Environmental Assessment or the Finding of No
Significant Impacts.
On September 2, 2015, in response to a ruling by the Court, the City of Bakersfield decertified
the 2013 FEIR and voided its approval of the proposed project. Because it was decertified by the
City, the 2013 FEIR is now referred to as the 2015 DEIR.
To comply with the Court’s Order, the City has prepared the R-DEIR by revising the 2015
DEIR. As provided for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(c):
“If the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency need
only recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified.”
This R-DEIR, therefore, consists of additions to, deletions from, and revisions of the 2015 DEIR
text, tables, and figures, along with explanatory information necessary to place it in an
appropriate context.
1.5.2 Public Review of R-DEIR
This R-DEIR is made available for public review from January 11, 2016 to February 25, 2016 (a
45-day period). A public hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for January 21,
2016.
1.5.3 Final Environmental Impact Report Preparation and Certification
Following the close of the public review period, the City will respond to comments received on
those portions of the 2015 DEIR presented in this R-DEIR. Once comments have been reviewed,
the City will then revise the environmental document as needed to produce the 2016 FEIR. The
City’s responses to comments on this R-DEIR will be included in the 2016 FEIR. A Notice of
Availability of the 2016 FEIR will then be filed. The City of Bakersfield will consider the 2016
FEIR and, if appropriate, certify it and approve the proposed project.
1.6 Organization of the R-DEIR
This R-DEIR contains only the text, table, and figure changes and supporting information needed
to revise the 2015 DEIR to supplement the discussion of those potentially feasible alternatives
Chapter 1 Introduction
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 17
that were considered but eliminated prior to detailed analysis and to add six new cul-de-sacs (for
a total of eight) to the project description. The document is organized as follows:
Executive Summary provides a brief project overview, reasons for the preparation of the
R-DEIR, and the results of the additional impact analysis.
Chapter 1 provides background information about the proposed project, the proposed
project description, and the overview of environmental document processing for this
proposed project.
Chapter 2 summarizes the revisions to the 2015 DEIR.
Chapter 3 provides the new text of Section 1.3.6 of the 2015 DEIR, Alternatives
Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion.
Chapter 4 lists the preparers of this document.
Chapter 5 provides the distribution list for this document.
Chapter 6 lists the references cited in this document.
Appendix A provides the actual changes to the 2015 DEIR, other than to Section 1.3.6, in
the form of an errata sheet.
Appendix B provides information on how the costs of the alternatives were derived.
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 19
Chapter 2 Summary of Changes Included in
the R-DEIR
This section presents a summary of changes to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
(2015 DEIR) (i.e., December 2013 Final Environmental Impact Report [2013 FEIR], which was
decertified in September 2015) to address two deficient areas identified by the Court, including
the proposed cul-de-sac construction and the analysis of alternatives considered but rejected, as
outlined in Chapter 1. The revisions are summarized in Table 2.1 and the actual revision in the
form of an errata sheet is located in Chapter 3 and Appendix A.
Table 2.1. Summary of Revisions to the 2015
Draft Environmental Impact Report
2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Revision Section Subheading
Summary Overview, Purpose
and Need, and
Proposed Action
Revised text in these three subsections and added text to
describe the six added cul-de-sacs (see Section 2.2.3
herein) to add CEQA objectives, and to remove references
to the 2013 FEIR, its certification, and project approval.
Revised text to include additional cul-de-sacs.
Table S.1 Revised table for updated partial property acquisitions and
temporary construction easements (TCEs) due to cul-de-
sacs.
Chapter 1 – Proposed
Project
Introduction,
Purpose and Need,
and Alternatives
Revised text in these two subsections and added text and
figures for alternatives considered but eliminated during the
planning process. Added CEQA objectives and CEQA
alternatives selection criteria. Deleted references to the
2013 FEIR.
Build Alternatives Added text explaining the development of the proposed
project description. Revised text to add six cul-de-sacs to
the project description.
Figures 1-7 and 1-8 Revised figures to include cul-de-sacs.
Comparison of
Alternatives
Revised number of partial property acquisitions and TCEs
to include those four cul-de-sacs. Revised Table 1.4.
Table 1.3 Revised numbers of parcel acquisitions and TCEs for
Alternative 1.
Locally Preferred
Alternative
Updated project costs and number of partial property
acquisitions and TCEs. Revised cost of Alternative 1 to
include cul-de-sacs and provided a breakdown of
Alternative 1 costs for the Oak Street intersection and the
24th Street widening components. Added project objectives.
Discussed Alternative 1 consistency with project objectives.
Alternatives
Considered but
Eliminated
Replaced Section 1.3 to expand the descriptions of
alternatives, add figures, add information on costs and
number of parcel acquisitions, and add evaluations of
alternatives against the CEQA selection criteria.
Chapter 2 - Affected
Environment,
Environmental
Consequences, and
Introduction Deleted 2013 FEIR language and revised introductory text.
Chapter 2 Summary of Changes Included in the R-DEIR
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 20
Table 2.1. Summary of Revisions to the 2015
Draft Environmental Impact Report
2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Revision Section Subheading
Avoidance,
Minimization, and/or
Mitigation Measures
Section 2.1.1 Land Use
(Subsection 2.1.1.1)
Environmental
Consequences
Deleted text describing City approval of cul-de-sacs.
Under Build Alternatives, revised the number of TCEs for
Alternative 1.
Under Build Alternatives, added discussion of cul-de-sacs’
effects on land use.
Section 2.1.1.2 –
Consistency with State,
Federal, Regional, and
Local Plans and
Programs
Build Alternatives Added discussion of cul-de-sacs, their effects on local land
use, and their consistency with land use plans and zoning.
Section 2.1.2.1 -
Community Character
and Cohesion
Community
Character and
Cohesion
Under Environmental Consequences, added a discussion
of cul-de-sacs’ effects on community cohesion.
Section 2.1.2.2 -
Relocations and Real
Property Acquisitions
Environmental
Consequences
Under Temporary Impacts - Build Alternatives, revised the
number of TCEs for Alternative 1.
Under Permanent Impacts – Build Alternatives, revised the
number of partial residential acquisitions.
Table 2.7 Revised the number of partial parcel acquisitions and TCEs
for Alternative 1.
Figure 2-6 Revised figure to include cul-de-sacs and additional
property acquisitions.
Section 2.1.3 Utility and
Emergency Services
Environmental
Consequences
Added discussion of effects of cul-de-sacs on emergency
services.
Section 2.1.4 Traffic Environmental
Consequences
Under Permanent Impacts, revised the text describing
installation of cul-de-sacs. Deleted reference to City
Resolution 128-12.
Section 2.1.5 Visual Affected
Environment
Under Key Views, a paragraph describing the new Key
View #8 was added. A new Figure 2-18A was added.
Environmental
Consequences
New cul-de-sacs are included in introductory paragraph.
Under Permanent Impacts – Key Views, a discussion of
Key View #8 was added.
Section 2.1.6 Cultural
Resources
Environmental
Consequences
Figure 2-19 (Impacts to Properties within the Historic
Districts North and South of 24th Street – Alternative 1) was
revised. Table 2.13 was revised to include additional partial
parcel acquisitions and TCEs for cul-de-sacs. Text
addressing effects of cul-de-sacs on the historic district
south of 24th Street was added.
Section 2.2.1 Water
Quality and Storm
Water Runoff
Environmental
Consequences
Minor revisions to indicate that the proposed cul-de-sacs
would not change any sources of pollutants from
construction or drainage patterns. The amount of
impervious surface areas would be slightly reduced.
Section 2.2.2
Paleontology
Environmental
Consequences
Minor revisions to indicate that the proposed cul-de-sacs
would not affect paleontological resources.
Section 2.2.3
Hazardous Waste or
Materials
Environmental
Consequences
Minor revisions to indicate that the proposed cul-de-sacs
would not change the use of chemical agents, solvents,
paints, or other hazardous materials used for construction;
nor the number of nonresidential partial parcel acquisitions;
nor the number of existing wooden power poles to be
removed or relocated.
Chapter 2 Summary of Changes Included in the R-DEIR
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 21
Table 2.1. Summary of Revisions to the 2015
Draft Environmental Impact Report
2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Revision Section Subheading
Section 2.2.4 Air Quality Environmental
Consequences
Minor revisions to indicate that the proposed cul-de-sacs
would not change the estimated amounts of air pollutant
emissions.
Section 2.2.5 Noise and
Vibration
Environmental
Consequences
Minor revisions to indicate that installation of the proposed
cul-de-sacs would not change the estimated noise levels.
Sheets 3 and 5 of Figure 2-24 were revised to show cul-de-
sacs.
Section 2.2.6 Energy Environmental
Consequences
Minor revisions to indicate that the proposed cul-de-sacs
would not change the amounts of energy that would be
consumed for construction.
Section 2.3 Biological
Resources - Subsection
2.3.1 Natural
Communities
Affected
Environment
Minor revisions to indicate that the proposed cul-de-sacs
would be located entirely within developed areas; natural
communities would not be affected.
Section 2.4 Cumulative
Impacts
Affected
Environment
Deleted text on City Resolution 128-12 pertaining to cul-de-
sacs.
Table 2.28 Deleted cul-de-sacs as a separate project.
Section 3.2.2 Significant
Environmental Effects
of the Proposed Project
Noise Under the
California
Environmental
Quality Act
Minor revisions to include the proposed cul-de-sacs as part
of Alternative 1.
Section 3.2.4 Significant
Irreversible
Environmental Changes
Revised numbers of partial acquisitions to include those for
six additional cul-de-sacs.
Notes: CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act. EIR – Environmental Impact Report. DEIR – Draft EIR. FEIR – Final
EIR. TCE – Temporary Construction Easement. See Chapter 3 for the replaced Section 1.3 and Appendix A for the actual
revisions to the text of the 2015 DEIR.
Sections of the 2015 DEIR that require no changes are listed in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2. Sections of the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
that Require No Changes
2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report Explanation Section Subheading
Section 2.3.2
Wetlands and Other
Waters
Environmental
Consequences
The proposed cul-de-sacs would not be located in wetlands or
near other waters. No changes were made to this section.
Section 2.3.3 Animal
Species
Environmental
Consequences
The proposed cul-de-sacs would not result in the loss of any
animal species. No changes were made to this section.
Section 2.3.4
Threatened and
Endangered Species
Environmental
Consequences
The proposed cul-de-sacs would not affect special-status plants
or animals. No changes were made to this section.
Section 2.3.5
Invasive Species
-- Cul-de-sacs would not cause or facilitate the introduction to the
project area of any invasive species. No changes were made to
this section.
Chapter 4
Comments and
Coordination
-- This chapter contains comments on the 2012 DEIR and
responses to those comments. Changes to this chapter of the
2015 DEIR for the R-DEIR would be inappropriate. The 2015
Chapter 2 Summary of Changes Included in the R-DEIR
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 22
Table 2.2. Sections of the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
that Require No Changes
2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report Explanation Section Subheading
DEIR, the R-DEIR, and responses to comments on the R-DEIR
will constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report.
Appendices A
through L
-- There are no changes to the 12 appendices of the 2015 DEIR.
In particular, there are no changes to the Avoidance and
Minimization Measures summarized in Table G.1 (Appendix G).
List of Technical
Studies that are
Bound Separately
-- There are no changes to the list of technical studies that are
bound separately from the 2015 DEIR.
Note: DEIR – Draft Environmental Impact Report. R-DEIR- Recalculated DEIR. Changes to the 2015 DEIR
are detailed in Appendix A.
The additional information on alternatives considered but eliminated from further discussion is
presented in Chapter 3 of this document. Other changes to the 2015 DEIR in the form of an
errata sheet are provided in Appendix A.
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 23
Chapter 3 Additional Information on
Alternatives Considered but
Eliminated from Further Discussion
Section 1.3.6 on page 48 of the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report is replaced with
the following text.
(Note to the readers: All cost estimates presented in this chapter do not include engineering
or construction support costs)
1.3.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
Several transportation studies were prepared in the late 1980s to early 2000s to address, among
other objectives, the need to improve the 24th Street corridor. These studies included:
Route 178 Corridor Study (Barton-Aschman Associates 1986);
State Route 178 Alternatives Study (1994);
Metropolitan Bakersfield Major Transportation Investment Strategy (Barton-Aschman
Associates, Inc. 1997); and
Bakersfield System Study (URS Corporation 2002).
2011 Final Regional Transportation Plan (2011 RTP) (Kern Council of Governments
2010).
A series of alternatives to alleviate congestion in the project area have been studied in Regional
Transportation Plans (RTPs) over the years. As a legally required planning document that
identifies major transportation improvements, the RTP mandates a regional approach to
transportation planning. The widening of State Route 178 through central Bakersfield (24th
Street) was included in the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan for Kern County.
The Bakersfield System Study (2002) initially identified 20 possible regional alternatives for
relieving traffic congestion and, through a series of public workshops, reduced the number of
candidate alternatives to six. Alternative 15, which included improvements along the 24th Street
corridor to increase its traffic capacity, was ultimately selected as the preferred alternative. The
Oak Street / 24th Street Interchange and the widening of 24th Street both appear as transportation
improvement projects in the 2004 and 2007 RTPs.
As a result of the Bakersfield System Study, the City of Bakersfield (City) contracted with URS
Corporation to prepare Project Study Reports for the Oak Street/24th Street Interchange Project
(Interchange Project; URS Corporation 2005a) and 24th Street Widening Project (Widening
Project; URS Corporation 2005b), from Oak Street to D Street. These studies were finalized in
2005 and became the foundation for an Interchange Project environmental document and a
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 24
Widening Project environmental document. The City contracted with RBF Consulting in July
2007 to begin work on these environmental documents.
As RBF Consulting was collecting information and data and analyzing them, it became evident
that both the Interchange Project and the Widening Project should be revisited. It also became
apparent that, for the 24th Street corridor to function operationally, the two projects should be
combined, and the improvement limits should be extended both to the east and to the west, as
described in Section 1.2.
Supplemental Project Study Reports were prepared for the Widening Project (RBF Consulting
2011a) and Interchange Project (RBF Consulting 2011b). The major revisions to the Interchange
Project were that improvements, but not a full interchange, were required to the Oak Street/24th
Street intersection and improvements were required to State Route 99. The major revisions to the
Widening Project were that the limits of the project would need to be extended from D Street to
east of M Street, and would need to include widening the 23rd Street/24th Street couplet.
The 2011 RTP indicates that the two projects have been combined, and its description of the Oak
Street / 24th Street improvements did not include an interchange. The 2007 RTP included an
Environmental Impact Report that evaluated road improvements at a programmatic level. The
2007 RTP Environmental Impact Report process included consideration of alternatives, and
public involvement and commentary.6 Projects identified in the current RTP constrained
(funded) list of projects include:
Widening 24th Street through downtown and the Westchester neighborhood;
Upgrading and widening Golden State Highway (State Route 204) from four lanes to six
lanes, including an extension to Hageman Avenue (the Hageman Flyover);
Reconstructing the interchange of Golden State Highway (State Route 204) at State
Route 178; and
Constructing an interchange on Golden State Highway (State Route 204) at F Street.
This comprehensive and extensive project development process led to the refinement of a limited
set of alternatives that represented the most viable candidates for consideration in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (May 2012). Two of these alternatives
are addressed in detail in the environmental document as Build Alternatives 1 (Widening to the
North) and 2 (Widening to the South). The 2011 Supplemental Project Study Reports for the
Interchange Project and Widening Project also evaluated additional alternatives from the
Interchange Project Study Report (URS Corporation 2005a) and additional alternatives from the
Widening Project Study Report (URS Corporation 2005b).
6 The 2011 Regional Transportation Plan was evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report, which was not
challenged and is, therefore, presumed to be legally adequate. This is why off-site project alternatives do not have
to be revisited each time a new project consistent with the Plan is approved.
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 25
These eight alternatives addressed segments of an overall project that encompassed both the Oak
Street/24th Street intersection and the widening of 24th Street from Olive Street to D Street, as
well as other elements. The alternative segments would not, by themselves, be viable. To
properly analyze these segments and to assure a complete and thorough cost and environmental
impact comparison, the eight alternatives need to be considered in the context of the overall
project. The following analysis provides a detailed explanation as to why these eight alternatives
were considered and withdrawn.
In addition to the eight rejected alternatives discussed above, two additional potential alternatives
were requested by the Citizens Against 24th Street (Petitioners). As stated in the Court’s
transcript:
“Petitioner further contends the City was presented with numerous alternatives that were
not meaningfully explored. And then the Petitioner presents a list of those alternatives in
their brief.”
(Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript of Proceeding page 23, Friday, May 1, 2015, Citizens Against the 24th Street
Widening Project, an unincorporated association vs. City of Bakersfield, a Municipal Corporation).
Two alternative scenarios suggested by the Petitioner that expanded the range of alternatives
were added to this Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for further analysis. One of
these alternatives is an off-site alternative and the other alternative addresses the segment of 24th
Street from Olive Street to D Street.
1.3.6.1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Alternatives Threshold
Selection Criteria
The potential alternatives to the proposed project were evaluated for compliance with the
threshold selection criteria, described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) and discussed
below, which are used to qualify viable alternatives to the proposed project. Specifically, the
Court stated:
“The Respondents must then adequately analyze and discuss whether or not each of the
potentially feasible alternatives satisfies the four threshold criteria under Guidelines
Section 15126.6. If any one of those four criteria is not satisfied, then that alternative
may be eliminated.”
(Excerpts from Reporter’s Transcript of Proceeding page 22, Friday, May 1, 2015, Citizens Against the 24th Street
Widening Project, an unincorporated association vs. City of Bakersfield, a Municipal Corporation).
To be qualified for detailed analysis in the environmental document, at the minimum, an
alternative should be feasible and reasonable, and should achieve most of the proposed project’s
objectives. Alternatives that avoid or reduce significant impacts should be identified, if possible.
The typical screening process is illustrated in Figure 1-13 below:
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 26
Figure 1-13. Alternatives Screening Process
Criterion #1 - Environmental:
Will the alternative avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of
the project as proposed?
One California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criterion for identifying appropriate
alternatives is whether the alternative has the potential to “avoid or substantially lessen any of
the significant effects of the project” (CEQA Guidelines Section 16126.6(a)). An alternative that
clearly would not provide an overall environmental advantage compared to the proposed project
may be eliminated from further consideration. At the screening stage, it is not possible to
evaluate all of the impacts of the alternatives in comparison to the proposed project with
certainty, nor is it possible to quantify all impacts. However, it is possible to identify elements of
an alternative that are likely to be the sources of impacts and to determine the approximate level
of impact relative to the proposed project.
Criterion #2 - Project Objectives:
Will the alternative attain most or all of the basic project objectives?
The primary objective of the proposed project is to relieve existing traffic congestion on 24th
Street in the corridor from west of State Route 99 to east of M Street, while also providing the
roadway capacity necessary to handle the future traffic volumes anticipated by the growth in
population and employment through 2035. The objectives are to achieve a Level of Service of C
or better in the design year7 and to help maintain and improve the safety of motorists, public
transit riders, and pedestrians. The extent to which an alternative addresses the objectives of the
proposed project is the key criterion used to advance an alternative for more-detailed
consideration in the environmental document, but alternatives still must satisfy other criteria.
7Level of Service is a standard roadway scoring system similar to a report card with letter grades A through F, with
A representing the best conditions (free-flowing traffic) and F, the worst (severe congestion and delay).
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 27
Travel demands in the 24th Street corridor, particularly during peak demand periods, exceed the
design capacity of the existing transportation facility, which is estimated at approximately 1,600
vehicles per hour in each direction. An over-capacity roadway is unsafe, restricts commerce,
degrades air quality, contributes to noise pollution, and undermines the operability of a traffic
facility. As shown in Table 1.4, 24th Street is the second-busiest arterial road serving downtown
Bakersfield. The 24th Street corridor between Olive Street and D Street is operating very
inefficiently at Level of Service E, carrying traffic volumes higher than the facility can
adequately or safely accommodate. With only four travel lanes, the 24th Street corridor creates a
bottleneck because it has less traffic capacity than adjacent sections of 24th Street.
Table 1.4. Twelve Busiest Arterial Roads in Bakersfield
Arterial Location Lanes Volume (AADT) Year
1 Olive Drive East of Knudson
Drive
4 53,728 2015
2 23rd Street/24th
Street
West of F Street 4 53,651 2015
3 Truxtun Avenue Between Oak Street
and State Route 99
4 52,021 2014
4 Stockdale Highway West of California
Avenue
6 46,068 2015
5 Coffee Road South of Truxtun
Avenue
6 45,887 2014
6 Rosedale Highway West of Mohawk
Street
4 43,432 2015
7 California Avenue North of Stockdale
Highway
6 42,946 2015
8 Ming Avenue East of Stine Road 6 38,278 2015
9 Union Avenue South of California
Avenue
6 37,233 2015
10 Calloway Drive North of Stockdale
Highway
6 37,059 2015
11 White Lane West of Ashe Road 6 33,524 2015
12 Oak Street North of California
Avenue
6 33,201 2015
Source: Kern Council of Governments
With the completion of the Rosedale Highway improvement project to the west and
improvements to State Route 178 to the east of the 24th Street corridor, traffic volumes are
anticipated to increase in the future, exacerbating the existing congestion. In the absence of
improvements to the 24th Street corridor, increasing traffic volumes will eventually lower the
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 28
Level of Service and impede business and quality of life. Traffic modeling results indicate that
24th Street would operate at Level of Service F in 2035 if no improvements were made.
Safety is a serious concern on the 24th Street corridor. Accidents along the corridor exceed by
nearly three times the number of accidents on comparable roads due to the existing high traffic
volumes and congestion (City of Bakersfield 2014). The greater volume of vehicles projected to
use 24th Street in the future would create more delays and collisions than are already experienced
under the current conditions. Alternatively, implementation of the proposed project would
relieve traffic congestion along the 24th Street corridor through the 2035 design year. Relieving
traffic congestion would, in turn, make 24th Street safer, reduce energy consumption, and reduce
vehicle emissions of air pollutants.
Secondary project objectives include:
Maintaining or enhancing traffic safety in the community by adhering to established
federal, state, and local roadway design standards and policies;
Maintaining consistency with regional transportation planning objectives, including those
identified in the Regional Transportation Plan and the Circulation Element of the
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan;
Minimizing project effects on historic districts, including (in order of importance) loss of
historic buildings, removal of landscaping and other associated character-defining
features, direct parcel acquisitions, and loss of the general fabric, feeling and context of
historic properties;
Minimizing disruption of established residential districts due to loss of housing stock or
to increased traffic, noise, or air pollution, and
Providing cost-effective transportation improvements to the community that provide a
substantial public benefit, while minimizing construction, operating, and maintenance
costs.
For purposes of weighing project objectives, relieving existing traffic congestion and providing
for future estimated traffic volumes outweigh these secondary objectives, although traffic safety
concerns are of paramount importance, and are related to the primary objectives. Minor
differences in capacity or safety would not cause an alternative to be rejected. Maintaining
consistency with regional planning objectives and minimizing impacts on historic districts are
both important secondary objectives, while the remaining two objectives are considered tertiary
goals.
Criterion #3 - Feasibility:
Is the alternative potentially feasible?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 defines feasible as, “capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 29
environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” According to the CEQA Guidelines
(Section 15126.6(f)(1)), among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the
potential feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of
infrastructure, general plan consistency, other regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries,
and proponent’s control over alternative sites in determining the range of alternatives to be
evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report. For the screening analysis, the feasibility of
potential alternatives is assessed taking the following factors into consideration:
Economic Infeasibility. The alternative would be so costly that implementation would
be prohibitive, or the relative costs are such that implementation would be imprudent.
Note that local funding for transportation projects within the City comes from (a)
Transportation Development Fees, (b) utility surcharges, and (c) Gas Tax. These sources
of funding are already obligated to service future debt on the City’s $200 million
transportation improvement program over the next 30 years. Any increased costs for the
proposed project improvements would add to the amount of debt to be incurred by the
City, and would be outside of the range of anticipated budget parameters.
Environmental Infeasibility. Implementing the alternative would cause greater
environmental harm than the proposed project, either because a specific type of impact
could be more severe or because the alternative could result in a broader scope of
potentially significant impacts, thereby making the alternative clearly inferior from an
environmental standpoint.
Social Infeasibility. The alternative would cause significant damage to the
socioeconomic structure of the community, disrupt a planned or established community,
or be inconsistent with important community values and needs.
Technical Infeasibility. There are construction, operation, or maintenance constraints
that cannot be overcome.
Criterion #4 - Reasonableness:
Is the alternative reasonable and realistic?
An alternative whose implementation is remote or speculative is not reasonable or realistic. The
implementation of alternatives that are unlikely to be funded, or that require substantial changes
in agency policies or governmental regulations (e.g., changes in zoning or general plan
designations), would be remote. Alternatives that were contingent upon future events or that
relied upon unconventional approaches or technologies would be speculative. An alternative
would also be unreasonable if it provided the same public benefit as the project but cost more or
had more environmental effects. Finally, alternatives that included unnecessary elements or that
were detrimental to public safety would be considered unreasonable.
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 30
1.3.6.2 Analysis of Eliminated Alternatives
Sections 1.3.6.3 to 1.3.6.5 below describe each of the eliminated alternatives, and evaluate each
of them against the alternative selection threshold criteria described in the CEQA Guidelines, as
explained in Section 1.3.6.1 above. Nine of the 10 alternatives presented in Sections 1.3.6.3,
1.3.6.4, and 1.3.6.5 consist of four segments, as described in Section 1.2 of the R-DEIR
(Alternative J, the Hageman Flyover, is an off-site alternative that does not have four segments).
In each alternative, improvements to Segment 1 (State Route 99 interchange) and Segment 4
(D Street to M Street) are the same as under the proposed project. In each alternative, the design
of a portion of either Segment 2 (Oak Street intersection) or Segment 3 (24th Street corridor from
Olive Street to D Street) differs from that of the proposed project.8 The alternatives are identified
by the major features of the segment that differ from the proposed project.
1.3.6.3 Segment 2 Alternatives
This section presents the alternatives to Segment 2 (Oak Street/24th Street intersection) of the
proposed project. Improvements to Segments 1, 3, and 4 would remain as described for the
proposed project.
Alternative A - Northeast/Northwest Loop Ramps Interchange
Improvements under this alternative would occur in Segment 2, as shown in the following
diagram.
Segment 1
Proposed Project
Segment 2
Alternative A
Segment 3
Proposed Project
Segment 4
Proposed Project
This alternative would include a grade-separated diamond interchange with two loop ramps at
the Oak Street/24th Street intersection. This interchange would have diamond ramps in the
southwest, southeast, and northeast quadrants and loop ramps in the northwest and northeast
quadrants (see Figure 1-14). A new crossing over the Kern River is included in the alternative.
An estimated 56 full parcels would need to be acquired for this alternative.9 This interchange
configuration was previously identified and studied in the Interchange Project Study Report
(URS Corporation 2005). The total estimated cost of this alternative is $84.7 million in 2014
dollars.10
8See Section 1.2 for a detailed description of the proposed project.
9Comparisons among alternatives are made on the basis of full parcel acquisitions because these are considered to be
a more appropriate basis for comparison than partial property acquisitions.
10Escalated at a rate of 3.5 percent per year from 2005 to 2014, based on costs reported in the Project Study Report
(URS 2005a).
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 31
Figure 1-14. Alternative A - Northeast/Northwest Loop Ramps Interchange
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 32
Screening Evaluation
Environmental - This alternative would have greater environmental effects than those of the
proposed project primarily because it would occupy a footprint about 85-90 percent larger, as a
result of new ramps and new bridge construction. As a consequence, this alternative would
require more construction materials and would cause more ground disturbance (45.4 acres) with
more potential to encounter subsurface cultural and paleontological resources. Utility conflict
and relocation costs would be higher. Up to 56 parcels of full property acquisitions would be
required, which is more than the number required for the proposed project. Construction noise
impacts and air pollutant emissions could be more substantial than for the proposed project
because of the larger construction footprint. The ramp configuration would create isolated
pockets of land with limited access, reducing or eliminating their potential for development.
Long-term visual impacts, consisting primarily of new ramps and a new bridge over the Kern
River, would be greater than those of the proposed project; views from Beach Park and from the
Kern River Parkway Trail would be most affected. This alternative would create larger areas of
impervious surfaces that would generate more storm water runoff than the proposed project.
Operational noise impacts would be more substantial than those of the proposed project because,
although the traffic volumes would be the same, the elevated interchange would raise the height
of the traffic noise relative to adjacent areas. The effects on biological resources along the Kern
River would be more adverse than for the proposed project because construction of a new bridge
over the river would eliminate or degrade river bank and bottom habitat.
The impacts in Segment 1, Segment 3, and Segment 4, would be as described for the proposed
project. In summary, this alternative would not avoid, reduce, or offset any of the potentially
significant impacts of the proposed project.
Project Objectives – Overall, this alternative would achieve the objectives of the proposed
project as described in Section 1.3.6.1. According to the Project Study Report prepared for the
Interchange Project (URS Corporation 2005b), the Oak Street/24th Street interchange ramps
would operate at Level of Service B to C during the morning and evening peak traffic hours. The
24th Street corridor between Olive Street and D Street would operate at Level of Service C to D
during both morning and evening peak traffic hours. This alternative would create a new travel
route over the Kern River from developed areas to the northwest. Along with other roadway
improvements proposed for Segments 1, 3, and 4, this alternative would achieve the objective of
relieving traffic congestion and providing for future traffic growth. It would also be consistent
with General Plan policies to increase traffic capacity in the project area.
This alternative would generally meet federal, state, and local design standards while reducing
traffic congestion, thus maintaining and enhancing traffic safety. Segment 3 of this alternative
would have the same effects on historic districts and established residential neighborhoods as
would the proposed project. Because this alternative would cost more than the proposed project
while providing a similar benefit, it is considered less cost-effective than the proposed project.
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 33
Feasibility – Overall, this alternative would be socially and economically infeasible because it
would require more property acquisitions and would cost more than the proposed project.
This alternative would require full acquisition of 56 parcels compared with 23 parcels under the
proposed project, a difference of 143 percent. The additional 33 parcel acquisitions required for
this alternative would be considered socially infeasible because of the greater community
disruption. The acquisition of such a large number of parcels would alter the character of the
neighborhood surrounding the Oak Street/24th Street intersection. This alternative would not
allow for eastbound 24th Street access to the neighborhood north of 24th Street at Beech and Elm
Streets, and would thus require residents to travel easterly to C Street before being able to make a
U-turn.
Estimated construction costs for this alternative of $84.7 million compared to estimated costs of
$46 million11 for the proposed project, a difference of 85 percent, are considered to be imprudent
because the City would need to directly fund the additional $38.7 million. As explained in
Section 1.3.6.1, local funding for transportation projects within the City has already been
obligated to service future debt on the City’s $200 million transportation improvement program
over the next 30 years. Any increased costs for the proposed project improvements would add to
the amount of debt to be incurred by the City, and would be outside of the range of anticipated
budget parameters. Thus this alternative could not reasonably be implemented based on current
economic constraints.
Reasonableness – This alternative is unreasonable. Due to a reduction in the intensity of planned
land uses to the north of the project area, a new crossing on Oak Street over the Kern River is no
longer considered necessary. Constructing facilities that are not needed would not be reasonable.
Summary – This alternative was eliminated from further consideration because it fails three of
the four criteria: it does not avoid, reduce, or offset any of the potentially significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project; it is infeasible; and it is unreasonable.
Alternative B - Single Point Interchange
Improvements under this alternative would occur in Segment 2, as shown in the following
diagram.
Segment 1
Proposed Project
Segment 2
Alternative B
Segment 3
Proposed Project
Segment 4
Proposed Project
11The costs presented here are the total costs for all four project segments, with the cost of the alternative substituted
for the project’s cost for that segment (Segment 2 or Segment 3, depending upon the type of alternative).
Construction costs are escalated at a rate of 3.5% per year to 2014.
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 34
Figure 1-15. Alternative B - Single Point Interchange
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 35
This alternative would include a grade-separated interchange at the Oak Street/24th Street
intersection in Segment 2 that focuses all ramps into one common intersection (Figure 1-15). A
new crossing over the Kern River is included in the alternative. An estimated 48 parcels would
need to be acquired for this alternative. This alternative was previously identified and studied in
the Interchange Project Study Report (URS Corporation 2005a). The estimated cost of this
alternative is $82.5 million in 2014 dollars.12
Screening Evaluation
Environmental – This alternative would have greater environmental effects than those of the
proposed project primarily because it would occupy a footprint about 60 percent larger as a result
of new ramps and new bridge construction. As a consequence, this alternative would require
more construction materials and would cause more ground disturbance (38 acres) with more
potential to encounter subsurface cultural and paleontological resources. Utility conflict and
relocation costs would be higher. Up to 48 parcels of full property acquisition would be required,
which is greater than those of the proposed project. Construction noise impacts could be more
substantial than for the proposed project because of the larger construction footprint. This is also
true for the air pollutant emissions during the construction. Land uses in the northeastern
quadrant of the new interchange, between the northern extension of Oak Street and the Carrier
Canal, would be severely impacted.
Long-term visual impacts, consisting primarily of elevated ramps and a new bridge over the
Kern River, would be greater than those of the proposed project; views from Beach Park and
from the Kern River Parkway Trail would be most affected. This alternative would create larger
areas of impervious surfaces that would generate more storm water runoff than the proposed
project. Operational noise impacts would be more substantial than those of the proposed project
because, although the traffic volumes would be the same, the elevated interchange would raise
the height of the traffic noise relative to adjacent areas. The effects on biological resources along
the Kern River would be more adverse than for the proposed project because construction of a
new bridge over the river would eliminate or degrade river bank and bottom habitat.
The impacts in Segments 1, 3, and 4 would be as described for the proposed project. In
summary, this alternative would not avoid, reduce, or offset any of the potentially significant
impacts of the proposed project.
Project Objectives – Overall, this alternative would achieve the project objectives described in
Section 1.3.6.1. According to a Project Study Report prepared for the Interchange Project (URS
Corporation 2005b), the Oak Street/24th Street intersection would operate at a Level of Service D
(morning peak traffic period) and a Level of Service C (evening peak traffic period in the future
12Escalated at a rate of 3.5% per year from 2005 to 2014, based on costs reported in the Project Study Report (URS
2005b). The costs presented here are the total costs for all four project segments, with the cost of the alternative
substituted for the project’s cost for that segment (Segment 2 or Segment 3, depending upon the type of
alternative).
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 36
(design year 2030). The 24th Street corridor would operate at Level of Service C to D during both
morning and evening peak traffic hours. This alternative would increase traffic from the
northwest by providing a new route over the Kern River. In conjunction with proposed
improvements in Segments 1 and 4, this alternative would achieve the primary objective of the
proposed project to relieve current traffic congestion and provide for future traffic growth along
the 24th Street corridor. It would also be consistent with General Plan policies to increase traffic
capacity in the project area.
This alternative would generally meet federal, state, and local design standards while reducing
traffic congestion, thus maintaining and enhancing traffic safety. Segment 3 of this alternative
would have the same effects on historic districts and established residential neighborhoods as
would the proposed project. Because this alternative would cost more than the proposed project,
however, it would not provide cost-effective transportation improvements.
Feasibility – Overall, this alternative would be socially and economically infeasible because it
would require more property acquisition and would cost more than the proposed project.
This alternative would require full acquisition of 48 parcels, compared with 23 parcels under the
proposed project, a difference of about 109 percent. The additional 25 parcel acquisitions
required for this alternative would be considered socially infeasible because of the greater
community disruption. The acquisition of such a large number of parcels would alter the
character of the neighborhood surrounding the Oak Street/24th Street intersection.
Estimated construction costs for this alternative of $82.5 million compared to estimated costs of
$46 million for the proposed project, a difference of 79 percent, are considered to be imprudent
because the City would need to directly fund the additional $36.5 million. As explained in
Section 1.3.6.1, the additional debt that the City would incur would be outside of the range of
anticipated budget parameters. This alternative is unreasonable to be implemented based on
current economic constraints.
Reasonableness - This alternative is considered unreasonable at the present time because a new
crossing of Oak Street over the Kern River is no longer necessary due to the reduction in the
intensity of planned land uses to the northwest of the project area. Constructing facilities that are
not needed would not be reasonable.
Summary – This alternative was eliminated from further consideration because it fails three of
the four criteria: it does not avoid, reduce, or offset any of the potentially significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project; it is infeasible; and it is unreasonable.
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 37
Alternative C - Kern River Crossing Alternative
Improvements under this alternative would occur in Segment 2 as shown in the following
diagram.
Segment 1
Proposed Project
Segment 2
Alternative C
Segment 3
Proposed Project
Segment 4
Proposed Project
This alternative would include a new bridge over the Kern River to extend Oak Street to Sillect
Avenue (Figure 1-16). The Oak Street/24th Street intersection would be improved as described
under the proposed project. A Kern River Crossing Alternative was previously identified and
evaluated in a 2011 Supplemental Project Study Report (RBF Consulting) and in the Screening
Criteria Report (City of Bakersfield 2009). This alternative would cost an estimated $56.1
million in 2014 dollars,13 and would require acquisition of 26 parcels.
Screening Evaluation
Environmental – This alternative would have environmental effects greater than those of the
proposed project because it would occupy a larger footprint than that of the proposed project,
primarily because of the new bridge construction. As a consequence, this alternative would
require more construction materials and would cause more ground disturbance (29.1 acres) with
more potential to encounter previously unknown cultural or paleontological resources. Utility
conflict and relocation costs would be higher because this alternative would have a larger
footprint. Construction noise impacts could be more substantial than for the proposed project
because of the larger construction footprint, and noise would impact the Kern River Parkway
Trail and Kern River channel in areas that would not be affected by construction of the proposed
project. This is also true for the air pollutant emissions during the construction. Temporary
closure of the Kern River Parkway Trail would also likely be required for construction of the
bridge.
A new bridge also would degrade the visual quality of the area, especially views from the Kern
River Parkway Trail. This alternative would create larger areas of impervious surfaces that
would generate more storm runoff than the proposed project. Operational noise impacts would be
more substantial than those of the proposed project because the new road connection over the
Kern River would create a new permanent source of traffic noise in that area. Impacts on
biological resources along the Kern River would be more adverse than that of the proposed
project, which does not include a new bridge. Any additional encroachment on the Kern River
channel would have an adverse effect on biological resources by incrementally reducing the
amount and quality of river bank and river bottom habitat.
13The costs presented here are the total costs for all four project segments, with the cost of the alternative substituted
for the project’s cost for that segment (Segment 2 or Segment 3, depending upon the type of alternative).
Construction costs are escalated at a rate of 3.5% per year to 2014.
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 38
Figure 1-16. Alternative C - Kern River Crossing
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 39
The impacts in Segment 1, Segment 3, and Segment 4 would be as described for the proposed
project. Overall, this alternative would not avoid, reduce, or offset any of the potentially
significant impacts of the proposed project.
Project Objectives – Overall, this alternative would achieve the proposed project’s objectives
described in Section 1.3.6.1. This alternative would provide the same traffic improvements from
just west of State Route 99 to just east of M Street as would the proposed project, so it would
meet the proposed project’s primary objective of relieving traffic congestion through the 24th
Street corridor. This alternative would increase traffic from the northwest by providing a new
route over the Kern River. By providing increased east-west traffic capacity through central
Bakersfield, this alternative would be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan and the
Metropolitan General Plan.
This alternative would generally meet federal, state, and local design standards while reducing
traffic congestion, thus maintaining and enhancing traffic safety. Segment 3 of this alternative
would have the same effects on historic districts and established residential neighborhoods as
would the proposed project. This alternative would not be cost-effective because it would include
a costly and unnecessary element, the Kern River Bridge.
Feasibility – Overall, this alternative would be socially feasible because it would require only
three more parcel acquisitions than the propose project, but would be considered economically
infeasible because it would cost more than the proposed project.
This alternative would require full acquisition of 26 parcels, compared with 23 parcels under the
proposed project, a difference of 13 percent. The additional 3 parcel acquisitions required for this
alternative would be considered socially feasible because the level of disruption of the
community would be similar.
Estimated construction costs for this alternative of $56.1 million, compared to estimated costs of
$46 million14 for the proposed project, a difference of 22 percent, are considered to be imprudent
because the City would need to directly fund the additional $10.1 million. As explained in
Section 1.3.6.1, the additional debt that the City would incur would be outside of the range of
anticipated budget parameters. This alternative could not reasonably be implemented based on
current economic constraints.
Reasonableness - This alternative is considered unreasonable at the present time because a new
crossing on Oak Street over the Kern River is no longer considered necessary due to the
reduction in the intensity of planned land uses to the north of the project area. Constructing
facilities that are not needed would not be reasonable.
14The costs presented here are the total costs for all four project segments, with the cost of the alternative substituted
for the project’s cost for that segment (Segment 2 or Segment 3, depending upon the type of alternative).
Construction costs are escalated at a rate of 3.5% per year to 2014.
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 40
Summary – This alternative was eliminated from further consideration because it fails three of
the four criteria: it does not avoid, reduce, or offset any of the potentially significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project; it is infeasible; and it is unreasonable.
Alternative D - Interchange Alternative
Improvements under this alternative would occur in Segment 2 as shown in the following
diagram.
Segment 1
Proposed Project
Segment 2
Alternative D
Segment 3
Proposed Project
Segment 4
Proposed Project
This alternative was previously identified and considered in the 2011 Supplemental Project
Study Report (RBF Consulting), and in the Screening Criteria Report (City of Bakersfield 2009),
which considered nine possible interchange configurations in addition to the interchange
configurations represented by Alternatives A and B. For purposes of analysis in this
environmental document, this alternative was assumed to be Screening Criteria Report
Alternative A6a (City of Bakersfield 2009). This interchange would have diamond ramps in the
northwest, southwest, and southeast quadrants and loop ramps in the northwest and southeast
quadrants, and 24th Street would be depressed at the Oak Street overcrossing (Figure 1-17). The
Carrier Canal culvert would be extended south of 24th Street. This alternative does not include a
new bridge over the Kern River. This alternative would cost an estimated $84.6 million in 2014
dollars, and require the acquisition of 36 parcels.15
Screening Evaluation
Environmental - This alternative would have greater environmental effects than those of the
proposed project because it would occupy a larger footprint as the result of construction of a
combination of diamond and loop ramps. As a result, it would require more construction
materials and would cause more ground disturbance (37.1 acres) with more potential to
encounter subsurface cultural and paleontological resources. Utility conflict and relocation costs
would be higher. Up to 36 parcels of full property acquisitions would be required, which is 57
percent greater than those of the proposed project. Construction noise impacts could be more
substantial than for the proposed project because the construction footprint would be larger. The
ramp configuration would create isolated pockets of land with limited access, reducing or
eliminating their potential for development.
15The costs presented here are the total costs for all four project segments, with the cost of the alternative substituted
for the project’s cost for that segment (Segment 2 or Segment 3, depending upon the type of alternative).
Construction costs are escalated at a rate of 3.5% per year to 2014.
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 41
Figure 1-17. Alternative D – Interchange
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 42
Visual impacts, consisting primarily of the new ramps and the interchange, would be greater than
those of the proposed project, which does not include any elevated structural elements. This
alternative would create larger areas of impervious surfaces that would generate more storm
runoff than the proposed project. Operational noise impacts would also be greater than those of
the proposed project, primarily because the ramps and interchange would elevate traffic noise
above adjacent areas. The effects on biological resources along the Kern River would be similar
to those of the proposed project because this alternative does not include a new bridge.
The impacts in Segments 1, 3, and 4 would be as described for the proposed project. This
alternative would improve the flow of traffic through the intersection, reducing travel time and
local air pollutant emissions. In summary, this alternative would not avoid, reduce, or offset any
of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project.
Project Objectives – Overall, this alternative would achieve the project objectives described in
Section 1.3.6.1. Assuming that this alternative would have an effect on traffic congestion similar
to that of Alternatives A or B, the Oak Street/24th Street interchange would operate at a Level of
Service D (morning peak traffic period) and Level of Service C (evening peak traffic period in
the future (design year 2030). The 24th Street corridor would operate at Level of Service C to D
during both morning and evening peak traffic hours. In conjunction with proposed improvements
in Segments 1 and 4, this alternative would achieve the primary objective of the proposed project
to relieve current traffic congestion and provide for future traffic growth along the 24th Street
corridor. It would also be consistent with General Plan policies to increase traffic capacity in the
project area.
This alternative would generally meet federal, state, and local design standards while reducing
traffic congestion, thus maintaining and enhancing traffic safety. Segment 3 of this alternative
would have the same effects on historic districts and established residential neighborhoods as
would the proposed project. Because this alternative would cost more than the proposed project,
however, it would not provide cost-effective transportation improvements.
Feasibility – Overall, this proposed project would be socially and economically infeasible
because it would require more property acquisition and would cost more than the proposed
project.
This alternative would require the full acquisition of 36 parcels compared with 23 for the
proposed project, a difference of 57 percent. The additional 10 parcel acquisitions required for
this alternative would be considered socially infeasible because of the greater community
disruption. This alternative would not allow for eastbound 24th Street access to the neighborhood
north of 24th Street at Beech and Elm Streets, and would thus require residents to travel easterly
to C Street before being able to make a U-turn.
Estimated construction costs for this alternative of $84.6 million, compared to estimated costs of
$46 million for the proposed project, a difference of 84 percent, are considered to be imprudent
because the City would need to directly fund the additional $38.6 million. As explained in
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 43
Section 1.3.6.1, the additional debt that the City would incur would be outside of the range of
anticipated budget parameters. This alternative could not reasonably be implemented based on
current economic constraints.
Reasonableness - This alternative would not include any unnecessary elements, and is neither
remote nor speculative, so it would be considered reasonable.
Summary – This alternative was eliminated from further consideration because it fails two of
the four criteria: it does not avoid, reduce, or offset any of the potentially significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project and it is infeasible.
Alternative E - Jug Handle Alternative
Improvements under this alternative would occur in Segment 2, as shown in the following
diagram.
Segment 1
Proposed Project
Segment 2
Alternative E
Segment 3
Proposed Project
Segment 4
Proposed Project
This alternative would change the northbound left turn on Oak Street in Segment 2 to a through
movement that loops to the west with a right turn onto 24th Street. (Figure 1-18). This alternative
would also change the westbound left turn to a through movement that loops to the north with a
right turn onto southbound Oak Street. An estimated 27 full parcels would need to be acquired
for this alternative.16 This alternative was addressed in the 2011 Supplemental Project Study
Report Construct Interchange at Oak Street (RBF Consulting 2011b) and included in the
Screening Criteria Report (City of Bakersfield 2009) as Alternative A16 – Jug Handle in
Northwest Quadrant. The estimated cost of this alternative is $52.4 million in 2014 dollars.17
Screening Evaluation
Environmental – This alternative would have environmental effects greater than those of the
proposed project, primarily because it would occupy a footprint about 21 percent larger as a
result of the jug handle. It would require more construction materials, and would cause more
ground disturbance (28.9 acres) with more potential to encounter subsurface cultural and
paleontological resources. Utility conflict and relocation costs would be higher because this
alternative would have a larger footprint. Up to 27 parcels of full property acquisitions would be
required, which is four more (17 percent higher) than the number required for the proposed
project. Construction noise impacts could be greater than for the proposed project because of the
larger construction footprint. The jug handle would create an isolated pocket of land with limited
access, reducing or eliminating its potential for development.
16Comparisons among alternatives are made on the basis of full parcel acquisitions because these are considered to
be a more appropriate basis for comparison than partial property acquisitions.
17Escalated at a rate of 3.5% per year from 2005 to 2014, based on costs reported in Project Study Report (URS
2005a).
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 44
Figure 1-18. Alternative E - Jug Handle
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 45
Long-term visual impacts, consisting primarily of wider roads and intersections, would be
greater than those of the proposed project; views from Beach Park and from the Kern River
Parkway Trail would be most affected. This alternative would create larger areas of impervious
surfaces that would generate more storm water runoff than the proposed project. Operational
noise impacts would be more substantial than those of the proposed project because, although the
traffic volumes would be the same, the jug handle would increase traffic noise levels in areas
northwest of the Oak Street/24th Street intersection, bringing traffic noise closer to the Kern
River Bikeway Trail. The effects on biological resources along the Kern River would be more
adverse than for the proposed project because widening of an existing bridge over the river
would have incremental effects on biological resources along the river.
The impacts in Segment 1, Segment 3, and Segment 4 would be as described for the proposed
project. In summary, this alternative would not avoid, reduce, or offset any of the potentially
significant impacts of the proposed project.
Project Objectives – Overall, this alternative would achieve the project objectives described in
Section 1.3.6.1. This alternative would have an effect on traffic congestion similar to that of
Alternatives A or B by improving the flow of traffic along 24th Street. The Oak Street/24th Street
intersection would operate at a Level of Service D (morning peak traffic period) and Level of
Service C (evening peak traffic period in the future (design year 2030). The 24th Street corridor
would operate at Level of Service C to D during both morning and evening peak traffic hours. In
conjunction with proposed improvements in Segments 1 and 4, this alternative would achieve the
primary objective of the proposed project to relieve current traffic congestion and provide for
future traffic growth along the 24th Street corridor. It would also be consistent with General Plan
policies to increase traffic capacity in the project area.
This alternative would generally meet federal, state, and local design standards while reducing
traffic congestion. However, this alternative would introduce design elements that could be
confusing for motorists, possibly encouraging unsafe turns and driver distraction, and requiring
more merging and weaving for cars to enter and exit the flow of traffic. Segment 3 of this
alternative would have the same effects on historic districts and established residential
neighborhoods as would the proposed project. Because this alternative would cost more than the
proposed project, however, it would not provide cost-effective transportation improvements.
Feasibility – This alternative is considered to be socially and economically feasible. This
alternative would require full acquisition of 27 parcels, compared with 23 for the proposed project,
a difference of 17 percent. The additional acquisitions of four parcels required for this alternative
would be considered socially feasible because of the similar level of community disruption.
Estimated construction costs for this alternative of $52.4 million compared to estimated costs of
$46 million for the proposed project, a difference of 13 percent, are considered to be prudent.
The City would need to directly fund the remaining $6.4 million. This alternative could
reasonably be implemented based on current economic constraints.
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 46
Reasonableness – This alternative is unreasonable. This alternative has a substantial safety
concern for motorists unfamiliar with the jug-handle configuration of the intersection, which
could cause confusion. Drivers believing that they had missed their turn or that they were being
routed in the wrong direction might attempt illegal turns or unsafe lane changes. Drivers may slow
down or may be inattentive while they are attempting to understand the design of the interchange.
Road improvements that could compromise motorists’ safety are not considered to be reasonable.
Summary – This alternative was eliminated from further consideration because it fails two of
the four criteria: it does not avoid, reduce, or offset any of the potentially significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project and it would not be reasonable.
1.3.6.4 Segment 3 Alternatives
This section presents the alternatives to Segment 3 (from Olive Street to D) of the proposed
project. Segments 1, 2, and 4 would remain the same as the proposed improvements under the
proposed project.
Alternative F - Two Depressed Alternatives to Widen 24th Street to Six Lanes
Improvements under each of the depressed alternatives would occur in Segment 3, as shown in
the following diagram.
Segment 1
Proposed Project
Segment 2
Proposed Project
Segment 3
Alternatives F1 or F2
Segment 4
Proposed Project
Both of the proposed depressed alternatives (F1 and F2) would include the widening of 24th
Street between Olive Street and D Street in Segment 3 to a six-lane arterial roadway, which
would be at-grade with Oak Street and depressed within the residential neighborhood along 24th
Street between Olive Street and C Street. Construction of the depressed section of the roadway
would require excavation to a depth of 19 to 21 feet below the existing grade. Alternative F1
(Figure 1-19) would include the construction of retaining walls, while Alternative F2 (Figure 1-
20) would not include retaining walls. An additional 50 feet of right-of-way would be required if
the sides of the depressed section were sloped at a 4:1 ratio in lieu of a retaining wall, requiring
more full and partial property acquisitions. A frontage road would provide access to properties on
the north side of 24th Street. Construction of Alternative F1 (with retaining walls) or F2 (without
retaining walls) would require an acquisition of approximately 23 or 37 parcels, respectively.
These two alternatives appear as Alternatives B8 and B9 in the Screening Criteria Report (City of
Bakersfield 2009), and were first identified and evaluated in a 2005 Project Study Report (URS
Corporation 2005b). The estimated costs of Alternatives F1 and F2 are $69.4 and $71.6 million in
2014 dollars18, respectively.
18The costs presented here are the total costs for all four project segments, with the cost of the alternative substituted
for the project’s cost for that segment (Segment 2 or Segment 3, depending upon the type of alternative).
Construction costs are escalated at a rate of 3.5% per year to 2014.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
C
o
n
s
id
e
r
e
d
b
u
t
E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
F
u
r
t
h
e
r
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
47
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
-
1
9
.
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
F
1
-
D
e
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
w
i
t
h
Re
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
W
a
l
l
s
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
C
o
n
s
id
e
r
e
d
b
u
t
E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
F
u
r
t
h
e
r
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
48
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
-
2
0
.
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
F
2
-
D
e
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
R
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
W
a
l
l
s
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 49
Screening Evaluation
Environmental – Both Alternatives F1 and F2 would have greater environmental effects than
those of the proposed project, primarily because:
Alternative F1 (with retaining walls) would occupy a footprint approximately 11 percent
larger as a result of the wider right-of-way necessary for the depressed section, the
greater depth of construction, and the larger amount of material to be excavated and
removed from the site.
Alternative F2 (without retaining walls) would occupy a footprint approximately 42
percent larger as a result of the wider right-of-way necessary for the depressed section,
the greater depth of construction, and the larger amount of material to be excavated and
removed from the site.
As a consequence, Alternatives F1 and F2 would require more construction materials and would
cause more ground disturbance (26.4 or 33.8 acres) with more potential to encounter subsurface
cultural and paleontological resources. Utility conflict and relocation costs would be higher
because both alternatives would have larger footprints than the proposed project. Alternative F1
would require full property acquisitions of 23 parcels and Alternative F2 would require 37
parcels of full property acquisitions, which are both greater than for the proposed project. The
eastern approach to the depressed section could require acquisition of parcels with historic
structures (bungalows) on them. Construction noise impacts could be more substantial than for
the proposed project because of the larger construction footprint and the larger amount of soil to
be excavated and transported from the site by truck. Groundwater could be contaminated during
construction and drilling mud disposal would generate potentially hazardous wastes. The depth
of construction would require extensive relocation of utilities.
Long-term visual impacts, consisting primarily of a large depression between the north and south
sides of 24th Street between Olive Street and D Street, would be greater than those of the
proposed project. Views from properties on the northern and southern sides of 24th Street
between Olive Street and D Street would be most affected. Alternative F1 would create areas of
impervious surfaces similar to those for the proposed project while Alternative F2 would result
in larger areas of impervious surfaces than those for the proposed project, and pumping stations
would be needed to remove storm water and ground water from the depressed section of the
road. The depressed arterial alternative without retaining walls (F2) would have a greater impact
on historic districts than the proposed project, requiring the acquisition of an additional 14
parcels. Operational noise impacts from either of these alternatives would be less than those of
the proposed project because the roadway would be depressed relative to surrounding urban
development. The effects on biological resources of either alternative along 24th Street would be
more adverse than for the proposed project because a depressed arterial would be more of a
barrier to terrestrial wildlife than the proposed project, especially Alternative F1 which includes
retaining walls.
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 50
The impacts in Segment 1, Segment 2, and Segment 4 would be as described for the proposed
project. Both Alternatives F1 and F2 would not reduce any potentially significant impacts of the
proposed project, other than operational noise impacts.
Project Objectives – Overall, Alternatives F1 and F2 would achieve the project’s objectives
described in Section 1.3.6.1. Traffic congestion relief between Olive Street and D Street under
both Alternatives F1 and F2 would be similar to that of the proposed project because both
alternatives would provide the same number of travel lanes. Therefore, the 24th Street corridor
would operate at Level of Service C to D during both morning and evening peak traffic hours.
The Oak Street/24th Street intersection would operate at a Level of Service D (morning peak
traffic period) and a Level of Service C (evening peak traffic period in the future (design year
2030)). In conjunction with proposed improvements in Segments 1 and 4, Both Alternatives F1
and F2 would achieve the primary objective of the proposed project to relieve current traffic
congestion and provide for future traffic growth along the 24th Street corridor. Both alternatives
would also be consistent with General Plan policies to increase traffic capacity in the project
area.
Both Alternatives F1 and F2 would generally meet federal, state, and local design standards
while reducing traffic congestion, thus maintaining and enhancing traffic safety. Construction of
either alternative would be more disruptive to the adjacent residential districts than the proposed
project because of the greater truck traffic to haul away excavated material, and more noise and
dust from the extensive excavation necessary to lower the roadbed during construction. Either
Alternatives F1 or F2 would result in more disruptive to the community because the depressed
section of road would be a greater barrier between the residential areas on the north and south
sides of 24th Street than the existing roadway. With only three bridges across the depressed
arterial (Beech, Pine, and B Streets), access to residential areas north of 24th Street would be
greatly restricted. While Alternative F1 (with retaining walls) would have effects on historic
districts similar to those of the proposed project, Alternative F2 (without retaining walls) would
have a greater impact on historic districts than the proposed project because it would require
acquisition of 14 additional properties in historic districts.
Because both Alternatives F1 and F2 would cost more than the proposed project, neither
alternative would provide cost-effective transportation improvements.
Feasibility – Overall, Alternative F1 (with retaining walls) would be socially feasible but
technically and economically infeasible, while Alternative F2 (without retaining walls) would be
infeasible for social, technical, and economical reasons.
Due to slope and set-back requirements, Alternative F1 (with retaining walls) would require the
same number (23) of full parcel acquisition as the proposed project while Alternative F2 (without
retaining walls) would require 37 parcels, a difference of 61 percent. Since no additional parcel
acquisitions would be required for Alternative F1, it would be considered socially feasible.
Alternative F2, however, would be considered socially infeasible because it would require
additional 14 parcel acquisitions, causing greater community disruption.
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 51
Estimated construction costs of $69.4 million for Alternative F1 and $71.6 million for
Alternative F2 compared to estimated costs of $46 million19 for the proposed project, a
difference of 51 or 56 percent, are considered to be imprudent because the City would need to
directly fund the additional $23.4 or $25.6 million. As explained in Section 3.1.6.1, the
additional debt that the City would incur would be outside of the range of anticipated budget
parameters. Either of these alternatives could not reasonably be implemented based on current
economic constraints.
In terms of technical feasibility, the eastbound reverse curves required for both Alternatives F1
and F2 do not account for corner sight distance at D Street, rendering them unsafe. The
anticipated depth of the depressed section would require a steep grade on its western end to
accommodate the Carrier Canal, or else the canal would need to be re-routed. There is no direct
access to the north side neighborhood, so residents would need to travel though the south side
neighborhood to reach the north side neighborhood via bridges at Beech, Pine, or B Streets.
Finally, the transition from an at-grade roadway to a depressed roadway section on the eastern
end of the section, where it joins the 23rd Street/24th Street couplet, poses engineering challenges.
Reasonableness – Overall, both Alternatives F1 and F2 are considered unreasonable due to cost
and safety issues. Both Alternative F1 and F2 are deemed to be too costly ($69.4 or $71.6 million
in 2014 dollars) relative to other available alternatives. The eastbound reverse curves required for
both alternatives do not account for corner sight distance at D Street, rendering them unsafe.
Summary – Both Alternatives F1 and F2 were eliminated from further consideration because
they fail three of the four criteria: they do not avoid, reduce, or offset any of the potentially
significant environmental impacts of the proposed project; they are infeasible, and they are not
considered to be reasonable.
Alternative G – Frontage Road Alternative
Improvements under this alternative would occur in Segment 3, as shown in the following
diagram.
Segment 1
Proposed Project
Segment 2
Proposed Project
Segment 3
Alternatives G1, G2, G3, G4
Segment 4
Proposed Project
This alternative was addressed in the 2011 Supplemental Project Study Report 24th Street
Widening (RBF Consulting 2011a) and was included in the Screening Criteria Report (City of
Bakersfield 2009), which identified four possible frontage road configurations (Figures 1-21 to
1-24):
Alternative G1: Widening 24th Street on the south side with frontage road on the north
side;
19The costs presented here are the total costs for all four project segments, with the cost of the alternative substituted
for the project’s cost for that segment (Segment 2 or Segment 3, depending upon the type of alternative).
Construction costs are escalated at a rate of 3.5% per year to 2014.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
C
o
n
s
id
e
r
e
d
b
u
t
E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
F
u
r
t
h
e
r
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
52
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
-
2
1
.
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
G
1
-
W
i
d
e
ni
n
g
o
n
2
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
o
n
S
ou
t
h
S
i
d
e
w
i
t
h
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
R
o
a
d
o
n
N
o
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
C
o
n
s
id
e
r
e
d
b
u
t
E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
F
u
r
t
h
e
r
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
53
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
-
2
2
.
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
G
2
-
W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
o
n
N
o
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
w
i
t
h
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
R
o
a
d
o
n
N
o
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
C
o
n
s
id
e
r
e
d
b
u
t
E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
F
u
r
t
h
e
r
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
54
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
-
2
3
.
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
G
3
-
W
i
d
e
ni
n
g
B
o
t
h
N
o
r
t
h
a
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
w
i
th
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
R
o
a
d
o
n
N
o
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
C
o
n
s
id
e
r
e
d
b
u
t
E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
F
u
r
t
h
e
r
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
55
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
-
2
4
.
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
G
4
-
W
i
d
e
ni
n
g
o
n
S
o
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
w
i
t
h
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
R
o
a
d
o
f
f
o
f
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
l
y
C
u
r
b
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 56
Alternative G2: Widening 24th Street on the north side with frontage road on the north
side and a traffic signal at 24th Street/Myrtle Street;
Alternative G3: Widening both sides of 24th Street with frontage road on the north side;
and
Alternative G4: Widening 24th Street on the south side with frontage road off of northerly
curb, and a traffic signal at 24th Street/Myrtle Street.
The common elements of these configurations are that a frontage road would require a wider
right-of-way, would alter traffic circulation along 24th Street in Segment 3 (between Olive Street
and D Street), and would incrementally increase construction impacts. Depending upon its
configuration, a frontage road alternative would cost $51.6 to $56.7 million in 2014 dollars.20
Approximately 30 to 35 parcels would need to be acquired.
Screening Evaluation
Environmental – Alternatives G1-G4 would have greater environmental effects than those of
the proposed project, primarily because they would require a wider right-of-way. As a
consequence, these alternatives would require more construction materials and would cause more
ground disturbance (ranging from 31.1 to 32.4 acres, depending on the configurations) with more
potential to encounter subsurface cultural and paleontological resources. Utility conflict and
relocation costs would be higher. Up to 30 to 35 parcels of full property acquisitions, depending
on the configurations, would be required, which are greater than those of the proposed project.
Construction noise impacts could be more substantial than for the proposed project because of
the larger construction footprint. This is true for the air pollutant emissions during construction.
Alternatives G1-G4 would have an incrementally greater effect on visual and aesthetic resources
than the proposed project due to the wider road and additional traffic lanes. Alternatives G1-G4
would require more property acquisitions in historic districts than would the proposed project.
These alternatives would also create larger areas of impervious surfaces and generate more storm
water runoff than the proposed project. Operational traffic noise along the 24th Street corridor
between Olive Street and D Street would be about the same as under the proposed project with
any of these alternatives because the traffic volumes and distribution would be about the same.
With a larger footprint, Alternatives G1-G4 would present a greater barrier to terrestrial wildlife
than the proposed project.
The impacts in Segment 1, Segment 2, and Segment 4 would be as described for the proposed
project. Overall, Alternatives G1-G4 would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the
potentially significant impacts of the project as proposed.
20The costs presented here are the total costs for all four project segments, with the cost of the alternative substituted
for the project’s cost for that segment (Segment 2 or Segment 3, depending upon the type of alternative).
Construction costs are escalated at a rate of 3.5% per year to 2014.
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 57
Project Objectives – Overall, Alternatives G1-G4 would achieve the objectives of the proposed
project as described in Section 1.3.6.1. Traffic congestion relief between Olive Street and
D Street under Alternatives G1-G4 would be similar to that of the proposed project because they
would provide the same number of travel lanes. Therefore, the 24th Street corridor would operate
at Level of Service C to D during both morning and evening peak traffic hours. The Oak
Street/24th Street intersection would operate at a Level of Service D (morning peak traffic
period) and Level of Service C (evening peak traffic period in the future [design year 2030]). In
conjunction with proposed improvements in Segments 1 and 4, Alternatives G1-G4 would be
able to relieve current traffic congestion and provide for future traffic growth along the 24th
Street corridor. They would also be consistent with General Plan policies to increase traffic
capacity in the project area.
Alternatives G1-G4 would generally meet federal, state, and local design standards while
reducing traffic congestion, thus maintaining and enhancing traffic safety. Any of the
Alternatives G1-G4 generally would result in more disruption of the two established residential
districts along the 24th Street corridor because they would require a wider right-of-way than the
proposed project and more properties would need to be acquired. For the same reason, they
would have a greater effect on historic districts. Because Alternatives G1-G4 would have higher
costs while providing the same benefit as the proposed project, construction of any of these
alternatives would be considered less cost-effective.
Feasibility – Alternatives G1-G4 would be socially and economically infeasible because either
of them would require more property acquisition and would cost more than the proposed project.
Alternatives G1-G4 would require full acquisition of 30 to 35 parcels (depending on the
alternative selected), compared with 23 parcels under the proposed project, a difference of 30 to
52 percent. The additional 7 to 12 parcel acquisitions required for any of these alternatives would
be considered socially infeasible because of the greater community disruption. Alternatives G1
and G3 would provide no eastbound access to the north side neighborhood, isolating this
neighborhood and affecting the social feasibility of these configurations.
Estimated construction costs for Alternatives G1-G4 ranging from $51.6 to $56.7 million
compared to estimated costs of $46 million for the proposed project, a difference of 12 to 23
percent, are considered to be imprudent because the City would need to directly fund the
additional $5.6 million to $10.7 million. As explained in Section 1.3.6.1, the additional debt that
the City would incur would be outside of the range of anticipated budget parameters.
Alternatives G1-G4 could not reasonably be implemented based on current economic constraints.
Reasonableness – Construction of Alternatives G1-G4 is considered unreasonable because the
wider right-of-way along 24th Street between Olive Street and D Street for this alternative
compared to that of the proposed project would outweigh the public benefit.
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 58
Summary – Alternatives G1-G4 were eliminated from further consideration because all of them
fail three of the four criteria: they would not avoid, reduce, or offset any potentially significant
environmental effects of the proposed project, they are infeasible, and they are unreasonable.
Alternative H - Widening Both Sides of 24th Street
Improvements under this alternative would occur in Segment 3, as shown in the following
diagram.
Segment 1
Proposed Project
Segment 2
Proposed Project
Segment 3
Alternative H
Segment 4
Proposed Project
Widening both sides of 24th Street between Olive Street and D Street in Segment 3, with and
without a frontage road on the north side, was previously considered in both the Screening
Criteria Report (City of Bakersfield 2009) and in the 2011 Supplemental Project Study Report
24th Street Widening (RBF Consulting 2011a). This alternative would consist of widening both
sides of 24th Street without a frontage road (Figure 1-25). The cost for this alternative is
estimated to be $53.2 million in 2014 dollars; 32 parcels would need to be acquired.21
Screening Evaluation
Environmental – This alternative would have greater environmental effects than those of the
proposed project, primarily because it would impact properties in historic districts on both the
north and south sides of 24th Street between Olive Street and D Street. Up to 32 parcels of full
property acquisitions would be required, which is about 40 percent more than the number
required for the proposed project. The area of ground disturbance (24.3 acres) and potential
effects on cultural and paleontological resources would be similar to those of the proposed
project. Other impacts of construction activities, such as air pollutant emissions and noise, would
be the same as for the proposed project.
This alternative would have an effect on visual and aesthetic resources similar to that of the
proposed project because 24th Street would be about the same width, but property acquisitions on
both sides of the road would move the road closer to existing structures. This alternative would
require 9 more property acquisitions in historic districts than would the proposed project, thus
having a greater impact on historic resources. This alternative also would cause more community
disruption because it would affect more properties. This alternative would create similar areas of
impervious surfaces and generate similar amounts of storm water runoff as the proposed project.
Operational traffic noise along the 24th Street corridor between Olive Street and D Street would
be the same as under the proposed project because the traffic volumes and distribution would be
the same. This alternative would present a barrier to terrestrial wildlife similar to that of the
proposed project because it would be the same width.
21The costs presented here are the total costs for all four project segments, with the cost of the alternative substituted
for the project’s cost for that segment (Segment 2 or Segment 3, depending upon the type of alternative).
Construction costs are escalated at a rate of 3.5% per year to 2014.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
C
o
n
s
id
e
r
e
d
b
u
t
E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
F
u
r
t
h
e
r
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
59
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
-
2
5
.
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
H
-
Wi
d
e
n
i
n
g
B
o
t
h
S
i
d
e
s
o
f
2
4
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 60
The impacts in Segment 1, Segment 2, and Segment 4 would be the same as those of the
proposed project. This alternative would not reduce any of the potentially significant impacts of
the proposed project.
Project Objectives – Overall, this alternative would achieve the project objectives of the
proposed project, as described in Section 1.3.6.1. Traffic congestion relief between Olive Street
and D Street under this alternative would be similar to that of the proposed project because it
would provide the same number of travel lanes. Therefore, the 24th Street corridor would operate
at Level of Service C to D during both morning and evening peak traffic hours. The Oak
Street/24th Street intersection would operate at a Level of Service D (morning peak traffic
period) and Level of Service C (evening peak traffic period in the future design year 2030). In
conjunction with proposed improvements in Segments 1 and 4, this alternative would achieve the
primary objective of the proposed project to relieve current traffic congestion and provide for
future traffic growth along the 24th Street corridor. It would also be consistent with General Plan
policies to increase traffic capacity in the project area.
This alternative would generally meet federal, state, and local design standards while reducing
traffic congestion, thus maintaining and enhancing traffic safety. This alternative would be more
disruptive of established residential districts than the proposed project and have a greater effect
on historic districts because it would require the acquisition of properties on both sides of 24th
Street and would require more property acquisitions (32 compared to 23) than the proposed
project.
Feasibility – This alternative would be economically feasible but socially infeasible because it
would require more property acquisitions than the proposed project.
This alternative would require 32 full parcel acquisitions on both sides of 24th Street compared
with 23 property acquisitions under the proposed project, a difference of 39 percent. Property
acquisitions on both the northern and southern sides of 24th Street would result in more
disruption of the existing residential community than widening either side of the street.
Estimated construction costs for this alternative of $53.2 million compared to estimated costs of
$46 million for the proposed project, a difference of 15 percent, are considered marginally
feasible. The City would need to directly fund the additional $7.2 million. This alternative could
reasonably be implemented based on current economic constraints.
Reasonableness – This alternative is unreasonable because it would cost more and be more
disruptive to the community than that of the proposed project, with the same public benefit.
Expending more public funds and creating more community disruption to achieve the same
public benefit is deemed to be unreasonable.
Summary – This alternative was eliminated from further consideration because it fails on three
of the four criteria: it does not avoid, reduce, or offset any potentially significant environmental
effects of the proposed project; it is infeasible; and it is unreasonable.
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 61
1.3.6.5 Citizen-Suggested Alternatives
The following two alternatives (restriping of 24th Street and Hageman Flyover) were not
addressed in the 2013 FEIR. They are included here at the request of citizens. Restriping of 24th
Street (Alternative I) is a Segment 3 alternative. Hageman Flyover (Alternative J) is an off-site
alternative.
Alternative I – Restriping 24th Street
Improvements under this alternative would occur in Segment 3, as shown in the following
diagram.
Segment 1
Proposed Project
Segment 2
Proposed Project
Segment 3
Alternative I
Segment 4
Proposed Project
At the outset it must be remarked that the implementation of this alternative, as a citizen-
generated concept, would jeopardize the safety and operational integrity of the roadway. As
required by law, the practice of designing and approving road plans is not itself a public
exercise. Only licensed professional engineers (P.E.) may authorize design plans because a
broad and deep understanding of the operational effects of highway geometry is required. The
project alternative as outlined below does not meet the established mandatory federal, state, or
local agency highway design standards. Transportation projects using federal funds must be
designed in accordance with approved design standards.
24th Street is on the National Highway System, which carries many large vehicles, and is the
direct connection between State Route 58/State Route 99 on the west and State Route 178 on the
east. The Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan classifies 24th Street
(SR-178) as a Major Arterial roadway. It is not a designated Bike Route.
The standard right-of-way for a Major Arterial roadway is 110 feet wide and 90 feet curb-to-curb
without bike lanes. The standard includes two 12-foot-wide inside lanes and one 14-foot-wide
outside lane adjacent to the curb and gutter. In addition, a Major Arterial roadway includes a 14-
foot-wide raised median and 6-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides of the roadway.
Currently, from Olive Street to D Street, 24th Street does not meet the Major Arterial standards
described above. The right-of-way on this portion of 24th Street is 82.5 feet wide, and the
roadway is approximately 72 feet wide from curb to curb. The road has no median, and the
sidewalks on either side of 24th Street are not continuous.
Alternative I, proposed by the citizens, would restripe the existing 72-foot roadway to six lanes.
In both the eastbound and westbound directions, the outside lane of 24th Street between Elm
Street and B Street in Segment 3 would be restriped to a width of 13 feet and the two inside lanes
would each be restriped to 11 feet (Figure 1-26). Alternative I thus would reduce the width of
each lane by 1 foot below the City’s standard width. No shoulders would be accommodated.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
C
o
n
s
id
e
r
e
d
b
u
t
E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
F
u
r
t
h
e
r
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
62
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
-
2
6
.
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
iv
e
I
–
R
e
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
2
4
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 63
A 2-foot-wide striped median would provide the separation between opposing lanes of traffic in
place of a standard 14-foot-wide raised median.
The entire roadway would be resurfaced and drainage would be re-engineered by lowering the
crown of the roadway and removing the dips at the cross street curb returns. Figure 1-27 shows a
cross-section of 24th Street under the Restriping Alternative compared to a standard cross-
section.
Several driveways and alleys enter onto 24th Street between Olive Street and D Street. The alleys
on the south side would need larger curb radii. All driveways along the north side of 24th Street
and garages facing 24th Street along the south side of the street between Elm Street and B Street
in Segment 3 would be removed to prevent residents from backing out into the street, which
could conflict with through traffic and thus create unsafe situations. Additional properties would
need to be purchased due to the closure of driveways eliminating access to the property.
The narrower lanes, in conjunction with the absence of an outside shoulder, would constrict the
flow of traffic on 24th Street, as well as restricting turning movements onto and from side streets
and alleys. The combination of narrow lanes and minimal separation between opposing lanes of
traffic would increase the potential for head-on accidents. No space would be available for left-
turn movements, the striped median would not provide sufficient width for vehicles to move out
of the travel lanes to make left turn movements, and the striped median would not prevent left-
turn movements onto or from 24th Street. Striping 24th Street to six lanes within the existing
roadway would reduce lines-of-sight below acceptable levels and restrict the ability of large
service vehicles, such as trash trucks, to turn into an alley. Large service vehicles would need to
occupy the two outside lanes to make turning movements, increasing the potential for rear-end
and side-swipe accidents. The sidewalk widths would not meet the City standard and, in some
areas, would not meet the Americans with Disabilities Act requirement for a minimum 4-foot-
wide sidewalk.
Alternative I would create conflicts between competing project design requirements. Where
sound walls are required, sidewalks may not be wide enough to meet the minimum 4-foot-width
required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The narrow right-of-way would also require
trade-offs between line-of-sight requirements to maintain street and alley connections to 24th
Street and installation of necessary sound walls. Acquisition of additional rights-of-way could
alleviate some conflicts but, in some areas, additional rights-of-way could not be acquired
without modifying existing residential structures.
The Restriping 24th Street Alternative would cost an estimated $30.4 million in 2014 dollars and
require 12 full parcel acquisitions.22
22The costs presented here are the total costs for all four project segments, with the cost of the alternative substituted
for the project’s cost for that segment (Segment 2 or Segment 3, depending upon the type of alternative).
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 64
Figure 1-27. Cross-Section for Alternative I Compared to Major Arterial Standard
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 65
Screening Evaluation
Environmental – This alternative would have fewer environmental effects than those of the
proposed project primarily because fewer properties would need to be acquired and overall
construction activity would be less than under the proposed project. Restriping 24th Street
between Elm Street and B Street in Segment 3 would require some expansion of the project
footprint beyond the existing roadway, but the numbers of full property acquisitions required to
implement this alternative (12) would be about 48 percent, or less than half, of those required for
the proposed project. This alternative would require fewer construction materials than the
proposed project and would require less ground disturbance (18 acres) and thereby less potential
to unearth subsurface cultural and paleontological resources than the proposed project. Utility
conflict and relocation costs would be lower because the footprint would be smaller than that of
the proposed project. Construction noise impacts would be less than for the proposed project
because less construction activity would be needed.
This alternative also would not allow sufficient space for a landscaped median or landscaping
along the sides of 24th Street, and would thus have greater impacts on the visual and aesthetic
environment than would the proposed project. With fewer property acquisitions than the
proposed project, this alternative would have fewer impacts on historic districts. Because the
roadway would not be widened under this alternative, it would generate less storm water runoff
than would the proposed project. Operational noise levels in residences along 24th Street would
be higher than under the proposed project because the distance between the curb lane and
adjacent houses would be less, and no space would be available for the construction of sound
walls. Indoor and outdoor air pollutant levels would be higher for the same reason. This
alternative would have less of an impact on terrestrial wildlife than the proposed project because
the right-of-way would be narrower.
The impacts in Segments 1, 2, and 4 would be the same as those of the proposed project. This
alternative would have lesser impacts than the proposed project on property acquisitions, ground
disturbance, cultural, historic, and paleontological resources, water resources, and wildlife, while
having greater impacts on visual and aesthetic resources, operational noise, and air pollutant
exposure.
Project Objectives –This alternative would not achieve the objectives of the proposed project as
described in Section 1.3.6.1 because of the safety issues it would create with its implementation.
Restriping 24th Street between Elm Street and B Street would achieve the primary objective of
relieving traffic congestion along the 24th Street corridor. Traffic congestion relief between Olive
Street and D Street under this alternative would be similar to that of the proposed project because
it would provide the same number of travel lanes. Therefore, the 24th Street corridor would
operate at Level of Service C to D during both morning and evening peak traffic hours. The Oak
Street/24th Street intersection (Segment 2) would operate at a Level of Service D (morning peak
traffic period) and Level of Service C (evening peak traffic period in the future [design year
2030]). In conjunction with proposed improvements in Segments 1 and 4, this alternative would
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 66
achieve the primary objective of the proposed project to relieve current traffic congestion and
provide for future traffic growth along the 24th Street corridor. It would also be consistent with
General Plan policies to increase traffic capacity in the project area.
This alternative, however, would not be consistent with the objective of maintaining or
improving traffic safety, because it would not meet the prevailing mandatory design standards
identified in Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual for lane width for a facility of this type. Lane
widths influence operations, safety, quality of service, and the security felt by road users.
Narrower lanes make it more difficult for drivers to safely maneuver in emergency and non-
emergency situations. Studies show that lanes narrower than 12 feet increase the expected crash
frequency, both with same direction sideswipes and opposite direction vehicle crashes. For
instance, studies show that a roadway carrying 2,000 vehicles per day with 11 foot lanes can
expect 5 percent more crashes than the same roadway with 12 foot lanes (Federal Highway
Administration 2004).
Under this alternative, the space between the opposing lanes of traffic would be insufficient for
creating a proper median to separate oncoming traffic. The line of sight of drivers in the outside
lanes would also be restricted, creating a safety hazard. Turning movements onto or off of 24th
Street between Elm Street and B Street in Segment 3 would also be unsafe because of the
absence of a shoulder and because acceleration and deceleration would be virtually impossible
due to the speed requirements of the road. The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials’ Highway Safety Manual (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials 2010) research on accident data concluded that eliminating the right
shoulder from a facility increases crash frequency by 18 percent. In addition, for purposes of
access control and safety under this alternative, driveways opening onto 24th Street would need
to be eliminated, resulting in garages and properties with no vehicular access. Trash pickups and
other common services to residents along 24th Street would become more hazardous. Because
residents prefer sidewalks to have a buffer and be located well away from traffic, the distance
between high-speed traffic and sidewalks on 24th Street would be reduced, creating a potential
safety hazard. In summary, retrofitting the roadway with constrained movements, constricted
lane widths, high traffic volumes, and high speeds would create an unsafe operating condition.
Aside from the safety concerns itemized above, this alternative would have fewer effects on
historic districts and on established residential districts because it would require acquisition of
fewer parcels than the proposed project. It would cost less than the proposed project, so it would
provide more cost-effective transportation improvements. Overall, however, the serious safety
concerns associated with this alternative would outweigh any benefits and the objectives of the
proposed project would not be met.
Feasibility – Overall, this alternative to restripe 24th Street is considered to be both socially and
technically infeasible because it would create a number of unsafe conditions, and it would not
achieve the required roadway engineering design standards of either the federal, state, or city
government. Because 24th Street between Elm Street and B Street is a federal-aid route, the
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 67
Caltrans Highway Design Manual indicates that it must adhere to the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials’ Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets for mandatory standards on lane width and medians, which this restriping alternative
would not, as indicated earlier.
This alternative would require full acquisition of 12 parcels, compared with 23 parcels under the
proposed project, or about 48 percent of the number required for the propose project. Properties
would need to be purchased where the closure of driveways eliminated access to the property.
Parcels also would need to be acquired at Elm and Beech Streets to provide access to the
northern side of 24th Street at that point. Still, in terms of the total number of parcels to be
acquired, this alternative could be deemed socially feasible. However, as discussed above,
because turning movements onto and off of side streets would be made much more risky,
because the City would need to purchase residential parcels on 24th Street that would otherwise
lose their access, and because critical and community services, such as garbage pickup, postal
and package delivery, and the like, would be made much more unsafe, the alternative is not
socially feasible.
Restriping 24th Street between Elm Street and B Street in Segment 3, as described above, initially
appears to be economically feasible because the estimated cost of this alternative would be $30
million in 2014 dollars, or $16 million (35 percent) less than the $46 million for the proposed
project. This alternative would not meet the approved mandatory design or safety standards,
however, so federal funds would not be obtained, making this alternative economically
infeasible.
Reasonableness – This alternative would not meet established design requirements and would
consume limited transportation improvement funds to create an unsafe, substandard
transportation facility. Also, as indicated above, with a substandard engineering design, if the
alternative were to go forward it may create a greater number of unsafe conditions involving
head-to-head vehicle collisions and same direction sideswipes and result in greater exposure of
the City to lawsuits in which plaintiffs seek to recover money to compensate for personal injuries
or property damage. Increasing the risk of tort liability is deemed to be unreasonable.
Summary – This alternative was eliminated from further consideration because it fails three of
the four criteria: it does not achieve the project objectives, it is infeasible, and it is unreasonable.
Alternative J – Hageman Flyover
A separate project has long been planned to extend State Route 204 (Golden State Avenue)
across State Route 99 to Hageman Road as a complement to the 24th Street Improvement Project
and provide for an additional connection and improvement for east-west traffic flow. The City of
Bakersfield and the County of Kern, in cooperation with Caltrans, District 6, plan to extend
Hageman Road in the northwestern corner of the City from its existing terminus at Knudsen
Drive, approximately 0.62 mile west of State Route 99, over State Route 99 to State Route 204
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
C
o
n
s
id
e
r
e
d
b
u
t
E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
F
u
r
t
h
e
r
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
68
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
-
2
8
.
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
J
-
H
a
g
e
m
a
n
F
l
y
o
v
e
r
i
n
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
n
t
e
x
t
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 69
(Golden State Avenue), in Kern County, California (Figure 1-28). The project will extend along
State Route 204 (Golden State Avenue) to approximately 0.5 mile east of the Airport Drive bridge
(the western limit of the Calloway Canal bridge). The total length of the planned project will be
about 1.5 miles, and will include the installation of new bridges, modifications to an existing
bridge and interchange ramps, and transition striping areas. The Hageman Flyover will cost an
estimated $52 million in 2014 dollars and require the acquisition of one full parcel of land.
The intended purpose of the Hageman Flyover is to provide additional traffic capacity from the
northwest into downtown Bakersfield and points east along the State Route 178 corridor. Due to
the small number of roads crossing State Route 99, traffic has funneled onto just Olive Drive and
Rosedale Highway. Hageman Road is located very close to Olive Drive, so it would relieve
traffic congestion primarily at that facility and at the interchange of Oak Street with State Route
99. The Hageman Flyover is also intended to relieve traffic congestion on Airport Drive, State
Route 99, and State Route 204.
The extension of State Route 204 (Golden State Avenue) across State Route 99 to Hageman
Road (i.e., the Hageman Flyover) has become an alternative that citizens asked the City to
consider in lieu of going forward with the 24th Street Improvement Project. The relationship
between the Hageman Flyover project and proposed improvements to State Route 204 (Golden
State Avenue) may be confusing because they share a nexus at the northern end. To be clear, this
alternative includes only the improvements described above, and does not include improvements
to State Route 204 (Golden State Avenue).
Several public comments received on the 2012 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 24th
Street Improvement Project expressed that consideration should be given to improving State
Route 204 (Golden State Avenue) instead of 24th Street. The Master Response to Comments
contained in the 2013 FEIR (Volume 3) explained that building a new freeway alongside State
Route 204 (Golden State Avenue) had been previously considered in numerous transportation
studies, including the Route 178 Corridor Study (1986), the Route 178 Alternatives Study (1994),
and the Bakersfield System Study (2002). The consensus of those studies was that a new freeway
parallel, above, or adjacent to State Route 204 (Golden State Avenue) would not be cost-
effective given a comparison of construction costs versus the traffic use that was forecasted. The
Bakersfield System Study recommended both upgrading State Route 204 (Golden State Avenue)
and widening 24th Street to six lanes through the Westchester neighborhood, demonstrating that
the one action was not expected to replace implementation of the other.
Having independent utility, the Hageman Flyover is programmed separately under the Thomas
Roads Improvement Program. Nevertheless, this alternative is further discussed below in light of
the four criteria under which all alternatives have been analyzed in this R-DEIR.
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 70
Screening Evaluation
Environmental – This alternative would have lesser environmental effects than would the
proposed project, primarily because the new section of road would be shorter, fewer properties
would need to be acquired, construction would occur on primarily agricultural and industrial
properties, and overall construction activity would be less. As a consequence, this alternative
would require fewer construction materials and would cause less ground disturbance (20.7 acres)
with less potential to encounter subsurface cultural and paleontological resources. Utility conflict
and relocation costs would be lower. One parcel of full property acquisitions would be required,
which is less than those of the proposed project. Construction noise generation would be more
substantial than for the proposed project because of the larger construction footprint. However,
construction noise impacts would be less substantial than for the proposed project because most
of the construction would occur in an area with few sensitive receptors.
Long-term visual impacts, consisting primarily of a new road, would be greater than those of the
proposed project because the flyover would be constructed through an agricultural area that
currently has no road. Views from Kern River Parkway Trail would be most affected. This
alternative would have no impact on historic districts and fewer effects than the proposed project
on historic structures. This alternative would create a smaller area of impervious surfaces that
would generate less storm water runoff than the proposed project. Operational noise impacts
along 24th Street would be less than those of the proposed project because traffic volumes would
be approximately 13 percent lower. Operational noise impacts along the new flyover alignment
would be minimal because that area has few or no sensitive receptors. The flyover would divert
air pollutants from existing roads to the new alignment. The effects on biological resources
would be more adverse than for the proposed project because the right-of-way would traverse an
agricultural area that likely has some wildlife habitat value.
Project Objectives – Overall, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed
project described in Section 1.3.6.1. As an approved project under the Thomas Roads
Improvement Program, Hageman Flyover will be constructed whether or not the 24th Street
Improvement Project is approved and implemented. The purpose of the Hageman Flyover was to
address the need for a direct traffic connection between the northwestern portions of the
Bakersfield metropolitan area and the downtown area. Thus, the Hageman Flyover would not
achieve the proposed project’s primary objective of relieving traffic congestion along the 24th
Street corridor primarily because that was not the purpose for which it was designed. As an
alternative to 24th Street, the Hageman Flyover also would not be consistent with regional
transportation planning objectives, which call for implementing both the Hageman Flyover and
the 24th Street Improvement Project – in addition to other transportation improvements – to
achieve acceptable traffic conditions in the central portion of metropolitan Bakersfield.
As shown in Figure 1-28, improvements to State Route 58 to the west of the project area and to
State Route 178 to the east of the project area were planned in anticipation of an increase in
traffic capacity along the 24th Street corridor. In all, five projects providing approximately 15.5
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 71
miles of mobility improvements have been completed for this purpose. The 24th Street
Improvement project is the final link in this regional strategy.
Diverting traffic from 24th Street to the Hageman Flyover located 3 miles to the north of 24th
Street would be inefficient because it is an indirect route that would add over 3 miles to an
average trip. This alternative also would be inconsistent with regional transportation planning,
which anticipates increased capacity along 24th Street with improvements to State Route 58 west
of the project area and with improvements to State Route 178 east of the project area. Traffic
studies indicate that the Hageman Flyover would reduce traffic volumes on 24th Street by about
13 percent,23 so even with construction of the Hageman Flyover, traffic Levels of Service along
24th Street would not meet the objective (Level of Service C).
The Hageman Flyover would meet the project objectives of maintaining or enhancing traffic
safety, minimizing effects on historic resources, and minimizing the disruption of established
residential districts. As an alternative to the widening of 24th Street between Olive Street and
D Street, however, it would not achieve the secondary project objective of providing cost-
effective transportation improvements, because of the high project cost and minimal reduction in
traffic congestion on 24th Street.
Feasibility – Overall, this alternative is considered to be socially feasible but economically
infeasible. As an approved project under the Thomas Roads Improvement Program, the
Hageman Flyover will be constructed whether or not the 24th Street Improvement Project is
approved and implemented. The one full parcel acquisition required for this alternative, or just 4
percent difference from the proposed project, would be considered socially feasible. The
Hageman Flyover is considered to be socially, environmentally, and technically feasible for
improving access to the downtown area from the northwest, inasmuch as it is one of the Thomas
Roads Improvement Program projects that has been approved and is awaiting funding.
Estimated construction costs would be $52 million for this alternative compared to $46 million
for the proposed project. As an alternative to the 24th Street Improvement Project, it is considered
to be economically imprudent because it would cost more than the proposed project while
providing less public benefit.
Reasonableness – As an approved project under the Thomas Roads Improvement Program, the
Hageman Flyover will be constructed whether or not the 24th Street Improvement Project is
approved and implemented. As an alternative to the 24th Street Improvement Project, however, it
is not considered to be reasonable because it would not relieve traffic congestion at the Oak
Street/24th Street intersection and along the 24th Street corridor between Olive Street and
D Street.
23Parsons, Hageman Road Extension to Golden State Avenue. Traffic Report. Volume 1. July 2009.
Chapter 3 Additional Information on Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 72
Summary – This alternative was eliminated from further consideration because it fails three of
the four criteria: it does not achieve the objectives of the proposed project, it is infeasible, and it
is unreasonable.
1.3.6.6 Conclusions
The evaluations of potentially feasible alternatives are summarized in Table 1.5. Of the several
alternatives considered and evaluated, only two alternatives (Alternative 1-Widen to the North
and Alternative 2-Widen to the South) were considered viable. These two alternatives are
analyzed in Chapter 2 of this document.
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
C
o
n
s
id
e
r
e
d
b
u
t
E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
F
u
r
t
h
e
r
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
73
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
5
.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
o
t
e
n
t
ia
l
l
y
F
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
g
a
i
n
s
t
C
E
Q
A
T
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
CR
I
T
E
R
I
O
N
RA
T
I
N
G
B
Y
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
Se
g
m
e
n
t
2
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Se
g
m
e
n
t
3
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Alternatives Proposed by Citizens Proposed Project
A
No
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
/
N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
Lo
o
p
R
a
m
p
s
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
B
Si
n
g
l
e
P
o
i
n
t
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
C
Ke
r
n
R
i
v
e
r
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
D
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
E
Ju
g
Ha
n
d
l
e
F1
a
n
d
F
2
De
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
t
o
Wi
d
e
n
2
4
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
Si
x
L
a
n
e
s
G1
,
G
2
,
G
3
,
G4
Fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
Ro
a
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
H Widening Both Sides of 24th Street I Restriping 24th Street J Hageman FlyoverAlternative 1 Widen 24th Street to the North
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
1
-
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
:
D
o
e
s
th
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
v
o
i
d
,
r
e
d
u
c
e
,
o
r
of
f
s
e
t
o
n
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
?
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N Y Y NA
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
2
–
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
:
Do
e
s
t
h
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y N N Y
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
3
-
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
I
s
t
h
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
l
y
,
s
o
c
i
a
l
l
y
,
an
d
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l
l
y
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
?
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N N N Y
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
4
-
R
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
n
e
s
s
:
I
s
th
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
?
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N N N Y
Co
s
t
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
$
i
n
2
0
1
4
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
84
.
7
82
.
5
56
.
1
84
.
6
52
.
4
69
.
4
-
7
1
.
6
51
.
6
-
5
6
.
7
53.2 30.4 52 46
Fu
l
l
P
a
r
c
e
l
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
56
48
26
36
27
23
-
3
7
30
-
3
5
32 12 1 23
Di
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
A
r
e
a
(
a
c
r
e
s
)
45
.
4
38
29
.
1
37
.
1
28
.
9
26
.
4
-
3
3
.
8
31
.
1
-
3
2
.
4
24.3 18 20.7 24
Ca
r
r
y
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
f
o
r
F
u
r
t
h
e
r
S
t
u
d
y
?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No No No Yes
No
t
e
s
:
(
1
)
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
-
E
a
r
e
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
O
a
k
S
t
r
e
e
t
/
2
4
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t,
w
h
i
l
e
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
F
-
J
a
r
e
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
2
4
th Street widening portion of Alternative 1;
(2
)
C
o
s
t
s
f
o
r
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
a
n
d
B
w
e
r
e
in
i
t
i
a
l
l
y
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
5
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
,
a
n
d
w
e
r
e
ad
j
u
s
t
e
d
t
o
2
0
1
4
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
e
s
c
a
l
a
t
i
on
f
a
c
t
o
r
o
f
3
.
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
.
(
3
)
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
are compared on the basis of full parcel acquisitions
be
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
a
t
m
e
t
r
i
c
i
s
d
e
e
m
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
m
o
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
b
a
s
i
s
f
o
r
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
t
h
a
n
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 75
Chapter 4 Document Preparers
This document was prepared by the City of Bakersfield and its consultant, Parsons. The
following staff prepared this Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report:
Bruce Campbell, AICP, Principal Environmental Project Manager, Parsons. M.S., Environmental
Management and B.S., Environmental Biology. Over 35 years of experience.
Contribution: Author of Introduction, Alternatives, Utilities/Emergency Services,
Hazardous Wastes/Materials Air Quality, and Energy sections of Environmental Impact
Report.
Rosemarie Crisologo, Principal Environmental Specialist, Parsons. M.S., Environmental
Engineering and B.S., Biological Sciences. Over 30 years of experience. Contribution:
Author of Summary and Technical Review.
Areg Gharabegian, P.E., Principal Project Manager, Parsons. M.S., Science and B.S.,
Mechanical Engineering. Over 30 years of experience. Contribution: Author of Noise
Section of Environmental Impact Report.
Greg Gharib, Program Manager, Parsons. JD. 17 years of experience. Contribution: Technical
Advisor and Engineering Support for Environmental Impact Report.
Greg King, Cultural Resources Specialist, Parsons. M.A., Public Historical Studies and B.A.,
History. Over 30 years of experience. Contribution: QA/QC Review and Author of the
Land Use, Community Impacts, Cultural Resources, and Paleontology Sections of
Environmental Impact Report.
William Knoetgen, P.E., Vice President, Program Director, Parsons. MBA; B.S., Civil/Structural
Engineering and Construction Management. 25 years of experience. Contribution: TRIP
Program Management and Technical Advisor for Environmental Impact Report.
Anne Kochaon, QEP, Principal Project Manager, Parsons. M.S., Environmental Engineering and
B.S., Chemistry. 30 years of experience. Contribution: Oversight, Management, and
QA/QC of Environmental Impact Report.
Leslie Provenzano, Environmental Planner, Parsons. M.Pl. (Master of Planning). Six years of
experience. Contribution: Author of Visual Aesthetics Section of Environmental Impact
Report.
Robert Scales, P.E., Senior Program Director (Traffic), Parsons. M.S., Transportation and B.S.,
Civil Engineering. Over 40 years of traffic engineering and transportation planning
experience. Contribution: Author of Traffic and Transportation for Environmental Impact
Report.
Chapter 4 Document Preparers
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 76
Veronica Seyde, QSD, QSP, CPSWQ, CPESC, Parsons. M.S., Environmental Studies and B.A.,
Biology. 30 years of water quality and storm water management experience.
Contribution: Author of Water Quality Section of Environmental Impact Report.
Daniel Wagner, P.E., Senior Project Engineer, Parsons. B.S., Civil Engineering. 10 years of
experience. Contribution: Technical Advisor and Engineering Support for Environmental
Impact Report.
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 77
Chapter 5 Distribution List
Federal Agencies
Jan Knight, Deputy Field Supervisor
USFWS
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
2800 Cottage Way W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825
Christine S. Lehnertz, Regional Director
National Park Service, Pacific West Region
333 Bush St., Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94104-2828
Colonel William J. Leady, District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1325 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-2922
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20250
Tom Plenys, Environmental Review Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
State Agencies
Julie Vance, Acting Regional Manager
California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, CA 93710
California State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Major General Anthony L. Jackson, USMC (Ret.),
Director
California Department of Parks and Recreation
1416 9th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Central Valley Flood Protection Board
3310 El Camino Avenue, Room 151
Sacramento, CA 95821
California Emergency Management Agency
Mark Johnson, Planning Branch Chief
3650 Schriever Ave.
Mather, CA 95655-4203
James Ramos, Chairman
Native American Heritage Commission
915 Capitol Mall, Rm. 288
Sacramento, CA 95814
Director
California Department of Conservation
801 "K" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
California Natural Resources Agency
John Laird, Secretary
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814
Department of Water Resources
1416 9th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
California Highway Patrol
P.O. Box 942898
Sacramento, CA 94298-0001
Cy Oggins, Division Chief Environmental Planning
California State Lands Commission
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South
Sacramento, CA 95825
Office of Historic Preservation
1725 23rd Street, #100
Sacramento, CA 95816
California Air Resources Board
1001 "I" Street
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812
Chapter 5 Distribution List
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 78
Regional Agencies
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board-
Region
1685 "E" Street
Fresno, CA 93706
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Southern Region
34946 Flyover Court
Bakersfield, CA 93308
County Agencies
Charles Lackey, Director
County of Kern Floodplain Management
2700 M Street, Suite 500
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Craig M. Pope, Director
Kern County Public Works Department
2700 M Street, Suite 400
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Lorelei H. Oviatt, AICP, Director
County of Kern, Planning Department
2700 M Street, Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Ahron Hakimi, Executive Director
Kern County Council of Governments
1401 19th Street, Suite 300
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Donny Youngblood, Sheriff
Kern County Sheriff’s Department
1350 Norris Road
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Kern County Fire Department
Brian Marshall, Fire Chief
5642 Victor Street
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Glen Stephens, P.E., Air Pollution Control Officer
Eastern Kern County Air Pollution Control District
2700 M Street, Suite 302
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Bob Neath, General Manager
Kern Regional Transit
2700 M Street, Suite 400
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Robert Lerude, Director
Kern County Parks and Recreation
2820 M Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Lynn Brooks, Assistant Public Works Director
Kern County Public Works Department
2700 M Street, Suite 400
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Local Agencies
Nick Fidler, Director
City of Bakersfield
Public Works Department
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Greg Williamson, Chief of Police
Bakersfield Police Department
1601 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Historic Preservation Commission
City of Bakersfield
Economic & Community Dev.
1600 Truxtun Avenue Suite 300
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Roberta Gafford, City Clerk
City of Bakersfield
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Art Chianello, Water Resources Manager
City of Bakersfield
Water Resources Department
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Jacquelyn R. Kitchen, Planning Director
Planning Division
Community Development Building
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Douglas R. Greener, Fire Chief
Bakersfield Fire Department
2101 H Street
Bakersfield, CA301
Dianne Hoover, Director
City of Bakersfield
Dept. of Recreation & Parks
1600 Truxtun Avenue (3rd floor)
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Chapter 5 Distribution List
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 79
State Elected Officials
Office of Jean Fuller
State Senate 16th District
5701 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 150
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Shannon L. Grove
State Assembly 34th District
4900 California Ave., Ste 100-B
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Rudy Salas
State Assembly 32nd District
1430 Truxtun Ave., Suite 803
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Kevin McCarthy
House of Representatives 23rd District
4100 Empire Dr., Ste 150
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Office of U.S. Senator
Dianne Feinstein
2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4290
Fresno, CA 93721
David Valadao
House of Representatives 21st District
2700 M St., Ste 250 B
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Office of U.S. Senator
Barbara Boxer
2500 Tulare Street, Suite 5290
Fresno, CA 93721
County Elected Officials
David Couch, Chairman
Kern County Board of Supervisors
1115 Truxtun Ave., 5th Floor
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Mike Maggard, Dist. 3
Kern County Board of Supervisors
1115 Truxtun Ave., 5th Floor
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Local Elected Officials
Mayor Harvey L. Hall
Bakersfield City Hall
1600 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Terry Maxwell, Councilmember, Ward 2
Bakersfield City Council
Bakersfield City Hall
1600 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Willie Rivera, Councilmember, Ward 1
Bakersfield City Council
Bakersfield City Hall
1600 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Ken Weir, Councilmember, Ward 3
Bakersfield City Council
Bakersfield City Hall
1600 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Bob Smith, Councilmember, Ward 4
Bakersfield City Council
Bakersfield City Hall
1600 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Harold Hanson, Councilmember, Ward 5
Bakersfield City Council
Bakersfield City Hall
1600 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Jacquie Sullivan, Councilmember, Ward 6
Bakersfield City Council
Bakersfield City Hall
1600 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Chris Parlier, Ward 7
Bakersfield City Council
Bakersfield City Hall
1600 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Chapter 5 Distribution List
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 80
Interested Groups, Organizations, and Individuals
Blodgie Rodriguez, Chairperson
Kern County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
231 H Street
Bakersfield, CA 93304
Kudzubitcwanap Palap Tribe
The Honorable Robert Gomez, Chairman
2619 Driller Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93306
Mike Warner, President
Kern County Historical Society
PO Box 141
Bakersfield, CA 93302
Kathy Montes-Morgan, Chairperson
Tejon Indian Tribe
2234 4th Street
Wasco, CA 93280
Dr. Robert Arias, Superintendent
Bakersfield City School District
1300 Baker Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
Carol A. Pulido
15011 Lockwood Valley Rd.
Frazier Park, CA 93225
Delia Dominguez
Kitanemuk and Yowlumne Tejon Indians
P.O. Box 10766
Bakersfield, CA 93389
Richard Chapman, Chairman/CEO
Kern Economic Development Corporation
2700 M Street, Suite 200
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Tule River Indian Tribe
Neil Peyron, Chairperson
P.O. Box 589
Porterville, CA 93258
Hall Ambulance
1001 21st Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Monache Inter-Tribal Association
Ronald Wermuth
P.O. Box 168
Kernville, CA 93238
Chumash Indian Council of Bakersfield
Julio Quair, Chairperson
729 Texas Street
Bakersfield, CA 93307
Robert Robinson, Co-Chairman
Kern Valley Indian Councils
P.O. 401
Weldon, CA 93283
Christine Lizardi Frazier, Superintendent
Kern County Superintendent of Schools 1300 17th Street –
CITY CENTRE
Bakersfield, CA 93301-4533
Nancy Kerr, Director of Libraries
Kern County Library
701 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
David Laughing Horse Robinson, Chairman
Kawaiisu Tribe
P.O. Box 1547
Kernville, CA 93238
Tomeka Powell, President/CEO
Kern County Black Chamber of Commerce
1309 L Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Ruben Barrios, Chairman
Santa Rosa Rancheria
P.O. Box 8
Lemoore, CA 93245
Robert Gomez, Chairperson
Tubatulabals of Kern Valley
P.O. Box 226
Lake Isabella, CA 93240
Michahai Wukasachi Band of Eshom Valley
Kenneth Woodrow
1179 Rock Haven Ct.
Salinas, CA 93906
Nicholas Ortiz, President/CEO
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
1725 Eye Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Karen King, CEO
Golden Empire Transit District
1830 Golden State Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Bryon Schaefer, Superintendent
Kern High School District
5801 Sundale Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Sierra Club
Kern-Kaweah Chapter
P.O. Box 3357
Bakersfield, CA 93385
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 81
Chapter 6 References
The following documents were used in the preparation of this Recirculated Environmental
Impact Report:
American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials, 2010. Highway Safety Manual.
1,296 pages.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1997. Moving Forward. Metropolitan Bakersfield Major
Transportation Investment Strategy. Final Strategy Report. Prepared for City of
Bakersfield, County of Kern, Kern Council of Governments, Golden Empire Transit
District, California Department of Transportation and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District. 58 pages. December 29.
Barton-Aschman Associates, 1986. Route 178 Corridor Study. Prepared for Kern Council of
Governments, Caltrans and the City of Bakersfield. 110 pages. December.
Caltrans, 2015. Highway Design Manual. 786 pages. July 1.
Caltrans and City of Bakersfield, 2013. 24th Street Improvement Project. Final Environmental
Impact Report/Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact and
Section 4(f) Evaluation. Volume 1 of 2. 638 pages. December.
Caltrans and City of Bakersfield, 2013 Final Relocation Impact Statement. Project ID: NCIIPLN
5109(111), NCIIPLN 5109 (110) 59 pages. June.
Caltrans and City of Bakersfield, 2012. 24th Street Improvement Project. Draft Environmental
Impact Report/Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact and
Section 4(f) Evaluation. Volume 1 of 2. 590 pages. May.
City of Bakersfield. 2014. Administrative Report, February 12.
City of Bakersfield, 2009. Screening Criteria Report.
City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, 2002. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Adopted
on December 11, 2002. Effective February 26, 2003. 182 pages. December.
Federal Highway Administration, 2004. Road Safety Fundamentals. 120 pages. July.
Kern Council of Governments, 2010. 2011 Final Regional Transportation Plan. 317 pages.
July 15, 2010.
Parsons, 2009. Hageman Road Extension to Golden State Avenue Traffic Report. Volume 1 of 2.
264 pages. July.
RBF Consulting, 2011a. Supplemental Project Study Report to Request for Conceptual Approval.
On Route 58 and 178 in Bakersfield, Kern County. 06-Ker-178-PM 0.36/2.11 24th Street
Widening. Draft. 219 pages. November.
Chapter 6 References
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 82
RBF Consulting, 2011b. Supplemental Project Study Report to Request for Conceptual
Approval. On Route 58, 99 and 178 in Bakersfield, Kern County, Between Gibson Street
and Olive Street. 06-Ker-58, 099, 178-PM 51.26/51.82, PM24.9/25.7, PN0.0/0.43
Construct Interchange at Oak Street. Draft. 173 pages. November.
RBF Consulting, 2011. Supplemental Project Study Report to Request for Conceptual Approval.
On Route 178 (24th and 23rd Street) Oak Street to M Street – Widen Existing Highway.
06-Ker-178-PM 0.4/1.9. 298 pages. June.
URS Corporation, 2005a. Project Study Report (Project Development Support) State Route 178
in Bakersfield, Kern County between Oak Street and D Street. Widen to Six Lanes. 219
pages. June.
URS Corporation, 2005b. Project Study Report (Project Development Support) Construct
Interchange at Oak Street. On Route 178 in Bakersfield, Kern County Between 0.3
Kilometer West of Oak Street and 0.3 Kilometer East of Oak Street. 06-Ker-178-KP
0.3/0.9. 173 pages. June.
URS Corporation, 2002. Bakersfield System Study. Summary Report. Prepared for Kern Council
of Governments, City of Bakersfield, County of Kern and Caltrans. 52 pages. December.
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 83
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft
Environmental Impact Report
To comply with the court’s ruling, the City of Bakersfield has decertified the Final
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (December 2013) in September 2015.
The December 2013 environmental document is now referred to as the 2015 Draft
Environmental Impact Report (2015 DEIR). Actual revisions to the 2015 DEIR to analyze the
effects on various environmental resources of adding six cul-de-sacs on the south side of 24th St
between Olive Street and D Street (for a total of eight) to the project description are presented
herein.
The bold colored text indicates the paragraph and page number in the 2015 DEIR where the
revised text belongs. Deleted text is shown in strikethrough (example); and inserted (added) text
is underlined (example). Sections of the 2015 DEIR are presented in the same order as they
appear in the original document, starting with the Summary, and continuing with Chapters 1
through 6, followed by the Appendices.
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 84
Revision to “Summary” Section of the 2015 Draft Environmental
Impact Report
Paragraph 3 on page i is revised as follows:
This Final R-DEIR/Environmental Assessment has been prepared based on receipt of
comments from the public and reviewing agencies, and direction from the Court. The City of
Bakersfield and Caltrans have undertaken additional studies to address comments as needed.
The following project design changes planned between Olive Street and D Street were made
as a direct result of input from local residents:
Paragraph 2 on page ii is revised as follows:
Responses to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Assessment are included in Volume 2. Alternative 1 has been identified as the preferred
alternative to move forward, and the rationale is explained in Chapter 1, Identification of a
Preferred Alternative. In addition, a Notice of Determination will be signed and provided to
the State Clearinghouse for publishing, in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (see SCH # 2008041070). To comply with NEPA, Caltrans, as NEPA lead
agency has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) which is included in this final
environmental document. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Finding of No Significant
Impact was sent to the affected agencies of federal, state, and local government, and to the
State Clearinghouse in compliance with Executive Order 12372.
Section S.1 - Overview of Project Area
Paragraph 1 on page iii is revised as follows:
On November 14, 2012, the City by Resolution (No. 128-12) conditionally agreed to allow
cul-de-sacs of six streets on the south side of 24th Street between Beech Street and A Street as
a separate City project. The six cul-de-sacs were subsequently included in Alternative 1 –
Widen to the North (preferred alternative). The conditions require the following: 1) all
property owners along the affected street between 24th and 22nd Street must agree to the
closure by signing a petition, and 2) directly affected property owners must agree to donate
sufficient land to construct the six cul-de-sacs to City standards. On January 22, 2014,
Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 128-12 amended City policy to allow any street
identified in Resolution No. 128-12 in which 75 percent of property owners requested by
petition a cul-de-sac, to have that request come before the City staff for further consideration,
and ultimately to the City Council for approval.
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 85
Section S.2 - Purpose and Need
New subsection added on page iii following subsection on Need (before S.3 Proposed
Action):
Objectives
The primary objective of the 24th Street Improvement Project is to address existing traffic
congestion and future travel demand through 2035 along the 24th Street corridor from State
Route 99 to M Street. In the recent past, growth in Kern County has been concentrated in
metropolitan Bakersfield. Between 2000 and 2009, for example, growth in the City of
Bakersfield ranged from 1.1 to 5.2 percent per year, while overall county growth ranged from
1.2 to 3.2 percent. As the city grows, the amount of traffic also grows. The project would
relieve traffic congestion along the 24th Street corridor through 2035. Relieving traffic
congestion would, in turn, reduce energy consumption and reduce vehicle emissions of air
pollutants.
Other project objectives include: (1) maintaining consistency with regional transportation
planning objectives; (2) maintaining or enhancing traffic safety in the community; (3)
minimizing project effects on historic districts and structures; (4) minimizing disruption of
established residential districts, and (5) providing cost-effective transportation improvements
to the community.
Section S.3 - Proposed Action
Paragraph 1 on page vi is revised as follows:
Unique Features of the Build Alternatives
Alternatives 1 and 2 would include the above design features, but would differ where 24th
Street is widened to the north or south. Alternative 1 would widen 24th Street to the north of
its existing alignment, and add eight cul-de-sacs (two of which were a part of the project
description presented in the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report, and six new ones) on
the south side. Alternative 2 would widen 24th Street to the south of the existing roadway
alignment and would include two cul-de-sacs on the south side. The two build alternatives are
summarized below.
Paragraph 2 on page vi is revised as follows:
Alternative 1 (Widen to the North)
Alternative 1 would widen 24th Street to the north and encompass the State Route 99
interchange and auxiliary lane, Oak Street/24th Street intersection, 24th Street widening to the
north, and the 23rd Street/24th Street couplet area. Widening to the north along 24th Street
would add two travel lanes (one in each direction). The proposed centerline of the roadway
alignment would be shifted north of the existing alignment about 17 feet, which would
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 86
minimize the right-of-way acquisition on the south side of 24th Street required for the roadway
widening. In addition, this alternative would convert eight side streets on the south side of 24th
Street into cul-de-sacs. Impacts include full and partial right-of-way acquisitions and
reconstruction of Carrier Canal on the north and south sides of 24th Street.
Table S.1 on pages ix through xv is revised as follows:
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Er
r
a
t
a
S
h
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
87
Ta
b
l
e
S
.
1
.
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
f
r
o
m
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
No
-
B
u
i
l
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
(N
o
-
B
u
i
l
d
)
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
(W
i
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
N
o
r
t
h
)
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
(W
i
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
)
La
n
d
U
s
e
/
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
3
.
3
3
3.
3
9
a
c
r
e
s
)
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
0
.
1
ac
r
e
s
)
Pa
r
t
i
a
l
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
(
1
.
3
6
1
.
3
8
a
c
r
e
s
)
Fu
l
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
(
5
.
0
7
a
c
r
e
s
)
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
(3
.
2
5
a
c
r
e
s
)
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
0
.
1
ac
r
e
s
)
Pa
r
t
i
a
l
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
(
1
.
5
2
a
c
r
e
s
)
Fu
l
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
(
5
.
2
1
a
c
r
e
s
)
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
w
i
t
h
S
t
a
t
e
,
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
,
a
n
d
L
o
c
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
No
t
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
go
a
l
s
a
n
d
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
o
f
th
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
B
a
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
g
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
g
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
o
f
th
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
B
a
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
Pa
r
k
s
a
n
d
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
B
e
a
c
h
Pa
r
k
(
0
.
1
1
a
c
r
e
o
f
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
)
a
n
d
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
(
0
.
3
7
a
c
r
e
)
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
Ke
r
n
R
i
v
e
r
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
B
i
k
e
T
r
a
i
l
.
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
0
.
8
a
c
r
e
o
f
B
e
a
c
h
Pa
r
k
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
(
n
o
n
-
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
r
e
a
)
.
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
a
n
d
Co
h
e
s
i
o
n
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
r
o
a
d
d
e
t
o
u
r
s
,
a
c
c
e
s
s
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
d
e
l
a
y
s
.
No
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
Re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
23
f
u
l
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
2
9
4
1
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
pa
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
23
f
u
l
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
2
1
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
pa
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
Re
m
o
v
a
l
o
r
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
9
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
w
o
o
d
e
n
po
w
e
r
p
o
l
e
s
,
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
g
a
s
l
i
n
e
s
a
n
d
wa
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
s
/
w
e
l
l
p
u
m
p
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
s
e
v
e
n
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
n
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
c
o
n
d
u
i
t
b
o
x
a
n
d
o
n
e
in
a
c
t
i
v
e
1
0
-
i
n
c
h
o
i
l
p
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
.
Re
m
o
v
a
l
o
r
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
6
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
wo
o
d
e
n
p
o
w
e
r
p
o
l
e
s
,
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
g
a
s
li
n
e
s
a
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
s
/
w
el
l
p
u
m
p
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
at
s
i
x
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
n
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
c
o
n
d
u
i
t
b
o
x
an
d
o
n
e
i
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
1
0
-
i
n
c
h
o
i
l
p
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Er
r
a
t
a
S
h
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
88
Ta
b
l
e
S
.
1
.
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
f
r
o
m
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
(
C
o
n
t
’
d
)
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
No
-
B
u
i
l
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
(N
o
-
B
u
i
l
d
)
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
(W
i
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
N
o
r
t
h
)
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
(W
i
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
)
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
De
l
a
y
e
d
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
i
m
e
s
f
o
r
p
o
l
i
c
e
,
f
i
r
e
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
d
u
e
t
o
s
h
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
d
e
l
a
y
s
a
n
d
in
t
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
n
t
r
o
a
d
d
e
t
o
u
r
s
.
No
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
e
x
p
a
n
d
e
d
ve
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
.
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
a
n
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
/
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
an
d
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
de
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
s
t
r
e
e
t
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
s
,
d
e
l
a
y
s
,
o
r
d
e
t
o
u
r
s
t
o
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
No
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
Vi
s
u
a
l
/
A
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
Vi
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
,
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
t
a
g
i
n
g
,
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
,
s
a
f
e
t
y
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
K
e
r
n
R
i
v
e
r
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
B
i
k
e
T
r
a
i
l
,
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
d
u
s
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Lo
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
h
a
r
d
s
c
a
p
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
,
re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
r
e
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
o
f
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
of
2
4
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
a
n
d
ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
ap
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
.
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
2
4
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
24
:
A
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
of
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
d
w
i
t
h
b
y
t
h
e
St
a
t
e
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
,
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
f
9
f
u
l
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
7
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
,
6
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
)
,
a
n
d
1
2
T
C
E
s
(
3
o
n
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
f
r
o
m
ad
d
i
n
g
s
i
x
c
u
l
-
d
e
-
s
a
c
s
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
h
a
s
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
1
6
(
6
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
t
h
e
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
2
4
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
:
A
fi
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
d
wi
t
h
b
y
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Of
f
i
c
e
r
,
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
f
2
2
f
u
l
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
0
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
,
1
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
,
2
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
T
C
E
s
(
2
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
,
a
n
d
9
T
C
E
s
(
4
o
n
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
.
T
h
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
1
6
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
24
Th
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
s
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
t
o
b
e
N
a
t
i
on
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
-
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
o
f
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
n
l
y
a
s
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
.
1
.6
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Er
r
a
t
a
S
h
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
89
Ta
b
l
e
S
.
1
.
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
f
r
o
m
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
(
C
o
n
t
’
d
)
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
No
-
B
u
i
l
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
(N
o
-
B
u
i
l
d
)
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
(W
i
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
N
o
r
t
h
)
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
(W
i
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
)
nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
T
C
E
s
t
o
1
8
(
5
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
.
T
h
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
11
1
3
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
2
5
ab
o
u
t
3
6
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
t
o
b
e
i
n
t
h
e
A
r
e
a
o
f
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
f
f
e
c
t
(A
P
E
)
a
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
1
0
1
1
p
e
r
c
en
t
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
s
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
s
a
w
h
o
l
e
(
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
8
5
%
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
1
5
%
no
n
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
)
.
On
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
u
n
d
w
a
l
l
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
th
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
,
b
u
t
i
s
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
h
a
v
e
mi
n
i
m
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
ha
r
d
s
c
a
p
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
.
In
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
f
o
u
r
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
l
y
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
:
B
u
n
g
a
l
o
w
C
o
u
r
t
a
t
2
1
0
0
2
3
rd
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
u
n
g
a
l
o
w
C
o
u
r
t
a
t
2
3
0
0
D
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
u
n
g
a
l
o
w
C
o
u
r
t
a
t
2
2
1
0
D
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
(
H
e
a
l
t
h
l
a
n
d
)
a
t
2
3
2
3
E
St
r
e
e
t
.
Th
e
r
e
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
n
o
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
o
r
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
di
r
e
c
t
o
r
i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
s
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
.
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
N
o
r
t
h
o
f
2
4
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
25
:
A
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
of
n
o
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
w
a
s
co
n
c
u
r
r
e
d
w
i
t
h
b
y
t
h
e
St
a
t
e
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
,
w
h
i
c
h
co
n
s
i
s
t
s
o
f
1
2
f
u
l
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
5
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
,
2
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
)
,
a
n
d
1
4
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
3
6
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
AP
E
a
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
1
6
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
s
a
w
h
o
l
e
(b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
8
5
%
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
1
5
%
n
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
o
th
e
s
o
u
t
h
)
.
F
i
v
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
u
n
d
wa
l
l
s
a
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
so
u
t
h
,
b
u
t
a
r
e
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
h
a
v
e
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
t
o
mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
v
i
e
w
s
h
e
d
ba
s
e
d
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
h
a
r
d
s
c
a
p
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
an
d
v
i
e
w
s
h
e
d
a
t
t
h
o
s
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
In
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
f
o
u
r
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
l
y
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
:
B
u
n
g
a
l
o
w
C
o
u
r
t
a
t
2
1
0
0
2
3
rd
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
u
n
g
a
l
o
w
C
o
u
r
t
a
t
2
3
0
0
D
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
u
n
g
a
l
o
w
C
o
u
r
t
a
t
2
2
1
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
a
n
d
th
e
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
(
H
e
a
l
t
h
l
a
n
d
)
a
t
23
2
3
E
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
Th
e
r
e
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
n
o
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
o
r
te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
d
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
th
e
s
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
.
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
N
o
r
t
h
o
f
2
4
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
:
A
fi
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
n
o
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
w
a
s
co
n
c
u
r
r
e
d
w
i
t
h
b
y
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
,
w
h
i
c
h
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
o
f
1
fu
l
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
n
a
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
n
o
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
25
Th
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
s
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
t
o
b
e
N
a
t
i
on
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
-
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
o
f
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
n
l
y
a
s
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
.
1
.6
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Er
r
a
t
a
S
h
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
90
Ta
b
l
e
S
.
1
.
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
f
r
o
m
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
(
C
o
n
t
’
d
)
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
No
-
B
u
i
l
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
(N
o
-
B
u
i
l
d
)
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
(W
i
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
N
o
r
t
h
)
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
(W
i
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
)
TC
E
s
(
2
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
.
T
h
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
8
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
1
8
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
A
P
E
a
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
3
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
s
a
w
h
o
l
e
(b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
7
5
%
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
2
5
%
n
o
n
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
)
.
Fi
v
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
u
n
d
w
a
l
l
s
a
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
th
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
,
b
u
t
a
r
e
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
h
a
v
e
mi
n
i
m
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
ha
r
d
s
c
a
p
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
.
an
d
3
T
C
E
s
(
2
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
.
T
h
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
to
t
h
e
3
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
7
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
A
P
E
a
n
d
ab
o
u
t
1
6
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
th
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
s
a
w
h
o
l
e
(
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
7
5
%
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
an
d
2
5
%
n
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
)
.
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
S
t
o
r
m
Wa
t
e
r
R
u
n
o
f
f
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
o
f
4
a
c
r
e
s
o
f
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
a
r
e
a
an
d
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
c
a
u
s
e
d
b
y
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
a
f
f
e
c
t
th
e
K
e
r
n
R
i
v
e
r
;
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
b
e
s
t
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
re
d
u
c
e
p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
a
n
d
t
r
e
a
t
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
r
u
n
o
f
f
.
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
b
y
re
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
C
a
r
r
i
e
r
C
a
n
a
l
;
a
te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
c
o
n
d
u
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
b
u
i
l
t
t
o
di
v
e
r
t
f
l
o
w
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
Pa
l
e
o
n
t
o
l
o
g
y
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
r
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
w
a
l
l
s
,
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
n
s
io
n
o
f
C
a
r
r
i
e
r
C
a
n
a
l
i
s
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
r
e
a
c
h
d
e
p
t
h
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
5
f
e
e
t
,
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
i
n
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
Pl
e
i
s
t
o
c
e
n
e
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
t
o
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s
i
gn
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
n
o
n
r
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
pa
l
e
o
n
t
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
y
a
r
e
a
.
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
W
a
s
t
e
/
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
Us
e
o
f
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
a
g
e
n
t
s
,
s
o
l
v
e
n
t
s
,
p
a
i
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
ot
h
e
r
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
;
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
pa
i
n
t
s
t
r
i
p
e
s
a
n
d
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
-
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
th
a
t
m
a
y
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
;
a
e
r
i
a
l
l
y
de
p
o
s
i
t
e
d
l
e
a
d
i
n
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
f
r
o
m
p
a
s
t
u
s
e
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
e
x
c
e
p
t
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
/
of
1
6
w
o
o
d
e
n
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
p
o
l
e
s
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
co
n
t
a
i
n
c
r
e
o
s
o
t
e
;
a
n
d
,
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
o
f
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Er
r
a
t
a
S
h
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
91
Ta
b
l
e
S
.
1
.
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
f
r
o
m
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
(
C
o
n
t
’
d
)
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
No
-
B
u
i
l
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
(N
o
-
B
u
i
l
d
)
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
(W
i
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
N
o
r
t
h
)
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
(W
i
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
)
of
l
e
a
d
e
d
f
u
e
l
s
f
r
o
m
s
o
i
l
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
;
re
m
o
v
a
l
/
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
9
w
o
o
d
e
n
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
p
o
l
e
s
th
a
t
m
a
y
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
c
r
e
o
s
o
t
e
;
a
n
d
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
o
f
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
As
b
e
s
t
o
s
-
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
o
n
p
r
e
-
1
9
7
8
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
.
No
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Ad
v
e
r
s
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
a
i
r
p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
d
u
s
t
f
r
o
m
gr
a
d
i
n
g
/
s
i
t
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
ex
h
a
u
s
t
.
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
No
i
s
e
14
o
f
1
3
2
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
r
s
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
y
a
r
e
a
wo
u
l
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
o
r
ex
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
n
o
i
s
e
ab
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
25
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
e
i
t
h
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
o
r
e
x
c
e
e
d
th
e
n
o
i
s
e
a
b
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
o
r
h
a
v
e
a
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
n
o
i
s
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
o
f
1
2
d
B
A
o
r
m
o
r
e
.
22
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
e
i
t
h
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
o
r
ex
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
n
o
i
s
e
a
b
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
o
r
ha
v
e
a
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
n
o
i
s
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
o
f
1
2
dB
A
o
r
m
o
r
e
.
Na
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
In
d
i
r
e
c
t
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
u
n
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
e
d
st
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
a
n
d
s
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
/
w
i
l
l
o
w
w
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
d
u
e
to
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
d
u
s
t
,
n
o
i
s
e
,
a
n
d
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
k
.
No
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
We
t
l
a
n
d
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
s
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
0.
0
7
5
a
c
r
e
o
f
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
a
n
d
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
.
0.
4
2
a
c
r
e
o
f
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
U
.
S
.
A
r
m
y
Co
r
p
s
o
f
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
w
a
t
e
r
s
.
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
An
i
m
a
l
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
b
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
s
,
i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
o
n
c
r
e
v
i
c
e
-
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
a
n
i
m
a
l
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
im
p
e
d
e
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
r
o
o
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
t
e
s
d
u
e
t
o
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
K
e
r
n
R
i
v
e
r
B
r
i
d
g
e
,
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Er
r
a
t
a
S
h
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
92
Ta
b
l
e
S
.
1
.
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
f
r
o
m
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
(
C
o
n
t
’
d
)
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
No
-
B
u
i
l
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
(N
o
-
B
u
i
l
d
)
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
(W
i
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
N
o
r
t
h
)
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
(W
i
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
)
an
d
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
b
a
t
c
o
l
o
n
i
e
s
.
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
t
o
fr
a
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
b
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
an
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
l
o
s
s
,
i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
t
o
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
m
i
g
r
a
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
b
i
r
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
fr
a
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
l
o
s
s
,
a
n
d
i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
im
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
b
r
i
d
g
e
-
a
n
d
c
r
e
v
i
c
e
-
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
a
n
i
m
a
l
sp
e
c
i
e
s
.
Th
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d
a
n
d
En
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
1
.
0
7
a
c
r
e
s
o
f
ru
d
e
r
a
l
/
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
b
a
r
r
e
n
g
r
o
u
n
d
)
ha
b
i
t
a
t
,
w
h
i
c
h
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
b
o
t
h
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
a
g
i
n
g
an
d
d
e
n
n
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
S
a
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
k
i
t
f
o
x
.
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
c
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
a
n
d
in
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
S
a
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
k
i
t
f
o
x
e
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
l
o
s
s
o
f
1
.
2
1
a
c
r
e
s
o
f
r
u
d
e
r
a
l
/
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
(i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
b
a
r
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
)
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
1.
0
4
a
c
r
e
s
o
f
r
u
d
e
r
a
l
/
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
(i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
b
a
r
r
e
n
g
r
o
u
n
d
)
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
,
w
h
i
c
h
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
b
o
t
h
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
a
g
i
n
g
a
n
d
de
n
n
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
S
a
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
k
i
t
fo
x
.
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
s
a
m
e
a
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
In
v
a
s
i
v
e
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
t
o
sp
r
e
a
d
i
n
v
a
s
i
v
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
du
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
;
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
wo
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
.
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
No
i
m
p
a
c
t
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
x
T
h
o
m
a
s
R
o
a
d
s
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
c
o
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
S
a
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
k
i
t
f
o
x
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
an
d
d
e
n
l
o
s
s
,
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
r
a
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
f
o
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
t
r
i
k
e
.
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 93
Revision to “Chapter 1 – Proposed Project” of the 2015 Draft
Environmental Impact Report
Section 1.1 – Introduction
Paragraph 1 on page 1 is revised as follows:
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), as assigned by the Federal Highway
Administration, in cooperation with the City, proposes to widen roadways, and make
interchange improvements on State Route 58 west of State Route 99, and on State Route 178
east of State Route 99, and install new cul-de-sacs in the City of Bakersfield in Kern County.
This stretch of highway is collectively referred to as 24th Street.
Section 1.3 – Alternatives
Introductory text on page 9 is revised as follows:
1.3 Alternatives
This section describes the proposed project alternatives selected for detailed consideration in
this document: the No-Build Alternative and two Build Alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2).
The section also describes the identification of the Locally Preferred Alternative and the
Preferred Alternative, respectively. Lastly, this section describes 10 alternatives that were
considered but eliminated prior to detailed evaluation, and the reasons for rejecting these
alternatives.
The proposed project was initially two separate projects. One project consisted of a new
intersection at State Route 178 and Oak Street, and the other project consisted of the widening
of State Route 178 between Oak Street and D Street. The two projects were combined to
become the project discussed in this document.
The alternatives were developed by the Project Design Team through preparation of two
Project Study Reports in 2005 and two Supplemental Project Study Reports in 2009. The
Supplemental Project Study Reports identified two build alternatives along 24th Street and
23rd Street and an at-grade intersection alternative at Oak Street and 24th Street. These
alternatives were determined to be the most viable. The rationale for inclusion of
Alternatives 1 and 2 is based on the following four threshold criteria for selecting alternatives
to be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines
15126.6(a). Viable alternatives should: (a) avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the
significant environmental impacts of the project as proposed; (b) attain most or all of the basic
project objectives; (c) be potentially feasible; and (d) be reasonable and realistic. These
criteria need not, however, be given equal weight. For example, the ability of an alternative to
achieve the basic objectives of the project is key – there would be little value in pursuing a
project that would not accomplish the objectives. On the other hand, an alternative that did not
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 94
substantially lessen a significant environmental impact might still deserve detailed
consideration in the Environmental Impact Report. engineering, environmental protection,
and cost. Adding capacity to an existing road to relieve traffic congestion involves some
combination of widening to one or both sides of the road. Alternatives 1 and 2 were
developed to minimize environmental impacts.
Comments received during the Draft Environmental Impact Report / Environmental
Assessment public circulation period requested that a number of project modifications be
incorporated into the roadway design. These public-requested modifications would provide
safety benefits by improving traffic circulation and would enhance the character of the
neighborhood. Modifications to the project design are incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment.
Section 1.3.1 Build Alternatives
The first full paragraph on page 19 is revised as follows:
Alternative 1 (Widen to the North)
Alternative 1 would widen 24th Street between Olive Street and D Street to the north, adding
two travel lanes (one in each direction). See Figures 1-7, 1-8, and 1-9. The proposed
centerline of the roadway alignment would be shifted north of the existing alignment about
17 feet, which would minimize the right-of-way acquisition on the south side of 24th Street
required for the roadway widening. Eleven driveways along the north side of 24th Street
would be eliminated. Eight cul-de-sacs would be constructed on side streets on the south side
of 24th Street. The impacts include reconstruction of Carrier Canal on the north and south
sides of 24th Street to accommodate the widening. The parkway (the area between the travel
lanes and sidewalks, ordinarily used as a planting area) on the north side, between Olive
Street and Carrier Canal, would vary in width from 10 feet to 15 feet to accommodate sight
distance at Olive Street. Carrier Canal would be extended on the north and south sides of 24th
Street to accommodate widening of 24th Street. The north side would require about 10 feet of
culvert extension in addition to reconstructing about 30 feet of transition area; the south side
would require about 100 feet of culvert extension in addition to reconstructing about 30 feet
of transition.
Figures 1-7 and 1-8 are revised as shown to include six additional cul-de-sacs.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Er
r
a
t
a
S
h
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
95
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
-
7
.
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
,
W
i
de
n
t
o
t
h
e
N
o
r
t
h
–
W
e
s
t
o
f
Oa
k
S
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
C
e
d
a
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Er
r
a
t
a
S
h
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
96
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
-
8
.
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
,
W
i
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
N
o
r
t
h
–
C
e
d
a
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
E
y
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 97
Section 1.3.3 – Comparison of Alternatives
Paragraph 3 on page 34 is revised as follows:
Alternative 1 would result in 110 123 temporary construction easements, 23 full residential
parcel acquisitions, and 29 41 partial parcel acquisitions (1426 residential, 12 nonresidential,
and 3 vacant). Alternative 2 would result in 95 temporary construction easements, 23 full
residential parcel acquisitions, and 21 partial parcel acquisitions (7 residential, 11
nonresidential, and 3 vacant).
Paragraph 6 on page 34 is revised as follows:
Alternatives 1 and 2 would affect two historic districts north and south of 24th Street which
are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places for the purposes of this
undertaking only. Specifically, Alternative 1 would result in 12 full parcel and 2 partial parcel
acquisitions; and 14 temporary construction easements in the historic district north of 24th
Street,; 9 full parcels and 6 16 partial parcel acquisitions; and 12 18 temporary construction
easements in the historic district south of 24th Street.
Table 1.3 on page 39 is revised as shown herein.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Er
r
a
t
a
S
h
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
98
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
3
.
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
Bu
i
l
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
B
u
i
l
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
No
-
B
u
i
l
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Me
e
t
s
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
a
n
d
n
e
e
d
/
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
Ye
s
Y
e
s
N
o
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
i
n
/
o
u
t
p
o
i
n
t
s
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
1
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
s
o
n
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
of
2
4
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
0
0
Re
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
le
a
s
t
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
f
r
o
m
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
f
u
l
l
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
23
(T
o
t
a
l
i
n
g
2
2
0
,
8
9
9
s
q
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
o
r
5
.
0
7
a
c
r
e
s
)
23
(T
o
t
a
l
i
n
g
2
2
7
,
0
1
5
s
q
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
o
r
5
.
2
1
a
c
r
e
s
)
0
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
29
4
1
(T
o
t
a
l
i
n
g
5
9
,
6
4
5
6
0
,
4
2
2
sq
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
o
r
1
.
3
6
1.
3
8
a
c
r
e
s
)
21
(T
o
t
a
l
i
n
g
6
6
,
2
1
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
o
r
1
.
5
1
a
c
r
e
s
)
0
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
(T
C
E
s
)
11
0
1
2
3
(T
o
t
a
l
i
n
g
1
4
5
,
2
4
9
1
4
7
,
8
2
3
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
o
r
3
.
3
3
3.
3
9
a
c
r
e
s
)
95
(T
o
t
a
l
i
n
g
1
4
1
,
9
8
1
9
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
o
r
3
.
2
5
ac
r
e
s
)
0
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
3
(T
o
t
a
l
i
n
g
4
,
5
1
6
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
o
r
0
.
1
a
c
r
e
s
)
3
(T
o
t
a
l
i
n
g
4
,
5
1
6
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
o
r
0
.
1
a
c
r
e
s
)
0
Re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
4
9
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
A
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
4
9
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
0
No
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
0
0
0
Vi
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
$4
4
.
4
$
4
4
.
6
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
$4
5
.
2
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
$
0
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
F
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
f
f
e
c
t
s
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
12
f
u
l
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
5
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
,
2
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
)
,
a
n
d
1
4
T
C
E
s
(
2
o
n
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
.
T
h
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
8
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
1
8
%
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
A
P
E
a
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
3
%
o
f
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
s
a
w
h
o
l
e
(b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
7
5
%
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
t
o
2
5
%
n
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
no
r
t
h
)
.
F
i
v
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
u
n
d
w
a
l
l
s
a
r
e
lo
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
,
b
u
t
a
r
e
li
k
e
l
y
t
o
h
a
v
e
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
co
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
h
a
r
d
s
c
a
p
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
pr
e
s
e
n
t
.
1
f
u
l
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
n
o
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
3
TC
E
s
(
2
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
.
T
h
e
di
r
e
c
t
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
3
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
7
%
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
A
P
E
a
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
16
%
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
s
a
wh
o
l
e
(
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
75
%
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
t
o
2
5
%
n
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
no
r
t
h
)
.
T
w
o
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
u
n
d
w
a
l
l
s
a
r
e
lo
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
,
b
u
t
a
r
e
li
k
e
l
y
t
o
h
a
v
e
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
co
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
h
a
r
d
s
c
a
p
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
pr
e
s
e
n
t
.
0
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Er
r
a
t
a
S
h
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
99
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
3
.
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
o
f
P
r
oj
e
c
t
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
(
C
o
n
t
’
d
)
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
Bu
i
l
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
B
u
i
l
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
No
-Bu
i
l
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
o
u
t
h
o
f
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
9
f
u
l
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
7 c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
,
6
1
6
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
6
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
)
,
a
n
d
1
2
1
8
T
C
E
s
(
3
on
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
.
T
h
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
1
1
1
3
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
a
b
o
u
t
3
6
2
5
%
o
f
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
A
P
E
an
d
a
b
o
u
t
1
0
1
1
%
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
s
a
w
h
o
l
e
(
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
ra
t
i
o
o
f
8
5
%
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
t
o
1
5
%
no
n
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
)
.
O
n
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
so
u
n
d
w
a
l
l
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
so
u
t
h
,
b
u
t
i
s
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
h
a
v
e
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
du
e
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
h
a
r
d
s
c
a
p
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
.
22
f
u
l
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
0
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
,
1
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
,
2
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
pa
r
c
e
l
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
2
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
,
a
n
d
9
T
C
E
s
(
4
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
)
.
T
h
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
th
e
1
6
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
36
%
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
th
e
A
P
E
a
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
1
6
%
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
s
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
s
a
w
h
o
l
e
(
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
7
5
%
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
t
o
25
%
n
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
)
.
F
o
u
r
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
s
o
u
n
d
w
a
l
l
s
a
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
,
b
u
t
a
r
e
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
h
a
v
e
mi
n
i
m
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
ha
r
d
s
c
a
p
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
.
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
f
o
u
r
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
:
T
h
r
e
e
Bu
n
g
a
l
o
w
C
o
u
r
t
s
a
n
d
on
e
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
No
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
o
r
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
u
s
e
o
f
l
a
n
d
f
r
o
m
th
e
t
h
r
e
e
B
u
n
g
a
l
o
w
C
o
u
r
t
s
(
2
1
0
0
2
3
rd
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
23
0
0
D
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
a
n
d
2
2
1
0
D
S
t
r
e
e
t
)
o
r
t
h
e
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
o
f
f
i
c
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
(
H
e
a
l
t
h
l
a
n
d
)
a
t
23
2
3
E
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
a
l
l
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
a
s
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
.
No
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
o
r
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
u
s
e
o
f
l
a
n
d
f
r
o
m
th
e
t
h
r
e
e
B
u
n
g
a
l
o
w
C
o
u
r
t
s
(
2
1
0
0
2
3
rd
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
23
0
0
D
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
a
n
d
2
2
1
0
D
S
t
r
e
e
t
)
o
r
t
h
e
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
o
f
f
i
c
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
(
H
e
a
l
t
h
l
a
n
d
)
a
t
23
2
3
E
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
a
l
l
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
a
s
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
.
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4
(
f
)
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Be
a
c
h
P
a
r
k
0.
1
1
a
c
r
e
(
a
c
)
T
C
E
,
0
.
8
a
c
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
0.
1
1
a
c
T
C
E
,
0
.
8
a
c
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
0
Ke
r
n
R
i
v
e
r
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Bi
k
e
T
r
a
i
l
0.
3
7
a
c
T
C
E
0
.
3
7
a
c
T
C
E
0
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
(s
e
e
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
b
o
v
e
)
(
s
e
e
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
b
o
v
e
)
0
No
i
s
e
Se
v
e
n
s
o
u
n
d
w
a
l
l
s
(
1
0
5
9
f
e
e
t
t
o
t
a
l
l
e
n
g
t
h
)
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
;
a
l
l
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
e
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
.
Se
v
e
n
s
o
u
n
d
w
a
l
l
s
(
7
2
4
f
e
e
t
t
o
t
a
l
l
e
n
g
t
h
)
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
;
o
n
e
s
o
u
n
d
w
a
l
l
(
1
0
0
f
e
e
t
i
n
le
n
g
t
h
)
w
a
s
n
o
t
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
a
l
l
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
e
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
0
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
o
r
e
x
c
e
e
d
n
o
i
s
e
a
b
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
at
2
5
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
;
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
ab
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
o
r
e
x
c
e
e
d
n
o
i
s
e
a
b
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
at
2
2
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
;
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
ab
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
14
No
t
e
s
:
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
s
t
s
a
r
e
i
n
2
0
1
4
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
.
Ac
=
a
c
r
e
;
T
C
E
=
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 100
Section 1.3.5 - Locally Preferred Alternative
Paragraph 1 on page 44 is revised as follows:
Ability to Meet the Project Objectives
As stated in Section 1.2.1 and repeated here, the purpose of the project is to address existing
traffic congestion and future travel growth demand (amount of additional traffic expected by
2035) along 24th Street. The project area extends from southbound State Route 99 to just east
of M Street, including 23rd Street and 24th Street within the couplet (a pair of one-way streets).
Other project objectives (Section 1.2.3) are to maintain consistency with regional
transportation planning objectives; maintain or enhance traffic safety; minimize effects on
historic resources; minimize disruption of existing residential districts; and provide cost-
effective transportation improvements.
The following text is added to page 44 after the last paragraph:
Alternatives 1 and 2 would both also be consistent with regional transportation planning
objectives, which call for increased capacity along the 24th Street corridor. These alternatives
would both maintain traffic safety along 24th Street by providing state-of-the art facilities in
compliance with City and Caltrans design standards. By widening only one side of the street
and minimizing the number of property acquisitions, these alternatives would both minimize
impacts on historic resources. Expanding an existing transportation route would minimize the
disruption of the existing residential districts to the north and south of 24th Street. And
because widening 24th Street would be less costly than developing a new transportation route
through an established community, these alternatives would provide cost-effective traffic
improvements.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 under Project Features on page 45 are revised as follows:
Project Features
As shown in Table 1.3, the cost for Alternative 1 is $44.4 $46 million compared to $45.2
million for Alternative 2, a difference of about less than $1 million, or about 1 percent. That
difference is not enough to make Alternative 1 substantially superior to Alternative 2 on the
basis of cost.
Table 1.3 also provides detailed information on the property acquisitions needed for
Alternatives 1 and 2. As shown in that table:
Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in the same number of full parcel acquisitions.
Alternative 1 results in more partial parcel acquisitions but less total acreage in partial
parcel acquisitions than Alternative 2.
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 101
Alternative 1 results in more temporary construction easements (110 123 temporary
construction easements, or about 1429 percent more compared to Alternative 2) and
slightly more acreage in temporary construction easements than Alternative 2 (95
temporary construction easements).
Alternatives 1 and 2 each result in 3 permanent easements.
Paragraph 4 on page 46 is revised as follows:
Historic District South of 24th Street
Of the approximately 120 properties within this district that are assumed to be eligible for the
National Register for this project only, there would be 9 full acquisitions (7 contributing and 2
noncontributing properties), 6 16 partial acquisitions (1 six contributing and 5 10
noncontributing properties), and 12 18 temporary construction easements (35 contributing and
913 noncontributing properties). A total number of 1113 contributing properties and 16
noncontributing properties in this district would be affected, or about 10 11 percent of the
total properties in the district. About 85 percent of the properties within the historic district
south of 24th Street appear to be contributors, with 15 percent non-contributors.
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 102
Revision to “Chapter 2 – Affected Environment, Environmental
Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation
Measures
Full Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the introductory text on page 54 are revised as follows:
The Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment was circulated for public
review from May 23, 2012 to July 16, 2012. Public hearings were held at the Rabobank
Convention Center on June 26, 2012 and at the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission,
City Hall South-City Council Chambers on July 5, 2012. All comments from the public
hearing and those received during the 45-day public review period have been were considered
and addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment.
Responses to comments are located in a separately bound document (FEIR/EA, Vol. 2). All
issues raised were addressed through clarification of text in the final environmental document,
responses to comments, and minor design changes to the project. Figures 1-7, 1-8, 1-10, and
1-11 have been were updated to incorporate the modifications to project designs since public
circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment. The Final
Environmental Impact Report was subsequently de-certified (see Section 1.1 of this
document), triggering the need for this Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report.
It was determined that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts on
the environment with implementation of proposed mitigation measures, except for the impact
to cultural resources. The City of Bakersfield is responsible for project compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act. Findings for all significant impacts identified are
documented, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts that will not be mitigated
below a level of significant is prepared, and will be adopted by the City Council. The City of
Bakersfield will file a Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse that identifies the
impacts. Caltrans, as assigned by the Federal Highway Administration, has prepared a Finding
of No Significant Impact in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
Section 2.1.1 Land Use
2.1.1.1 Existing and Future Land Use
Paragraph 4 on page 57 is deleted:
Since the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment was circulated, the
City has approved by Resolution (Resolution No. 128-12) an action that would conditionally
allow cul-de-sacs of streets on the south side of 24th Street between Beech Street and A Street
as a separate city project. This separate project is analyzed as part of cumulative impact
analysis in Section 2.4, Cumulative Impacts.
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 103
Paragraph 6 on page 57 is revised as follows:
Build Alternatives
Temporary work associated with the build alternatives include reducing the number of
operating lanes at the couplet, which would restrict north-south movements; closing
intersections; and using temporary construction easements for construction along the 24th
Street widening area, the couplet section, at the northernmost of Oak Street cul-de-sac, and
along the east bank of the Kern River north of the 24th Street Bridge. Under Alternatives 1
and 2, 110 123 parcels (145,296 147,823 square feet) and 95 parcels 141,982 square feet),
respectively, would be affected by temporary construction easements.
2.1.1.2 Consistency with State, Federal, Regional and Local Plans and
Programs
Paragraph 4 on page 61 is revised as follows:
Build Alternatives
The build alternatives—Alternatives 1 and 2—are consistent with the regional mobility goals
of the Kern Council of Governments, Caltrans, and the City of Bakersfield. Alternative 1
includes construction of eight cul-de-sacs that would close vehicular traffic on the south side
of 24th Street at Elm, Beech, Myrtle, Spruce, Pine, Cedar, A, and B Streets. Cul-de-sacs on
these streets prohibit direct access by vehicles from one residential neighborhood community
to the other, make such traffic slightly more circuitous, and create out of direction travel.
Studies conducted in the community on the nearby inventory of neighborhood resources and
institutions, however, did not identify any popular land use destinations located in either
neighborhood north or south of 24th Street that would be affected by the closures.
The following new paragraph is inserted after Paragraph 5 on page 61.
The project is consistent with overall goals for creating a pedestrian-friendly environment in
the residential neighborhood and compatible with the City’s goal to encourage livability. New
cul-de-sacs are compatible with adjacent residential land uses and zoning. The project would
convert only the amount of land required for a transportation-related use for the 24th Street
project. The land use conversion includes a portion of a city street and sliver portions of yards
from residential properties for the purposes of constructing cul-de-sacs. These combined land
use changes do not constitute a significant impact within the context of the land uses in this
portion of the City.
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 104
Section 2.1.2 Community Impacts
2.1.2.1 Community Character and Cohesion
Paragraph 1 on page 80 is revised as follows:
Build Alternatives
The project would affect existing transportation facilities that are being considered for
widening and intersection/interchange improvements to improve traffic operations,
accommodate existing and forecast traffic volumes, and achieve acceptable Levels of Service.
By making improvements to 24th Street, 23rd Street, and State Route 99, the project would
not divide an existing community or create a barrier between communities since currently
there are no strong interactions between these two communities. Also, 24th Street is an
existing road between the communities. The roadway would remain in the future, and the
project improvements would not create a new separation or boundary between the two
communities. Improvements to 24th Street, including the eight cul-de-sacs included in
Alternative 1, would not affect Bakersfield Racquet Club or Jastro Park, which are common
meeting grounds for the Downtown Bakersfield community, and therefore, would not
interfere with the activities of this community.
The following new paragraph is added after Paragraph 1 on page 80:
Construction of cul-de-sacs on eight local streets would affect local circulation and prevent
motor vehicles from entering or exiting those streets from 24th Street. In most cases, the
people who are expected to be on or park adjacent to the cul-de-sac will likely either live on
that block or be guests of those who do. To the extent that the cul-de-sacs would limit the
entry of vehicles from outside areas, there is likely to be an increased sense of ownership and
increased natural surveillance, which would likely foster an increased sense of security on the
streets on which cul-de-sacs are constructed. Cul-de-sacs would also be expected to increase
spontaneous outdoor activity by children, as those streets that are closed at one end become
safer from automobile traffic and there is greater pedestrian use of the sidewalks, where
provided. Significant impacts to community character and cohesion are not expected. In fact,
to the extent that the cul-de-sacs may encourage more neighbors to walk on the newly-
connected sidewalks or for children to bike within the protected street areas, thereby
increasing the frequency of personal face-to-face contact, community cohesion would also
likely increase.
2.1.2.2 Relocations and Real Property Acquisitions
Paragraph 4 on page 81 is revised as follows:
The temporary construction easement would be accessed by a cul-de-sac at the northernmost
end of Oak Street. Alternative 1 would result in 110 123 temporary construction easements
(3.33 3.39 acres); Alternative 2 would result in 95 temporary construction easements
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 105
(3.25 acres). See Table 2.7, Figure 2-6 (Sheets 1–5), and Figure 2-7 (Sheets 1–5) for the
location of temporary construction easements for Alternatives 1 and 2.
Table 2.7 on page 82 is revised as follows:
Table 2.7. Summary of Property Acquisitions for the Build Alternatives
Permanent Acquisitions
Temporary
Construction
Easements (TCEs)
Permanent Easements
Full Parcels Partial Parcels Number
of
Parcels
Size
(acres/
square feet)
Number
of
Parcels
Size
(acres/
square feet)Number of Parcels
Size
(acres/
square feet)
Number of Parcels
Size
(acres/
square feet)
Alternative1:
Total: 23
Residential: 23
Nonresidential: 0
Vacant: 0
5.07/
220,899
Total: 29 41
Residential: 14 26
Nonresidential: 12
Vacant: 3
1.36 1.38
(59,645)
(60,422)
110
123
3.333.39/
(145,296)
(147,823)
3 0.101/
(4,516)
Alternative2:
Total: 23
Residential: 23
Nonresidential: 0
Vacant: 0
5.21/
227,015
Total: 21
Residential: 7
Nonresidential: 11
Vacant: 3
1.52
(66,210) 95
3.25/
about
(141,982)
3
0.101/
(4,516)
Source: Final Relocation Impact Statement (June 2013).
Sheets 3 and 4 of Figure 2-6 on pages 87 and 88 are revised.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Er
r
a
t
a
S
h
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
10
6
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
-
6
.
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
/
R
el
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
–
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
–
W
i
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
N
o
r
t
h
(
S
h
e
e
t
3
o
f
5
)
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Er
r
a
t
a
S
h
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
10
7
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
-
6
.
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
/
R
el
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
–
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
–
W
i
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
N
o
r
t
h
(
S
h
e
e
t
4
o
f
5
)
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 108
Paragraph 4 on page 103 is revised as follows:
Partial Acquisitions
Alternative 1 would result in a larger number of partial parcel acquisitions, with 14 26
residential and 15 nonresidential. Alternative 2 would result in 7 residential and 14
nonresidential partial parcel acquisitions. These parcels are shown in Figures 2-6 and 2-7.
Section 2.1.3 Utility and Emergency Services
Subsection “Fire, Law Enforcement, and Emergency Services” on page 111 is revised as
follows:
Fire, Law Enforcement, and Emergency Services
There are no public service facilities within the project study area; therefore, no direct
physical impacts would occur from long-term operation of the build alternatives.
The build alternatives would benefit circulation flow through the project area. The circulation
improvements would enable fire, law enforcement, and emergency service providers to
respond to emergency situations and move emergency equipment more efficiently through the
improved transportation corridor. Under Alternative 2, Tthe overall emergency service
response times through the study area would be maintained or improved.
Under Alternative 1, eight cul-de-sacs would constrain north-south cross-traffic within the
24th Street corridor. Neither the Bakersfield Fire Department nor the Bakersfield Police
Department identified that these new cul-de-sacs would delay provision of emergency
services. Emergency response vehicles would continue to have access to the eight residential
streets via 23rd Street. Although direct access to and from 24th Street will be eliminated for
these six streets in which it interfaces on the south (Beech Street, Myrtle Street, Spruce Street,
Pine Street, Cedar Street, and A Street) the improvements induced by the expansion of travel
lanes on 24th Street are expected to provide a safer and speedier response time for emergency
services by helping to avoid conflicts with slower-moving vehicles and oncoming traffic. In
the long-term, the overall emergency service response times through the study area would be
maintained or improved.
Section 2.1.4 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Subsection Environmental Consequences, Permanent Impacts, on page 121 is revised as
follows:
Permanent Impacts
Since the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment was circulated, the
City has approved by Resolution (Resolution No. 128-12) action to conditionally allow the
construction of up to six of eight planned cul-de-sacs of streets on the south side of 24th Street
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 109
between Beech Street and A Street have been constructed as a separate city project. In
addition, during the public comment period, residents requested that a raised median be
constructed to enhance the roadway aesthetics and prevent left turns off of 24th Street due to
cut-through traffic concerns. So, two eastbound intersections (Beech Street and C Street) were
identified for left turns within the landscaped median. However, no left turns were identified
for westbound intersections.
An addendum traffic analysis was done to determine what effect, if any, would result from the
inclusion of a raised median, revised lane geometry along the 24th Street from Oak Street to
F Street, elimination of westbound left-turn lanes, provision of two left-turn lanes at the
intersections of Beech Street and C Street, and city-approved cul-de-sacs on the south side of
24tlh Street. The results of this analysis are incorporated into the analysis discussed below.
Section 2.1.5 Visual/Aesthetics
Paragraph 4 on page 132 is revised as follows:
To help evaluate potential visual impacts, computer simulations of the proposed road
improvements visible from each of the seven key viewpoints were prepared. Visual
simulations of both build alternatives are shown in Figures 2-12 through 2-18 2-18A (see
Figure 1-5 to 1-11 legends for description of site plan details), along with their corresponding
existing view photograph. In addition, Key Views 3, 4, and 5 highlight the landscaping that
would be included as part of the Draft Concept Landscape Plan (see Appendix I).
Figure 2-11 (Key View Locations) on page 135 is revised as shown herein.
A new Figure 2-18A (entitled “Key View 8 Existing and Proposed Conditions”) is added
after Figure 2-18 on page 149.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Er
r
a
t
a
S
h
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
11
0
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
-
1
1
.
K
e
y
V
i
e
w
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Er
r
a
t
a
S
h
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
11
1
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
-
1
8
A
.
K
e
y
V
i
e
w
8
E
x
i
s
ti
n
g
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 112
The following new paragraph is added at the top of page 153 after the end of the Key View
7 paragraph:
Key View 8
Key View 8 looks east toward the project area from the south side of 24th Street on the west
side of Cedar Street (see Figure 2-18A). Residential properties (on both sides of 24th Street)
and streetlights are visible within the foreground and middle ground of this view. Buildings
range from one to two stories in height and are generally made of wood and stucco. Mature
vegetation along 24th Street softens the hardscape features of the residential structures and
road. Existing landscaping throughout the view appears to integrate the residential uses to the
north and south. The two-way 24th Street and residential structures are visible in the
foreground and middle ground views. The existing visual quality and character of the site
from this key view is moderately high.
Paragraph 2 on page 153 is revised as follows:
Since the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment was circulated, the
project has been modified, in response to public comments, to provide enhanced landscaping
in the median and parkway areas on both the north and south sides of the facility within
Segment 2 and Segment 3 from Oak Street on the west to C Street on the east, and along the
south side of 23rd Street between C Street and D Street (See Draft Concept Landscape Plan in
Appendix I). Six additional cul-de-sacs (for a total of eight) also have been added to the south
side of 24th Street. The analysis that follows takes into consideration these proposed
modifications.
The following heading on page 154 is revised as follows:
Permanent Impacts to Key Views 1–7 1-8
The following text is inserted after Paragraph 4 on page 156 (after the Key View 7
paragraph):
Key View 8
Improvements under Alternative 1 would result in a moderate to moderately high visual
change to existing views of the study area from this key view. The addition of a new cul-de-
sac at the terminus of Cedar Street would be visible to both pedestrians and motorists.
Placement of a roadway median on 24th Street would enhance the aesthetics of the area along
with concrete sidewalks that use softscape (plants) and hardscape similar in scale and material
as those contained in the historic districts located to the north and south of 24th Street. This
streetscape would be visible to both east- and west-bound travelers on 24th Street. Landscape
and aesthetic treatments would provide continuity of the appearance of a permanent cul-de-
sac at Cedar Street. Sensitive viewers would have a high viewer response to the project
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 113
changes, particularly after mature vegetation augments the unity of this key view. Building
the project would have a moderate to moderately high impact in this key view.
Section 2.1.6 Cultural Resources
Figure 2-19 (entitled “Impacts to Properties within the Historic Districts North and South of
24th Street – Alternative 1”) on page 167 is revised as shown on the following page.
Table 2.13 on page 166 is revised as follows:
Table 2.13. Permanent Uses and Temporary Occupancies
at the Historic Properties
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Number of Full
Parcel
Acquisitions
Number of
Partial Parcel
Acquisitions
(total square
feet)
Number of Parcels
with Temporary
Construction
Easements
(total square feet)
Number of Full
Parcel
Acquisitions
Number of Partial
Parcel
Acquisitions (total
square feet)
Number of Parcels
with Temporary
Construction
Easements
(total square feet)
Historic District South of 24th Street
Parcels: 9 Parcels: 6 16
(6,978 7,755)
Parcels:12 18
(6,033 8,607) Parcels: 22 Parcels:3
(16,986)
Parcels: 11
(4,746)
Historic District North of 24th Street
Parcels: 12 Parcels: 2
(647)
Parcels: 14
(6,644) Parcels: 1 Parcels: 0
(0)
Parcels: 3
(±2,000)
Total Effects at the historic districts South and North of 24th Street
Parcels: 21 Parcels: 8 18
(7,625 8,402)
Parcels: 26 32
(12,677 15,251) Parcels: 23 Parcels: 3
(16,986)
Parcels: 14
(±6,746)
Source: Developed from the Right-of-Way data sheet
Paragraph 3 on page 176 is revised as follows:
To meet the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and
its implementing regulations known as Section 106, a Finding of Effect (August 2012) was
prepared for this project to determine if the proposed project would result in an adverse effect
to a historic property (properties listed or determined eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places) and to meet the requirements of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations known as
Section 106. The Finding of Effect determined that Alternatives 1 and 2 of the proposed
project would not result in an adverse effect to the historic district north of 24th Street because
demolition of between 1 and 5 properties, depending on the alternative, would result in a
minimal change to the overall district, and the district would retain the overall character-
defining features of a post-World War II residential tract development that are notably its
curvilinear street patterns and the overall suburban character and setting of the neighborhood.
The construction of cul-de-sacs on eight local streets located on the south side of 24th Street,
that is, on the side opposite to the historic district to the north of 24th Street, would not be
expected to result in adverse effects to historical resources considered to be part of the historic
district located north of 24th Street.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Er
r
a
t
a
S
h
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
11
4
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
-
1
9
.
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
ie
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
D
i
s
t
ri
c
t
s
N
o
r
t
h
a
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
2
4
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
–
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 115
Six new paragraphs are inserted before the first full paragraph on page 177:
Proposed cul-de-sacs on eight streets on the south side of 24th Street (Elm, Beech, Myrtle,
Spruce, Pine, Cedar, A, and B Streets) were not included in the earlier analysis of the
Project’s effects prepared under 36 CFR 800.5. The new cul-de-sacs would be located
adjacent to seven parcels considered to be historical resources; that is, contributors to the
south of the 24th Street historic district, determined eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. Neither of the two houses next to the cul-de-sacs on Myrtle Street or Pine
Street is considered to be a contributor to the historic district. One house each on the proposed
Beech Street, Spruce Street, and A Street cul-de-sacs is considered to be a historic contributor.
Both residential properties next to the project cul-de-sac on Cedar Street are considered to be
district contributors. One historic house contributor is immediately adjacent to the cul-de-sacs
on Elm and B Streets, but both are proposed to be fully acquired for right-of-way purposes
under the preferred alternative, Alternative 1--Widen to the North.
The placement of cul-de-sacs on eight local streets at their northern intersection with 24th
Street, which is considered the northern edge of the south of 24th Street historic district, will
alter the streetscape character at those particular locations. In terms of their scale and height,
however, the cul-de-sacs would be constructed such that their physical characteristics would
not be intrusive and would not detract from the significant historic architectural character
imbued in the south of 24th Street historic district (see Figure 2-18A, which depicts a cul-de-sac
adjacent to a historic contributor on Cedar Street with a before and after visual simulation).
The cul-de-sacs would prevent motorists traveling east on 24th Street from turning right and
driving by historic residences south of 24th Street. With their focus on driving, however, these
motorists would not likely be able to discern the finer architectural distinctions of the
individual houses, so this change is not believed to be of consequence. Neither the existing
street grid pattern of the historic district south of 24th Street nor having a certain level of
vehicular traffic pass directly in front of historic residences were identified by qualified
architectural historians as character-defining aspects of the historic neighborhood when it was
evaluated for its potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and
California Register of Historic Resources. Instead, the significance of the south of 24th Street
historic district was determined to be wholly embodied in the variety of distinctive
architectural styles and eras represented in the historic neighborhood’s houses themselves. It
is the individual contributor buildings’ facades, massing, materials, roof eave lines,
fenestration, and other character-defining details of each contributor property that collectively
constitute the fabric and feel of the historic residential neighborhood and its sense of place.
None of these character-defining details would change with the introduction of cul-de-sacs to
the physical landscape at eight street locations at the district’s northern boundary, including in
five cases, minor alterations in the front yard areas of parcels containing historic houses needed
for cul-de-sac construction. Additionally, it is certain houses with architectural merit and not the
local surface streets located within the south of 24th Street historic district that are regarded as
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 116
contributing elements to the National Register historic district, so reductions in vehicular
access due to the new cul-de-sacs would not alter the current historic preservation status of the
district.
The construction of eight cul-de-sacs on the northern periphery of the historic district south of
24th Street would not appear to reduce the integrity of the district so as to threaten either its
National Register or California Register eligibility status. With the exception of those historic
contributors directly required for right-of-way acquisition for project implementation, each of
the historic properties adjacent to the proposed cul-de-sacs would continue to be eligible for
both the National Register and the California Register and also would remain historical
resources for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Due to the anticipated removal of district contributors because of right-of-way acquisition
needs, an adverse effect determination of the project on the south of 24th Street historic district
was originally made in consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, without consideration at that
time given to constructing cul-de-sacs on city streets that intersect with 24th Street. Because
the project to widen 24th Street would result in an adverse effect, Caltrans, in cooperation with
the City of Bakersfield, developed and executed a Memorandum of Agreement with the State
Historic Preservation Officer in 2012, with commitments intended to mitigate adverse effects
to the south of 24th Street historic district.
The City of Bakersfield has thoroughly reconsidered the preferred alternative with inclusion
of the eight additional cul-de-sacs, and has determined that the cul-de-sacs would not result in
any new cultural resources impacts or impacts of greater severity than those impacts that were
identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (December
2013). Constructing cul-de-sacs at the edge of the historic district would not, by itself, be
considered a substantial adverse change or constitute a significant impact on historical
resources under the California Environmental Quality Act. No additional mitigation is
required.
Section 2.2.1 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff
Paragraph 1 on page 195 is revised as follows:
Construction activities to widen 24th Street, including the installation of eight cul-de-sacs
included in Alternative 1, would temporarily affect the existing drainage patterns by requiring
the extension of Carrier Canal, which carries flows underneath 24th Street. To build the
extension of Carrier Canal, a temporary diversion conduit would be built next to Carrier Canal
to divert flows during construction. The temporary diversion is necessary to maintain the use
of the water by downstream holders of water rights for irrigation. It is estimated that the
diversion conduit would be used for three months, the time estimated to extend the 24th Street
culvert. The diversion conduit would be about 350 linear feet and consist of a triple-pipe
culvert.
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 117
Paragraph 5 on page 195 is revised as follows:
Build Alternatives
The project site has about 48 acres of impervious areas (for example, pavement and
buildings). Both build alternatives, including the installation of eight cul-de-sacs included in
Alternative 1, would increase the impervious areas by about 4 acres. As a result of the
increase in impervious areas, the estimated increase in surface water would be 5,400 cubic
feet. The estimated increase in surface water would likely affect the Kern River; therefore,
treatment control best management practices (ways to protect water quality) would be
implemented as a part of the proposed project. Based on available information, it is expected
there is sufficient area to treat the estimated increase in surface water generated from
impervious areas with the treatment control best management practices.
Section 2.2.2 Paleontology
Paragraph 4 on page 200 is revised as follows:
Build Alternatives
Impacts to paleontological resources would not result from construction activities required for
either of the two build alternatives, including installation of eight cul-de-sacs included in
Alternative 1, because impacts to paleontological resources are considered permanent, not
temporary. See Permanent Impacts below.
Paragraph 5 on page 201 is revised as follows:
Based on the sensitivity of the area for paleontological resources, excavation below a depth of
5 feet in the latest Pleistocene native sediments within the project study area could result in
adverse impacts on nonrenewable paleontological resources. Installation of eight cul-de-sacs
included in Alternative 1 would not require excavation in excess of 2 feet and, for that reason,
would not result in impacts to paleontological resources. Ground-disturbing construction
activities such as excavation have the potential to encounter scientifically significant
paleontological resources. This could result in destruction of unique and valuable scientific
specimens and data.
Section 2.2.3 Hazardous Waste or Materials
Paragraph 4 on page 208 is revised as follows:
Temporary construction easements would be placed at the four service stations within the
project study area (Circle K at 2222 F Street, White Wash Car Wash/Lube at 2301 H Street,
Firestone Complete Auto Car at 2331 Chester Avenue, and Chevron, 2317 L Street). No
permanent right-of-way acquisitions would occur, and no excavation at these properties
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 118
would be required for construction of the proposed improvements to 24th Street, including the
eight cul-de-sacs included in Alternative 1.
Section 2.2.4 Air Quality
Paragraph 3 on page 219 is revised as follows:
Construction activities, including the eight cul-de-sacs included in Alternative 1, would
produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as site grading, utility engines,
onsite heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and
motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust and fugitive dust emissions
generated during project construction would vary daily as construction activity levels change.
Construction of the project would result in 5 acres or more of disturbed surface area (for non-
residential development), requiring submittal of a Dust Control Plan to the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District before construction.
Paragraph 6 on page 219 is revised as follows:
The purpose of the project is to alleviate existing and future traffic congestion along 24th
Street during peak hours. The project would not generate new vehicular traffic trips since it
would not involve construction of new homes or businesses. However, it is it’s possible that
some motorists currently using other routes would be attracted to using the improved
roadway, resulting in increased vehicle miles traveled along 24th Street. The potential impact
of the proposed roadway improvement project, including the eight cul-de-sacs included in
Alternative 1, on regional vehicle emissions was calculated using traffic data for the proposed
project region and emission rates from the EMFAC2007 emission model.
Section 2.2.5 Noise and Vibration
Paragraph 3 on page 232 is revised as follows:
Build Alternatives
Two types of short-term noise impacts would occur during project construction., including the
installation of eight cul-de-sacs on the south side of 24th Street. The first would be from
construction crew commutes and transport of construction equipment and materials to the
project area. This would incrementally raise noise levels on access roads leading to the site.
Pieces of heavy equipment for grading and construction activities would be moved onsite and
remain for the duration of each construction phase, but would not add to the daily traffic
volume in the project area.
Sheets 3 and 4 of Figure 2-24 (entitled “Figure 2-24. Modeled Sound Barriers and Receiver
Locations – Alternative 1”) on pages 237 and 239, respectively, are revised as shown
herein.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Er
r
a
t
a
S
h
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
11
9
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
-
2
4
.
M
o
d
e
l
e
d
S
o
u
n
d
B
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
a
n
d
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
r
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
–
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
(
S
h
e
e
t
3
o
f
5
)
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
Er
r
a
t
a
S
h
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
24
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
-
D
E
I
R
12
0
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
-
2
4
.
M
o
d
e
l
e
d
S
o
u
n
d
B
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
a
n
d
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
r
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
–
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
(
S
h
e
e
t
4
o
f
5
)
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 121
Section 2.2.6 Energy
Paragraph 1 on page 277 is revised as follows:
Build Alternatives
Construction of the project, including the eight cul-de-sacs included in Alternative 1, would
entail a one-time energy expenditure to manufacture building materials, prepare the roadway
surface, and build the roadway widening and intersection/interchange improvements. The
one-time energy expenditure would be balanced by the improved system functionality of the
corridor and improved traffic flow operations over the design life of the project.
Paragraph 5 is revised as follows:
Build Alternatives
Implementation of the project, including the eight cul-de-sacs included in Alternative 1,
would alleviate existing traffic congestion, improve local circulation, and help reduce
congestion-related pollutant emissions in the corridor. When balancing energy used during
operation against energy saved by relieving congestion and other transportation efficiencies,
the build alternatives would not have substantial energy impacts.
Section 2.3 Biological Environment
Paragraph 2 on page 283 is revised as follows:
Figures 2-27 and 2-28 show where Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively, would affect biological
resources. The installation of eight cul-de-sacs on the south side of 24th Street, as part of
Alternative 1, would be located entirely within developed areas; natural communities would
not be affected. The installation of cul-de-sacs would not result in any impacts to animal
species, threatened and endangered species or invasive species. Wetlands and waters of the
United States are also considered sensitive both by federal and state agencies. These are
discussed in detail in Section 2.3.2. There are no wetlands or waters of the United States
within the area where cul-de-sacs will be installed.
Section 2.4 Cumulative Impacts
Paragraph 1 on page 325 is revised as follows:
In addition to the Thomas Roads Improvement Program projects, there are pending
development proposals in the project’s cumulative study area. Examples of reasonably
foreseeable actions by the City of Bakersfield include future development for which a General
Plan or Specific Plan has been adopted that designates future land uses; projects for which the
applicable jurisdiction has received an application for site development; or infrastructure
improvement projects planned by the local jurisdiction or other public agency. The reasonably
foreseeable development actions are listed in Table 2.28. Note that since the circulation of the
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 122
draft environmental document, the City by Resolution (No. 128-12) on November 14, 2012,
conditionally agreed to allow cul-de-sacs of streets on the south side of 24th Street between
Beech Street and A Street as a separate City project. The conditions that 1) all property
owners along the affected street between 24th and 22nd Street must agree to the closure by
signing a petition, and 2) directly affected property owners must agree to donate sufficient
land to construct the cul-de-sac to City standards.
Table 2.28 on page 326 is revised as follows:
Table 2.28. Cumulative City of Bakersfield Projects within the Study Area
Site Plan
Review #
Project
Location Project Title Project Description Project Type
SPR-08-
0500
2301 F Street Arco Mini-Mart Construction of a 3,000-square-foot
gas station with convenience
market and eight pump islands.
Commercial
SPR-08-
1650
2129 G Street Office Building Construction of a 975-square-foot
general office addition.
Office
SPR-09-
0586
2111 F Street Not available Construction of a 38-bed, 7,411-
square-foot residential care facility
on a 12,200-square-foot parcel;
related to: MOD 08-330- reduction
in parking from 32 to 25 spaces.
Commercial
SPR-08-
0297
900 22nd Street Church Construction of a 970-seat church
sanctuary and classrooms,
including three new offsite parking
lots.
Community
Service
SPR-09-
0670
2115 N Street Comm. GarageConstruction of a 3,920-square-foot
automobile detail shop.
Commercial
SPR-09-
0653
2116 P Street
or 821 22nd
Street
Not available Moving eight 960-square-foot
modular office buildings onto a
vacant site in a Community Center-
zoned district.
Office
SPR-09-
0558
2521 O Street Not available Construction of a 1,760-square-foot
general office building; related to
MOD 09-0557- permit for a 0-foot
side yard along 26th Street.
Office
SPR-10-
0011
2531 M Street Not available Construction of a 4,080-square-foot
office building.
Office
SPR-07-
2371
1918 L Street
or 1223 24th
Street
Ming Café Construction of an 875-square-foot
addition to an existing 2,732-
square-foot restaurant in the
central business-zoned district.
Commercial
Restaurant
Expansion
N/A Fresno to
Bakersfield
section of the
project
California
High-Speed
Rail Project
Construction of an about 114-mile
portion of a larger high-speed train
system that would connect to
sections traveling west to San
Francisco, south to Los Angeles
and later, north to Sacramento.
Transportation
N/A South side of
24th Street
between
Beech Street
and C Street.
N/A The project would entail
construction of cul-de-sacs at up to
eight different streets on the south
side of 24th Street, as specified in
the City Resolution No. 128-12.
Public Works
Appendix A Errata Sheet to the 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 123
Section 3.2.2 Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project
Paragraph 3 on page 339 continuing to page 340 is revised as follows:
Implementation of the project would result in potential short-term noise impacts during
construction of the project under Alternatives 1 (including the installation of eight cul-de-sacs
on the south side of 24th Street) and 2. Construction of the project would comply with local
jurisdiction noise restrictions as well as the Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14-8.02
and Caltrans Standard Provisions S5-310, as outlined in Avoidance and Minimization
Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2. In addition, Avoidance and Minimization Measures NOI-3 and
NOI-4 would further minimize potential construction noise impacts. Therefore, potential
short-term construction noise impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation
measures are required.
Paragraph 1 on page 340 is revised as follows:
A permanent increase in ambient noise level would occur as a result of the long-term use of
the project under Alternatives 1 (including the installation of eight cul-de-sacs on the south
side of 24th Street) and 2. A traffic noise impact would occur under the California
Environmental Quality Act when the future noise level with the project results in a
substantial increase in noise level from existing baseline noise levels.
Section 3.2.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
Paragraph 3 on page 344 is revised as follows:
Alternative 1 would require 23 full acquisitions (residential single-family) and 29 41 partial
acquisitions (14 26 residential, 12 nonresidential, and 3 vacant). Alternative 2 would require
23 full acquisitions (residential single-family) and 21 partial acquisitions (7 residential, 11
nonresidential, and 3 vacant). Acquisition and demolition of these parcels would result in
direct irreversible impacts. Based on the current availability of residential units in the city, a
sufficient residential market exists for potential project-related relocations.
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 125
Appendix B ALTERNATIVES COST
ESCALATION
The development of the cost estimates for the alternatives considered but rejected from further
discussion is shown in Table B.1. The original cost estimates included in the 2005 Project Study
Reports (PSRs) for the Oak Street Interchange Project (URS Corporation 2005a) and 24th Street
Widening Project (URS Corporation 2005b) were escalated at 3.5 percent per year for
construction costs (to 2014 dollars) to be consistent with the 2014 Project Reports. The right-of-
way costs were used as originally escalated in the PSRs at 2.0 percent per year (to 2011 dollars),
without further escalation. The Alternative J Hageman Flyover cost estimate was developed
during the preparation of the Hageman Road Extension Project Environmental Document (Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) finalized in 2014. These cost estimates for the alternative
segments were combined with the appropriate segments of the proposed project (Alternative 1)
to present a complete alternative.
Appendix B Alternatives Cost Escalation
24th Street Improvement Project R-DEIR 126
Table B.1. Cost Estimates for Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from
Further Discussion
Alternative
Base
Estimate
(Million $)
Year Escalation
Rate
Escalated Costs
(Million $) Notes
Total Cost
Estimate
Escalated
(Million $)
A 21.5 2005 3.5% 28.8 Construction 45.9 2011 2.0% 17.1 Right of Way
B 21.8 2005 3.5% 29.2 Construction 43.7 2011 2.0% 14.5 Right of Way
C 11.9 2005 3.5% 15.9 Construction 17.3 2011 2.0% 1.4 Right of Way
D 2014 24.2 Construction 45.8 21.6 Right of Way
E 2014 11.5 Construction 13.6 2.1 Right of Way
F (Walls) 29.4 2005 3.5% 39.4 Construction 48.2 2011 2.0% 8.8 Right of Way
F (Slope) 22 2005 3.5% 29.5 Construction 46.0 2011 2.0% 16.5 Right of Way
G (1) 2014 17.7 Construction 33.3 15.6 Right of Way
G (2) 2014 17.3 Construction 31.8 14.5 Right of Way
G (3) 2014 17.1 Construction 30.4 13.3 Right of Way
G (4) 2014 15.0 Construction 28.2 13.2 Right of Way
H 2014 15.3 Construction 29.8 14.5 Right of Way
I 2014 3.2 Construction 7.0 3.8 Right of Way
J 2014 49 Construction 52.0 3 Right of Way