Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 152-2020RESOLUTION NO. T5 2 —"2 02 A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD IDENTIFIED AS ANNEXATION NO. 702, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PANAMA LANE AND COTTONWOOD ROAD INTERSECTION (WARD 1). WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield desires to propose a change of organization, to wit, the annexation to the City of Bakersfield of the hereinafter -described territory, pursuant to Section 56654 of the Government Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation territory is within and consistent with the City of Bakersfield Sphere of Influence boundary; and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield agrees to annex the territory located on the southwest corner of the Panama Lane and Cottonwood Road intersection; and WHEREAS, the City agrees to serve the territory upon annexation; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield that it hereby finds and determines as follows: The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. That the City of Bakersfield hereby proposes the annexation to the City of Bakersfield of the territory in Exhibit A and.shown on map marked Exhibit B for the project attached hereto, and made a part of this resolution as though fully set forth herein, located on the southwest corner of the Panama Lane and Cottonwood Road intersection. 3. That a plan for providing services within the affected territory of the proposed annexation, in accordance with the provisions of Section 56653 of the Government Code, is marked as Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof as though fully set forth herein. 4. That this proposal for change of organization, to wit, annexation, is made pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, and it is requested that proceedings be authorized for annexation in accordance therewith. 5. That the reasons for the proposed change of organization are that some owners of the affected territory desire to receive municipal services from the City of Bakersfield. That this proposed annexation territory and the pre -zoning therefore was adopted by the City Council and an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration by the Greenfield Unified School District is determined to be adequate for the annexation proposal. o�g.AKF T s ORIGINAL 7. That the laws and regulations relating to the preparation of a notice of exemption as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act have been duly followed. 8. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein has been determined to be uninhabited pursuant to Section 56046 of the Government Code. 9. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein has been determined to be uninhabited pursuant to Section 56046 of the Government Code. 10. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein has been determined to have 100% property owners consenting to annexation. 11. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein is within the City of Bakersfield Sphere of Influence boundary. 12. That the names of the officers of the City of Bakersfield who are to be furnished with copies of the Executive Officer's Report and who are to be given mailed Notice of Hearing, if any, are: Julie Drimakis City Clerk City of Bakersfield 1600 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Christian Clegg City Manager City of Bakersfield 1600 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Virginia Gennaro City Attorney City of Bakersfield 1600 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 13. That the appropriate City officials shall file the (10) copies of this Resolution, with Exhibits, with the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Kern County at 5300 Lennox Street, Suite 303, Bakersfield, and CA 93309. ---------000-------- 2 0� g.AKF,ps r U p ORIGINAL HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on OCT 2.1 1020 , by the following vote: AAYES: COUNCILMEMBER: RRIVERA, GONZALES, WEIR, SM H, FREEMAN, SULLIVAN, PAR LI NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: Nd E ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: E ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: W ONE A /mulia- 17"'e—, J IE DRI A , CMC CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED OCT 21 2020 �/AMA/ KAREN GOH MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attor ey B Y VIRIDIANA LLARDO-KING Deputy City Attorney EXHIBITS: A - Legal Description B -Map C - Plan for Services D - Mitigated Negative Declaration S:\Advance Planning\08_Annexations\03_Active\702 - Panama 24\Res_Ord\ROA\ROA_Annex 702.docx ORIGINAL Exhibit "A" Legal Description ANNEXATION NO. 702 PANAMA NO. 24 That portion of the Northeast quarter of Section 29 and the Northwest quarter of Section 28, Township 30 South, Range 28 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, according to the Official Plat thereof, in the County of Kern, State of California, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Section 29, Township 30 South, Range 28 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, said point also being the centerline intersection of East Panama Lane (County Road No. 266) and Cottonwood Road (County Road No. 18 & 36); thence South 00°29'31" West, along the East line of said Section 29, said East line also being the centerline of Cottonwood Road (County Road No. 18 & 36), a distance of 30.00 feet, to the point of intersection with the Easterly prolongation of the South right-of-way of said East Panama Lane (County Road No. 266), said point also being a point on the existing City Corporate Boundary, said point also being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, thence along the following six (6) courses: 1. South 89°31'28" East, along the Easterly prolongation of the South right-of- way said East Panama Lane (County Road No. 266), and along the existing City Corporate Boundary, a distance of 33.00 feet to a point on the Easterly right-of—way of said Cottonwood Road (County Road No. 18 & 36), said point also being a point on the existing City Corporate Boundary; thence 2. departing said City Corporate Boundary South 00°29'31" West along the Easterly right-of—way line of Cottonwood Road (County Road No. 18 & 36) a distance of 1287.10 feet to a point on the North property line of the Arvin - Edison Canal as condemned to the Arvin -Edison Water Storage District by Final Order of Condemnation recorded July 20, 1966 in Book 3971, Page 803 of Official Records; thence o�g.AKF9� r U O. ORIGINAL Exhibit "A" Legal Description ANNEXATION NO. 702 PANAMA NO. 24 CONTINUED 3. along said North property line North 89°31'39" West a distance of 1671.07 feet to a point on the existing City Corporate Boundary; thence 4. continuing along said North property line and said existing City Corporate Boundary North 89°31'39" West a distance of 48.85 feet to the Southeast corner of Parcel B of Lot Line Adjustment No. 16-06 per Certificate of Compliance recorded July 7, 2006, as Document No. 206165433, Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder, said corner also being a corner on the existing City Corporate Boundary; thence 5. North 05° 16' 14" East along the East line of said Parcel B, and along said existing City Corporate Boundary, a distance of 1291.71 feet to a point on the South right-of-way of said East Panama Lane (County Road No. 266) said point also being on the existing City Corporate Boundary; thence 6. South 89°31'28" East, along the South right-of-way line of said East Panama Lane (County Road No. 266) and along the Easterly prolongation thereof, also being along the existing City Corporate Boundary, a distance of 1579.31 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 49.23± Ac. Q4�pQQ ER 4.Oyq�` cc U No. 36,323 ro ` Exp. 0331 T,Jr 4 ---MAY 0 6 2020 7TF� N.- JSwanson Engineeri w E 2000 Oak Street Suite 150 Bakersfield, CA 93301 o�g.AKF9 s � r v o ORIGINAL Annex 702 Panama 24.txt Mapcheck 1: Annex 702 Panama 24 closure summary SO° 29' 31"w Precision, 1 part in: 1531709.89' Error distance: 0.00' Error direction: 5510 02' 4211W Area: 2144528.37 Sq. Square area: 2144528.37 Perimeter: 5911.04' Point of Beginning Easting: 6272710.5630' Northing: 2293557.4997' side 1: Line Direction: S890 31' 2811E Angle: [-89031'28"] Deflection angle: [90°28'3211] Distance: 33.00' Easting: 6272743.5619' Northing: 2293557.2258' side 2: Line Direction: SO° 29' 31"w Angle: [-89059'01"] Deflection angle: [90000'59"] Distance: 1287.10' Easting: 6272732.5109' Northing: 2292270.1732' side 3: Line Direction: N89' 31' 39"w Angle: [-90°01'10"] Deflection angle: [89°58'50"] Distance: 1671.07' Easting: 6271061.4977' Northing: 2292283.9539' Side 4: Line Direction: N89° 31' 39"w An le: [180000'00"] Deflection angle: [0000'00"] Distance:. 48.85' Easting: 6271012.6494' Northing: 2292284.3567' MAY 0 6 2020 N Swanson Engineering W E 2000 Oak Street Suite 150 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Ft. - 49.23 ac. Page 1 0Ff. o�gAKF9� ORIGINAL AANYA714N IAM EXHIBIT 'B' I sm2rE Mw ANNEXATION NO. 702 2 SC10--1 IM -10' PANAMA NO. 24 3 .—W, —w TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD "w49.23 ACRES I Osrnlb•r I.wa• y l j y APN., 414-210-10 AR 414-190-23 LOr 4 P.M. 11250 z 09 CA N z ffwj IL IB Q 17 16 is 30 R21 EAST PANAMA LANE (COUNTY ROAO NO 286) W----------------------'-'- ------------------- 0 21 22 23 _W 'ANE Di Z 9 8 27 26 pO,PROJECT srrE — 31 32 35 31 PAVAfA ROAD z 09 CA N z 800K A PAW 102 OF OR WCIN71Y MA Fi c EAST PANAMA LANE (COUNTY ROAO NO 286) W----------------------'-'- ------------------- ----- -------mm �j mJ 1 COUFM OF 12M aw Lots I WE Mawr I a®,,,a,a a„ � i � WN.- �� I Q9EefaDUV0NSCHOOL DWWT DOURAW Na 2D7229MIDua on DA7M NOVEMM KW 2 AM 55-030-22 5 I I 4= GRM ARIES 4528 W ARIES FRaMWAMWWYiM1Y ANNUATION AFIEA* 4923 ACfiM ---------------------------------- (2 SCALRP-1W V1AFX.* 518-010-01 .2 ------------------------------ WY OF: BAKSMIELD CO Wr rOFKM z 0 518-010-04 ------ ------ mor---------------------------- ARVII-EDMM CANAL - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — — - — - - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - - — - — - — - - — - — - — - - — - — - — - — - — -- ..................................................................................... ........................................... .......... .................................. APN, 518-030-23 IT Y AAV• 518-010-19 luo MAY 0 6 G) D G13\ ANNEXATION No. 702 PANAMA NO. 24 EXHIBIT "C" PLAN FOR PROVIDING SERVICES SERVICES Agency Which Presently Provides Check Services Which City/District Indicate How Services Provided By Service Will Provide Upon Future Date Annexation (specify) City/District will be Financed (i.e., general tax rate or special assessment.) Planning COUNTY CITY GENERAL TAX REVENUES Parks and Recreation COUNTY CITY GENERAL TAX REVENUES Library COUNTY COUNTY N/A Police Protection SHERIFF & HIGHWAY PATROL CITY GENERAL TAX REVENUES Fire Protection COUNTY COUNTY GENERAL TAX REVENUES, FIRE FUND Street COUNTY CITY GENERAL AND GAS TAX REVENUES Construction BY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT Maintenance COUNTY CITY GENERAL AND GAS TAX REVENUES Sweeping COUNTY CITY GENERAL AND GAS TAX REVENUES Lighting COUNTY CITY GENERAL TAX REVENUES Flood Control COUNTY CITY GENERAL TAX REVENUES Sewera a COUNTY — no current service CITY USER FEE & PRVT. DVMT. Water CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE USER FEE Other REFUSE COUNTY I CITY USER FEE SAANNEXATIOMAnnex 702\EXHIBIT CA= p GITY 0 G 2 � 1. Please provide the following information, when applicable, only for service which will be provided by the applicant city. Location Service Level Capacity Indicate location from which service Indicate frequency and availability will be provided (i.e. nearest fire of service (i.e., street sweeping, station, library, etc.) response time for emergency services, rec. programs, etc. POLICE - Police services will be administered by the City Police Department 24 hour patrol is provided in the immediate vicinity of this located at the 1601 Truxtun Avenue approximately 7.5 miles Northwest of the annexation. First priority response is approximately 7 annexation. minutes or less. FIRE - Service is provided by Kern County Fire Station No. 52 located at 312 Fire protection is provided on a 24-hour basis. The Taft Highway, Kern County, CA, pursuant to exchange wherein the County annexation will not affect City or County Fire service protects certain property within the City's jurisdiction. Thus, the County incurs the capability or response time. cost of providing fire protection and retains the fire fund collection from City's taxpayers pursuant to City of Bakersfield Joint Powers Agreement 05-329. PARKS AND RECREATION - The annexation project is within the jurisdiction of Existing neighborhood Parks (City, County & NORSD) are the City of Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District and is subject to all adopted open to the public at reasonable hours. requirements and standards of the department. LIBRARY - Area is served by Kern County Library System. Existing libraries are open to the public at reasonable hours. STREETS -The City Corporation Yard at 4101 Truxtun Avenue will provide There will be no reduction in the range capacity of the City necessary facilities, personnel and services to accommodate Public Works to provide the necessary public work services to this area. efforts. Services will be on a regular basis and "as needed". CONSTRUCTION/MAINTENANCE/SWEEPING/LIGHTING - Maintenance and (see above) personnel will be dispatched from the City Corporation Yard at 4101 Truxtun Avenue on a regular basis for preventative maintenance as needed. Repair includes streets, constructed/maintenance, sweeping and lighting when located within the City's right of way. SEWER — This annexation is within the service area of the City of BakersfieldI Adequate capacity exists. Treatment Plant No. 3. WATER - This annexation is within the service area of California Water Service. Adequate capacity exists. OTHER - (Refuse) -When annexed, service will be provided by the City either by City forces or by contracts with a franchise refuse collector. City refuse pickup is once or twice a week. SMNNEXATIOMAnnex 702\EXHIBIT C.doc DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GREENFIELD UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT CRESCENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT uly �� � to iln Greenfield Union ted cnd� °ed! CNOO1L. ,y� DEDICATED TO CHILDREN 'S� OCTOBER 2019 QI(4v ORIGINAL DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CRESCENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Prepared for: Greenfield Union School District 1624 Fairview Road Bakersfield, CA 93309 Contact Person: Jesse Avalos, Director of Maintenance Phone: (661) 837-6000 Consultant: QI(OV 5080 California Avenue, Suite 220 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Contact: Jaymie Brauer, Principal Planner Phone: (661) 616-2600 © Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc. Unauthorized use prohibited. Project #190284 ORIGINAL GREENFIELD UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT UNI °" ri 1624 Fairview Road kerst0 �niidre B Phone: (661) 837- 00007 p icated ed SCH00%L. �2 Fax: (661) 832-2873 www.qfusd.net Ramon Hendrix, Superintendent Sarah Dawson Lucas Hogue Vicki Norman Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Assistant Superintendent of Business October 31, 2019 ADDRESSEE LIST (See Distribution List) Re: Crescent Elementary School Construction Project. Dear Interested Party: Greenfield Union School District (as lead agency) is proposing to construct and operate a new elementary (Project), within the unincorporated area of central Kern County at the southern end of San Joaquin Valley, California. The elementary school campus will occupy an approximately 23 -acre portion of a 49.5 -acre parcel. There will be multiple buildings, with an approximate area totaling almost 74,000 square feet (sq. ft.). The school will be completed in phases, with the first phase constructing: an administrative building, a cafeteria/multipurpose room, and 31 classrooms. The initial enrollment capacity will be 750 students with a potential to expand up to 1,080 students. The Project site would be primarily accessed from E Panama Lane. The school campus site will be annexed into the City of Bakersfield and connect to the City of Bakersfield's water and sewer systems. The project site is located within Section 29, Township 30 South, Range 28 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M), within the Lamont U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle. The site encompasses approximately 23 -acre portion of Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 518- 030-22. The Project site is located on the southwest of Cottonwood Road and East Panama Lane. The enclosed Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is intended to fulfill the requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to inform all responsible and trustee agencies, as well as, the public about the Project's nature and scope under CEQA. The lead agency has determined that preparation of an IS/MND would be appropriate for the referenced project. Please make your comments to the attention of: Jaymie L. Brauer (jaymie.brauerPgkinc.com) Quad Knopf, Inc. 5080 California Avenue, Suite 220 Bakersfield, CA 93309 If we have not received a reply from you byIt�Iovember 29.2019. at we will assume that you have no comments regarding this draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Greenfield Union School District Board of Trustees will consider the approval of this project at a board meeting to be held in the Board Room at the Greenfield Union District Administrative Office, 1624 Fairview Road, Bakersfield, CA 93307 on Wednesday, December 11, 2019, at 7:00 P.M. Board of Trustees Dr. Ricardo Herrera ■ Melinda Long ■ Richard Saldana o�gAKF�� T Mike Shaw ■ Kyle Wylie o ORIGINAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This is to advise that the Greenfield Union School District (GUSD) has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project identified below that is scheduled to be held at the Greenfield Union School District - Board of Trustees meeting on Wednesday, December 11, 2019. PLEASE BE ADVISED that the Greenfield Union School District - Board of Trustees will consider adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration at the Board's meeting to be held on December 11, 2019. Presentations will be made at approximately 5:30 p.m. Action on items on the Board agenda will occur after the presentations. The meeting will be held in the District Office Board Room, Greenfield Union School District, 1624 Fairview Road, Bakersfield, CA 93307. Project Name Crescent Elementary School Construction Project Pro Ject Location Southwest corner of East Panama Lane and Cottonwood Road, Bakersfield, CA. Project Description The Greenfield Union School District (GUSD or District, as lead agency) has proposed to construct and operate a new elementary school (Project), within the unincorporated area of central Kern County at the southern end of San Joaquin Valley, California. The school campus site will be annexed into the City of Bakersfield and connect to the City of Bakersfield's water and sewer systems. The elementary school campus will occupy an approximately 23 -acre portion of a 49.5 -acre parcel. There will be multiple buildings, with an approximate area totaling almost 74,000 square feet (sq. ft.). The school will be completed in phases, with the first phase constructing: an administrative building, a cafeteria/multipurpose room, and 31 classrooms. The initial enrollment capacity will be 750 students with a potential to expand up to 1,080 students. It is anticipated that new residential development in the metropolitan Bakersfield area would exacerbate the existing overcrowding conditions without the addition of a new school. The construction of the new school would help alleviate the problem of current overcrowding and is designed to provide an elementary school for future students as the population within the District grows. The school campus site will be annexed into the City of Bakersfield and connect to the City of Bakersfield's water and sewer systems. The document and documents referenced in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for review at Greenfield Union School District, 1624 Fairview Road, o�gAKF9� r v O ORIGINAL Bakersfield, CA 93309, and at the Kern County Beale Memorial Library located at 701 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301. As mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the public review period for this document was 30 days (CEQA Section 15073 [b]). The public review period began on October 31, 2019 and ended on November 29, 2019. For further information, please contact Jaymie Brauer at 661-616-2600. Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Project Title: Crescent Elementary School Construction Project Lead Agency: Greenfield Union School District Mailing Address: 1624 Fairview Road City: Bakersfield Zip: 93309 Contact Person: Jesse Avalos Phone: (661) 837-6000 County: Kem Appendix C -------------------------------------------------------------- Project Location: County: Kem City/Nearest Community: Bakersfield Cross Streets: East Panama Lane and Cottonwood Road Longitude/Latitude (degrees, minutes and seconds): 35 Assessor's Parcel No.: 518-030-22 Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: N/A Airports: N/A ------------ Document Type: CEQA: ❑ NOP ❑ Early Cons ❑ Neg Dec ❑■ Mit Neg Dec Local Action Type: Zip Code: 93307 o 17 , 39.4 N / 116 ° 69 1 22.2 " W Total Acres: 49.5 ❑ Draft EIR ❑ Supplement/Subsequent EIR (Prior SCH No.) Other: Section: 29 Twp.: 2305 Range: 28E Base: MDB&M Waterways: Central Branch Kern Island Canal Railways: N/A Schools: Multiple NEPA: ❑ NOI Other: ❑ EA ❑ Draft EIS ❑ FONSI ❑ Joint Document ❑ Final Document ❑ Other: ❑ General Plan Update ❑ Specific Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Annexation ❑ General Plan Amendment ❑ Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Planned Unit Development ❑ Use Permit ❑ Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan ❑ Site Plan ❑ Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) ❑■ Other: school Development Development Type: ❑ Residential: Units Acres ❑ Fiscal IN Recreation/Parks ❑ Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees ❑ Transportation: Type ❑ Commercial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees ❑ Mining: Mineral ❑ Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees ❑ Power: Type MW ❑■ Educational: 750 Students, ability to expand to 1,080 ❑ Waste Treatment:Type MGD ❑ Recreational: ❑■ Wetland/Riparian ❑ Hazardous Waste:Type ❑ Water Facilities:Type MGD ❑ Other: -------------------- Project Issues Discussed in Document: ❑N Aesthetic/Visual ❑ Fiscal IN Recreation/Parks X Vegetation ❑■ Agricultural Land ❑■ Flood Plain/Flooding ❑■ Schools/Universities 0 Water Quality ❑� Air Quality Forest Land/Fire Hazard ❑■ Septic Systems ❑■ Water Supply/Groundwater ❑■ Archeological/Historical Geologic/Seismic Sewer Capacity ❑■ Wetland/Riparian ❑■ Biological Resources ❑■ Minerals Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading ❑■ Growth Inducement ❑ Coastal Zone ❑■ Noise Solid Waste ❑■ Land Use ❑■ Drainage/Absorption X Population/Housing Balance Toxic/Hazardous ❑ Cumulative Effects ❑ Economic/Jobs ❑■ Public Services/Facilities ❑■ Traffic/Circulation ❑ Other: -------------------------------------------------------------- Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation: Vacant land in an Exclusive Agriculture (A); Resource- Intensive Agriculture (R -IA) general plan designation -------------------------------------------------------------- Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary) See following page. Note: The State Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (e.g. Notice of)repar`tion or m previous draft document) please fill in. '— Rev>S6d2010 I G I NAL Crescent Elementary School Construction Project Description Greenfield Union School District is proposing to construct and operate an elementary school (Project) within the unincorporated area of central Kern County at the southern end of San Joaquin Valley, California. The elementary school campus will occupy approximately 23 acres of the Project site. There will be multiple buildings, with an approximate area totaling almost 74,000 square feet (sq. ft.). The school will be completed in phases, with the first phase constructing: an administrative building, a cafeteria/multipurpose room, and 31 classrooms. The initial enrollment capacity will be 750 students with a potential to expand up to 1,080 students. Approximately 52 staff parking spaces and 100 visitor parking spaces will be provided. The site would be primarily accessed from Panama Lane on the northern Project boundary. oI bWsFq�-c� >- m F- r v O ORIGINAL Reviewing Agencies Checklist Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "X" If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S". X Air Resources Board X Office of Historic Preservation Boating & Waterways, Department of Office of Public School Construction California Emergency Management Agency X Parks & Recreation, Department of X California Highway Patrol Pesticide Regulation, Department of X Caltrans District # 6 Public Utilities Commission X Caltrans Division of Aeronautics X Regional WQCB # s Caltrans Planning Resources Agency Central Valley Flood Protection Board Resources Recycling and Recovery, Department of Coachella Valley Mtns. Conservancy S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Comm. Coastal Commission San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers & Mtns. Conservancy Colorado River Board San Joaquin River Conservancy X Conservation, Department of Santa Monica Mtns. Conservancy Corrections, Department of State Lands Commission Delta Protection Commission SWRCB: Clean Water Grants X Education, Department of SWRCB: Water Quality Energy Commission SWRCB: Water Rights X Fish & Game Region # a Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Food & Agriculture, Department of X Toxic Substances Control, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of X Water Resources, Department of General Services, Department of Health Services, Department of X Other: Division of the State Architect Housing & Community Development Other: X Native American Heritage Commission -------------------------------------------------------------- Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Starting Date October 31, 2019 -------------------------------------------------------------- Ending Date November 29, 2019 Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): Consulting Firm: Address: City/State/Zip: _ Contact: Phone: Applicant: Address: ' City/State/Zip: Phone: -------------------------------------------------------------- Signature of Lead Agency Representative: /S/ Date: 10/31/2019 Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code. gAK, 9q E— m U p ORIGINAL Revised 2010 State Clearinghouse (SCH) Office of Planning and Research P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 OVERNIGHT COURIER California Department of Education SCH DISTRIBUTION Office of Public School Construction SCH DISTRIBUTION California Department of Toxic Substances Control SCH DISTRIBUTION City of Bakersfield Planning Division 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Kern Council of Governments 1404 191 Street, Ste 300 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Kern County Library Beale Memorial 701 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 US Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, W-2606 Sacramento, CA 95825 Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe Rueben Barrios Sr., Chairperson P.O. Box 8 Lemoore, CA 93245 DISTRIBUTION LIST California Air Resources Board SCH DISTRIBUTION California Department of Fish and Wildlife SCH DISTRIBUTION Central Valley RWQCB SCH DISTRIBUTION California Department of Water Resources SCH DISTRIBUTION City of Bakersfield Public Works Department 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 City of Bakersfield Police Department 1601 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Central Region 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue Fresno, CA 93726 Pacific Gas & Electric Co Land Department 1918 "H" Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 Tule River Indian Tribe Neil Peyron, Chairperson P.O. Box 589 Porterville, CA 93258 California Department of Transportation SCH DISTRIBUTION Caltrans Div of Aeronautics SCH DISTRIBUTION Native American Heritage Commission SCH DISTRIBUTION State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality SCH DISTRIBUTION Division of the State Architect SCH DISTRIBUTION Kern County Planning & Natural Resources Department Special Projects Section 2700 M Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Kern County Public Works Department 2700 M Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources 4800 Stockdale Highway, #417 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Southern California Gas Co 1510 North Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93308 Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians Delia Dominguez, Chairperson 115 Radio Street Bakersfield, CA 93300 g"11c9 F- m C.J r O ORIGINAL San Fernando Band of Mission Indians Tejon Indian Tribe Kern Valley Indian Council John Valenzuela, Chairperson Katherine Montes Morgan, Chairperson Julie Turner, Secretary P.O. Box 221838 1731 Hasti-acres Drive, Suite 108 P.O. Box 1010 Newhall, CA 91322 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Lake Isabella, CA 93240 Wuksache Indian Tribe/ Eshom Valley Band Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson 1179 Rock Haven Ct. Salinas, CA 93906 Chumash Council of Bakersfield Arianne Garcia, Chairperson P.O. Box 902 Bakersfield, CA 93302 Kern Valley Indian Council Robert Robinson, Co -Chairperson P.O. Box 401 Weldon, CA 93283 81 T ORIGINAL Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents MitigatedNegative Declaration................................................................................................................. 3 SECTIONI-Introduction....... ............... .................. .................. ....... ....... ....... ...................... ............... ...1-1 1.1- Overview....................................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 - California Environmental Quality Act.............................................................................................1-1 1.3 - California Department of Education, School Siting Requirements......................................1-1 1.4 - Impact Terminology...............................................................................................................................1-2 1.5 - Document Organization and Contents.........................:..................................................................1-2 1.6 - Incorporated by Reference..................................................................................................................1-3 SECTION2- ProjectDescription........................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1- Introduction..............................................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 - Project Location.......................................................................................................................................2-1 2.3 - Project Environment..............................................................................................................................2-1 2.4 - Proposed Project...:.................................................................................................................................2-1 SECTION3 - Initial Study......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1- Environmental Checklist......................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected................................................................................3-2 3.3 - Determination..........................................................................................................................................3-2 3.4 - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts............................................................................................3-4 3.4.1-Aesthetics.................................................................................................................................3-6 3.4.2 - Agriculture and Forestry Resources..............................................................................3-9 3.4.3 - Air Quality............................................................................................................................. 3-14 3.4.4 - Biological Resources......................................................................................................... 3-21 3.4.5 - Cultural resources.............................................................................................................. 3-34 3.4.6 - Energy..................................................................................................................................... 3-38 3.4.7 - Geology and Soils................................................................................................................ 3-41 3.4.8 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................. 3-50 3.4.9 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................................... 3-52 3.4.10 - Hydrology and Water Quality..................................................................................... 3-60 3.4.11- Land Use and Planning.................................................................................................. 3-68 3.4.12 - Mineral Resources........................................................................................................... 3-72 3.4.13 - Noise.....................................................................................................................................3-74 3.4.14 - Population and Housing................................................................................................ 3-80 3.4.15 - Public Services.................................................................................................................. 3-82 3.4.16 - Recreation.......................................................................................................................... 3-87 3.4.17 - Transportation................................................................................................................. 3-89 3.4.18 - Tribal Cultural Resources.......................................................................................... 3-102 3.4.19 - Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................... 3-104 Crescent Elementary School October 2019 Greenfield School District Page 1 ORIGINAL Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.4.20 - Wildfire............................................................................................................................. 3-109 3.4.21- Mandatory Findings of Significance...................................................................... 3-112 SECTION - List ofPreparers 4-115 Lead Agency- Greenfield Union School District.............................................................................. 4-115 Consultant- QK............................................................................................................................................ 4-115 SECTION5 - Bibliography .............. ............... ............................ ,........ ,....... ...................... ...1............ 5-116 SECTION 6 - Mitigation Monitoringand Reporting Program .................................................. 6=119 Appendices Appendix A - Hazards Studies Appendix B - Small Project Level Analysis Appendix C - Cultural Resources Appendix D - Energy Consumption Technical Memo Appendix E - Caltrans Aeronautics Letter Appendix F - Traffic Impact Study List of Figures Figure1-1 Regional Location.......................................................................................................................1-4 Figure1-2 Aerial Location.............................................................................................................................1-5 Figure1-3 CDE Siting Hazards.....................................................................................................................1-6 Figure 3.4.2-1 Williamson Act Land Use Contract............................................................................ 3-13 Figure3.4.7-1 Soil Types............................................................................................................................. 3-49 Figure 3.4.9-1 Oil / Gas Wells and Field Boundaries........................................................................ 3-59 Figure 3.4.10-1 FEMA Flood Hazards.................................................................................................... 3-67 Figure 3.4.11-1 Land Use Designations.................................................................................................3-70 Figure3.4.11-2 Zone Districts................................................................................................................... 3-71 List of Tables Table 3.4.4-1 List of Plant and Wildlife Species Observed within the Survey Area ............. 3-23 Table 3.4.17-1 Project Trip Generation................................................................................................. 3-91 Table 3.4.17-2 Level of Service Criteria - Unsignalized Intersections ...................................... 3-91 Table 3.4.17-3 Level of Service Criteria Signalized Intersections ............................................... 3-91 Table 3.4.17-4 AM Intersection Level of Service............................................................................... 3-92 Table 3.4.17-5 PM Intersection Level of Service................................................................................ 3-93 Crescent Elementary School Greenfield School District October 2019 Page��.A KF9� ~_ m r 0 O ORIGINAL Mitigated Negative Declaration MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION As Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Greenfield Union School District (District) reviewed the Project described below to determine whether it could have a significant effect on the environment because of its development. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15382, "[s]ignificant effect on the environment" means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the Project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. Protect Name Crescent Elementary School Construction Project Protect Location Southwest corner of Panama Lane and Cottonwood Road, Bakersfield, CA. Protect Description The District is proposing to construct and operate an elementary school (Project) within the unincorporated area of central Kern County at the southern end of San Joaquin Valley, California. Figure 1-1 is a map of the regional location and Figure 1-2 shows the aerial view of the Project site. The elementary school campus will occupy an approximately 23 -acre portion of a 49.5 -acre parcel. The school campus site will be annexed into the City of Bakersfield and connect to the City of Bakersfield's water and sewer systems. The construction of the Project would be phased. The initial enrollment would be 750 students with a maximum capacity of 1,080 students at full buildout. There will be seven buildings, with an approximate area totaling almost 74,000 square feet (sq. ft.). These buildings will include classrooms, administrative buildings, and multi-purpose rooms. Student population for the new school would come from students within the District, which is currently experiencing overcrowded facilities. The enrollment in the District during the 2018-2019 school year was 9,562 students (California Department of Education, 2019). It is anticipated that new residential development in the metropolitan Bakersfield area would exacerbate the existing overcrowding conditions without the addition of a new school. The construction of the new school would help alleviate the problem of current overcrowding and is designed to provide an elementary school for future students as the population within the District grows. California Department of Education, School Siting Requirements Education Code Section 17251 and the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 5, Sections 14001 through 14012, outline the powers and duties of the California Department of Education (CDE) regarding school sites and the construction of school buildings. Districts Crescent Elementary School Greenfield School District October 2019 eX KF9 Page 3' � m r v o ORIGINAL Mitigated Negative Declaration using local funds are encouraged to seek the Department's approval for the benefits that such outside, objective reviews provide to the school district and the community. Safety is the first consideration in the selection and/or construction of school sites. Certain health and safety requirements are governed by state regulations and the policies of the Department. When selecting new school sites, the selection team considers the following factors: (1) proximity to airports; (2) proximity to high-voltage power transmission lines; (3) presence of toxic and hazardous substances; (4) hazardous air emissions and facilities within a quarter mile; (5) other health hazards; (6) proximity to railroads; (7) proximity to high-pressure natural gas lines, gasoline lines, pressurized sewer lines, or high pressure water pipelines; (8) proximity to propane tanks; (9) noise; (10) proximity to major roadways; (11) results of geological studies and soils analyses; (12) condition of traffic and school bus safety, (13) safe routes to school; and (14) safety issues for joint -use projects. In considering the construction of Crescent Elementary School, the Greenfield Union School District considered the factors which apply to new school sites. Figure 1-3 illustrates the location and/or proximity of known hazards using the factors listed above for school site selection and lists the distances to each of the identified hazards from the school. In general, the school siting criteria provides that hazards should be located greater than 1,500 feet from any new school. Data indicates that the nearest high-pressure gas lines is greater than 1,500 feet from the Project site. Other identified hazards include an inactive 6 - inch oil pipeline, and 8 -inch active oil pipeline (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019a). A visual site reconnaissance indicated that overhead power lines at 21 Kilovolt (kV) are present along the south side of Panama Lane (northern Project boundary), on the western Project boundary, and along the east side of Cottonwood Road (See Figure 1-3). No power lines are present within 350 feet of the Project site that carry greater than 50 Kilovolt (kV) power overhead or underground (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019b) MaiiingAddress and Phone Number of Contact Person Greenfield Union School District 1624 Fairview Road Bakersfield, CA 93309 Contact Person: Jesse Avalos, Director of Maintenance Phone: (661) 837-6000 Rndings As Lead Agency, the District finds that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Checklist (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G) or Initial Study (IS) (see Section 3 - Environmental Checklist) identified one or more potentially significant effects on the environment, but revisions to the Project have been made before the release of this Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or mitigation measures would be implemented that reduce all potentially significant impacts less than significant levels. The Lead Agency Crescent Elementary School Greenfield School District October 2019 gAK Page 4 U r - O ORIGINAL Mitigated Negative Declaration further finds that there is no substantial evidence that this Project would have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation Measures included in the Project to Avoid Potentlally Significant Effects MM AES -1: Security and nighttime lighting installed at the school site shall incorporate shielding of lighting and orienting lighting downward to prevent direct uplighting. Lighting used for nighttime events shall be turned off by 11:00pm. All lights in excess of 150 watts shall be directed toward the stadium field and away from adjacent properties. All stadium field light fixtures shall be designed with appropriate reflectors, hoods and side shields to direct the angle of incidence to reflect light downward. MM BIO -1: Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a biological clearance survey no more than 30 calendar days prior to the onset of construction. The clearance survey shall include walking transects to identify presence of San Joaquin kit fox, American badger, Swainson's hawk, Western burrowing owl, nesting birds -and other special -status species or signs of, and sensitive natural communities. The pre -construction survey shall be walked by no greater than 30 -foot transects for 100 percent coverage of the Project site and the 50 -foot buffer, where feasible. Exclusion zones for kit fox shall be placed in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Recommendations using the following: Known Den 100 -foot radius Atypical Den 50 -foot radius Buffer zones shall be considered Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and no ground disturbing activities shall be allowed within a buffer area. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) shall be contacted upon the discovery of any SJKF individuals within 500 feet, natal or pupping dens is found during construction activities. CDFW staff shall be contacted at (559) 243-4014 and R4CESA@wildlifeca.gov. Potential kit fox dens may be excavated provided that the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the den has been monitored for at least five consecutive days and is deemed unoccupied by a qualified biologist; (2) the excavation is conducted by or under the direct supervision of a qualified biologist. Den monitoring and excavation should be conducted in accordance with the Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011). Crescent Elementary School October 2019 ��AKF9 Greenfield School District Page 5 s_ tZ m r- 0 U p ORIGINAL Mitigated Negative Declaration In addition, impacts to occupied burrowing owl burrows shall be avoided in accordance with the following table unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through non- invasive methods that either: 1) the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation; or 2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. Location Time of Year Level of Disturbance Low Med High Nesting sites April 1 -Aug 15 200 m* 500 m 500 m Nesting sites Aug 16 -Oct 15 200 m 200 m 500 m Nesting sites Oct 16 -Mar 31 50 m 100 m 500 m MM BIO -2: Prior to ground disturbance activities, or within one week of being deployed at the Project site for newly hired workers, all construction workers at the Project site shall attend a Construction Worker Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program, developed and presented by a qualified biologist. The Construction Worker Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program shall be presented by the biologist and shall include information on the life history wildlife and plant species that may be encountered during construction activities, their legal protections, the definition of "take" under the Endangered Species Act, measures the Project operator is implementing to protect the species, reporting requirements, specific measures that each worker must employ to avoid take of the species, and penalties for violation of the Act. Identification and information regarding special -status or other sensitive species with the potential to occur on the Project site shall also be provided to construction personnel. The program shall include: An acknowledgement form signed by each worker indicating that environmental training has been completed. A copy of the training transcript and/or training video/CD, as well as a list of the names of all personnel who attended the training and copies of the signed acknowledgement forms shall be maintain on site for the duration of construction activities. MM BIO -3: If all Project activities are completed outside of the Swainson's hawk nesting season (February 15 through August 31), this mitigation measure shall need not be applied. If construction is planned during the nesting season, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to evaluate the site and a 0.5 -mile buffer around the site for active Swainson's hawk nests. If potential Swainson's hawk nests or nesting substrates occur within 0.5 mile of the Project site, then those nests or substrates must be monitored for Swainson's hawk nesting activity on a routine and repeating basis throughout the breeding season, or until Swainson's hawks or other raptor species are verified to be using Crescent Elementary School October 2019 0� $AK1 �� Greenfield School District Page 6 H- m U r O ORIGINAL Mitigated Negative Declaration them. Monitoring shall be conducted according to the protocol outlined in the Recommended Timing andMethodologyfor Swainson's HawkNesting Surveysin California's Cen tral Valley (Swainson's Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000). The protocol recommends that ten visits be made to each nest or nesting site: one during January 1 -March 20 to identify potential nest sites, three during March 20 -April 5, three during April 5 -April 20, and three during June 10 -July 30. To meet the minimum level of protection for the species, surveys shall be completed for at least the two survey periods immediately prior to Project -related ground disturbance activities. During the nesting period, active Swainson's hawk nests shall be avoided by 0.5 mile unless this avoidance buffer is reduced through consultation with the CDFW and/or USFWS. If an active Swainson's hawk nest is located within 500 feet of the Project or within the Project site, including the stick nest located within the Project, the Project proponent shall contact CDFW for guidance. MM BIO -4: A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre -construction survey on the Project site and within 500 feet of its perimeter, where feasible, to identify the presence of the western burrowing owl. The survey shall be conducted between 14 and 30 days prior to the start of construction activities. If any burrowing owl burrows are observed during the preconstruction survey, avoidance measures shall be consistent with those included in the CDFW staff report on burrowing owl mitigation (CDFG 2012). If occupied burrowing owl burrows are observed outside of the breeding season (September 1 through January 31) and within 250 feet of proposed construction activities, a passive relocation effort may be instituted in accordance with the guidelines established by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2012). During the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a 500 -foot (minimum) buffer zone should be maintained unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive methods that either the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation or that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. MM BIO -5: If construction is planned outside the nesting period for raptors (other than the western burrowing owl) and migratory birds (February 15 to August 31), no mitigation shall be required. If construction is planned during the nesting season for migratory birds and raptors, a preconstruction survey to identify active bird nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to evaluate the site and a 250 -foot buffer for migratory birds and a 500 - foot buffer for raptors. If nesting birds are identified during the survey, active raptor nests shall be avoided by 500 feet and all other migratory bird nests shall be avoided by 250 feet. Avoidance buffers may be reduced if a qualified on-site monitor determines that encroachment into the buffer area is not affecting nest building, the rearing of young, or otherwise affecting the breeding behaviors of the resident birds. Because nesting birds can establish new nests or produce a second or even third clutch at any time during the nesting season, nesting bird surveys shall be repeated every 30 days as construction activities are occurring throughout the nesting season. No construction or earth -moving activity shall occur within a non -disturbance buffer until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged (left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid Project construction areas. Once the migratory birds Crescent Elementary School Greenfield School District October 2019�$NKF9 Page 7' TO r U p ORIGINAL Mitigated Negative Deciafation or raptors have completed nesting and young have fledged, disturbance buffers will no longer be needed and can be removed, and monitoring can cease. MM BIO -6: During all construction -related activities, the following mitigation shall apply: a. All food -related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in securely closed containers. All food -related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from the construction or Project site. b. Construction -related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads and predetermined ingress and egress corridors, staging, and parking areas. Vehicle speeds should not exceed 20 miles per hour (mph) within the Project site. c. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit fox or other animals during construction, the contractor shall cover all excavated, steep -walled holes or trenches more than two feet deep at the close of each workdaywith plywood or similar materials. If holes or trenches cannot be covered, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen fill or wooden planks shall be installed in the trench. Before such holes or trenches are filled, the contractor shall thoroughly inspect them for entrapped animals. All construction - related pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four -inches or greater that are stored on the Project site shall be thoroughly inspected for wildlife before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in anyway. If at any time an entrapped or injured kit fox is discovered, work in the immediate area shall be temporarily halted and USFWS and CDFW shall be consulted. d. Kit foxes are attracted to den -like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four -inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods shall be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until the USFWS and CDFW has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped. e. No pets, such as dogs or cats, shall be permitted on the Project sites to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens. f. Use of anti -coagulant rodenticides and herbicides in Project areas shall be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional Project -related restrictions deemed necessary by the USFWS and CDFW. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide shall be used because of the proven lower risk to kit foxes. g. A representative shall be appointed by the Project proponent who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The representative shall be identified Crescent Elementary School October 20 �AK119 Greenfield School District Pag � m r V O ORIGINAL Mitigated Negative Declaration during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the USFWS. h. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office of USFWS and CDFW shall be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during Project -related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information. The USFWS contact is the Chief of the Division of Endangered Species, at the addresses and telephone numbers below. The CDFW contact can be reached at 17-01 (559) 243-4014 and R4CESA@wildlifeca.gov. i. All sightings of the San Joaquin kit fox shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed shall also be provided to the Service at the address below. j. Any Project -related information required by the USFWS or questions concerning the above conditions, or their implementation may be directed in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at: Endangered Species Division, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W 2605, Sacramento, California 95825-1846, phone (916) 414-6620 or (916) 414-6600. k. If burrowing owl are found to occupy the Project site and avoidance is not possible, burrow exclusion may be conducted by qualified biologists only during the non - breeding season, before breeding behavior is exhibited, and after the burrow is confirmed empty through non-invasive methods (surveillance). Replacement or occupied burrows shall consist of artificial burrows at a ratio of 1 burrow collapsed to 1 artificial burrow constructed (1:1). Ongoing surveillance of the Project site during construction activities shall occur at a rate sufficient to detect Burrowing owl, if they return. MM CUL -1: If prehistoric or historic -era cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire -affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations maybe required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation. Implementation of the mitigation measure below would ensure that the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Therefore, the Project would have a less -than -significant impact with incorporation of mitigation measures. MM CUL -2: If human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code Crescent Elementary School Greenfield School District October 2019 F �� KF9 s� Page �� m U O ORIGINAL Mitigated Negative Declaration (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement, in the event of discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner. MM GEO-1: Prior to construction, the District shall submit 1) the approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and 2) the Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The requirements of the SWPPP and NPDES shall be incorporated into design specifications and construction contracts. Recommended best management practices for the construction phase may include the following: • Stockpiling and disposing of demolition debris, concrete, and soil properly; • Protecting existing storm drain inlets and stabilizing disturbed areas; • Implementing erosion controls; • Properly managing construction materials; and • Managing waste, aggressively controlling litter, and implementing sediment controls. MM GEO-2: Prior to the commencement of construction, the contractor shall evaluate whether the perched water table has begun to dissipate under the site. Results of the testing and evaluation shall be submitted to the Lead Agency for review and evaluation. If evaluation determines that the perched water is not dissipated, the Lead Agency will consult with the Division of the State Architect to discuss possible changes in project design to provide protection from liquefaction and settlement. MM GEO-3: During any ground disturbance activities, if paleontological resources are encountered, all work within 25 feet of the find shall halt until a qualified paleontologist as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (2010), can evaluate the find and make recommendations regarding treatment. Paleontological resource materials may include resources such as fossils, plant impressions, or animal tracks preserved in rock. The qualified paleontologist shall contact the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or other appropriate facility regarding any discoveries of paleontological resources. If the qualified paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations and fossil recovery may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated for their significance. If the resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are significant, they shall be avoided to ensure no adverse effects, or such effects must be mitigated. Construction in that area shall not resume until the resource appropriate measures are recommended or the materials are determined to be less than significant. If the resource is significant and fossil recovery is the identified form of treatment, then the fossil shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution. Copies of all correspondence and reports shall be submitted to the Lead Agency. Crescent Elementary School Greenfield School District October 2019 OAKF Page 10 r U O ORIGINAL Mitigated Negative Decimation MM HAZ-1: Prior to operation of the Project, the Project proponent shall prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan that identifies the new location of the new school campus and submit it to the appropriate regulatory agency for review and approval. The Project proponent shall provide the hazardous materials business plan to all contractors working on the Project and shall ensure that one copy is available at the Project site at all times. MM HAZ-2: In the event that other abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading activities, all work shall cease, and the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources shall be contacted for requirements and approvals. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources may determine that remedial plugging operations maybe required. MM HAZ-3: Prior to commencement of construction, the location of all classroom buildings will be a minimum of 120 feet away from the crude oil pipelines. MM HAZ-4: Prior to operation of the Project, a high-pressure pipeline release scenario shall be included as part of the school's emergency response program. MM HYD -1: The District shall limit grading to the minimum area necessary for construction and operation of the Project. Final grading plans shall include best management practices to limit onsite and offsite erosion. MM HYD -2: Prior to initiation of grading activities, the District shall obtain a water "will serve" letter from California Water Service. MM NSE -1: During construction, the contractor shall situate implement the following measures: • All stationary construction equipment on the Project site shall be located so that noise emitting objects or equipment faces away from any potential sensitive receptors. The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is equipped with manufacturer -approved mufflers and baffles During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. Construction activities shall not take place outside of the allowable hours specified by Section 9.22.050 of the City Noise Ordinance. MM NSE -2: Project architect/contractor shall incorporate noise attenuation methods into the design and construction of Project. These include but are not limited to the following design features: • R-30 insulation will be placed in the ceilings, which has a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 37. Crescent Elementary School Greenfield School District October 2019 $P KF9 Page 11 o sem, ~ r U O ORIGINAL Mitigated Negative Declaration • R-19 insulation will be placed in the walls, which has a STC rating of 37. • All windows will be 1 -inch dual paned insulating glass, which has a STC rating of 32. MM TRA -1: The District shall consult with City of Bakersfield Public Works Department regarding required roadway improvements. The District shall pay fair share costs of 5.45% for a signal at the intersection of Cottonwood Road and Pacheco Road to the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department prior to proj ect commencement. The District shall also pay Regional Transportation Impact Fees. Based on negotiations with the Public Works Department, it may be determined that full improvements to the Cottonwood Road and Pacheco Road intersection, along with local road improvements along the proposed site's frontage maybe acceptable in lieu of RTIF payment. MM TRA -2: Prior to commencement of operations, the District shall prepare andcirculate a "Safe Route to School" Plan that has been developed that defines the routes that children should use to travel to and from school. Crescent Elementary School October 2019 Greenfield School District Page 12 o``gAKF9(s-c� U � ORIGINAL introduction SECTION 1- INTRODUCTION 1.1- Overview The District is proposing to construct and operate an elementary school (Project) within the unincorporated area of central Kern County at the southern end of San Joaquin Valley, California. Figure 1-1 is a map of the regional location and Figure 1-2 shows the aerial location of the Project site. 1U - California Environmental Quallty Act The District is the Lead Agency for this Project pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code Section 15000 et seq.). The Environmental Checklist (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G) or Initial Study (IS) (see Section 3 - Initial Study) provides analysis that examines the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project. Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency to prepare an IS to determine whether a discretionary Project will have a significant effect on the environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is appropriate when an IS has been prepared and a determination can be made that no significant environmental effects will occur because revisions to the Project have been made or mitigation measures will be implemented that reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. The content of an MND is the same. as a Negative Declaration, with the addition of identified mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (see Section 6 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program). Based on the IS, the Lead Agency has determined that the environmental review for the proposed application can be completed with an MND. 1.3 - Cal/forn/a Department of Education, School Siting Requirements Education Code Section 17251 and the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 5, Sections 14001 through 14012, outline the powers and duties of the California Department of Education (CDE) regarding school sites and the construction of school buildings. Districts using local funds are encouraged to seek the Department's approval for the benefits that such outside, objective reviews provide to the school district and the community. Safety is the first consideration in the selection and/or construction of school sites. Certain health and safety requirements are governed by state regulations and the policies of the Department. When selecting new school sites, the selection team considers the following factors: (1) proximity to airports; (2) proximity to high-voltage power transmission lines; (3) presence of toxic and hazardous substances; (4) hazardous air emissions and facilities within a quarter mile; (5) other health hazards; (6) proximity to railroads; (7) proximity to high-pressure natural gas lines, gasoline lines, pressurized sewer lines, or high pressure water pipelines; (8) proximity to propane tanks; (9) noise; (10) proximity to major roadways; (11) results of geological studies and soils analyses; (12) condition of traffic and school bus safety; (13) safe routes to school; and (14) safety issues for joint -use projects. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019o�c�AKF9�-� Page 1-9k m r V � ORIGINAL /ntroductlon In considering the construction of the Crescent Elementary School, the Greenfield Union School District considered the factors that apply to new school sites. Figure 1-3 illustrates the location and/or proximity of known hazards using the factors listed above for school site selection and lists the distances to each of the identified hazards from the school. Figure 1-4 illustrates the location of Alquist-Priolo earthquake faults, nearby airports and CalFire Fire Hazard Zone areas in the Project vicinity. In general, the school siting criteria provides that hazards should be located greater than 1,500 feet from any new school. The geologic hazard study prepared for the Project indicates that no high-pressure natural gas pipelines appear to be present within 1,500 feet of the site, but Kern Oil operates an active 8 -inch crude oil pipeline and an idle 6 -inch crude oil pipeline on the south side of Panama Lane. (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019a). There are no overhead high voltage transmission lines within 350 feet of the Project site that carry greater than 50 Kilovolts (k) power overhead or underground (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019b). These studies can be found in Appendix A. 1.4 - impact Terminoio& The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of impacts. • A finding of "no impact" is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the Project would not affect a topic area in any way. • An impact is considered "less than significant" if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation. • An impact is considered "less than significant with mitigation incorporated" if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of environmental commitments that have been agreed to by the applicant. • An impact is considered "potentially significant" if the analysis concludes that it could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment. 1,5- Document Organization and Contents The content and format of this IS/MND is designed to meet the requirements of CEQA. The report contains the following sections: Section 1 - Introduction: This section provides an overview of CEQA requirements, intended uses of the IS/MND, document organization, and a list of regulations that have been incorporated by reference. Section 2- Project Description: This section describes the Project and provides data on the site's location. Section 3 - Initial Study.• This section contains the evaluation of 18 different environmental resource factors contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Each environmental resource factor is analyzed to determine whether the proposed Project would have an impact. One of four findings is made which include: no impact, less than significant impact, less than significant with mitigation, or significant and unavoidable. If Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 Page 1-2 > m v 4 ORIGINAL Introduction the evaluation results in a finding of significant and unavoidable for any of the 18 environmental resource factors, then an Environmental Impact Report will be required. • Section 4 - List of Preparers: This section identifies the individuals who prepared the IS/MND. • Section S - Bibliography: This section contains .a full list of references that were used in the preparation of this IS/MND. • Section 6 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: This section contains the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. .L6- Incorporated by Reference The following documents and/or regulations are incorporated into this IS/MND by reference: • Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan; • Kern County General Plan EIR; • Kern County Zoning Ordinance; • Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan • California Department of Education, Title 5, California Code of Regulation; and • California Title 24 Code of Regulations (2019) Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District UCtober ZUIV $NKF9 Page 1-41 s� �- m v O ORIGINAL Introduction Fill 11 -1 1«1 R A R N E Y 8 1 Fa, sr..; ' Lei ryYa Naamn rY. yak -I I� d"7'i+ -.it LFI P, U:a UFICF�t f1 Fd , T 4. it " F rrvy :nn u�arU - 9 GCI _ ' t:M:Lnq Q Fcrosl cs}\ `# - CA CaOE RANT � I hit—, Lamclnt rr;sona - I IF. I/ 11011 I-III(U - it l- I fi Clltr l i•ya � i- C �ZSa,GI.t 1".'.10 + P011 _ 1� y ry•III t Y db J• D "Miles __. 7.5 Old �r- .lodes - ti _ Erra \. nat Esau Fo .5ar 4 , Sal Jk�LqTAL RA �rd', eaa \ lia. afa S nu .r Fl —6, N lmu \� ,.cr-an,, .. \ , m b:a I arra i -r P. P.a: \. P,vk� �, _ ��Pvr a�n'sll:f] - `� � .• naic�d ` I 1 -Lt a \ t,sneld ` FUntrAn \� ��j LaY.e �sp; lLonq,oc •Palre a. � "'-I /�~-'~�� \Ila•:�su / o nmcn.. ;Shcll.]'�/ Iclornlla City. rsao:, 1 Cl:ndo PA.d Ic �.` c., ai.q-cN� a. a Darbaf. x. Oxnard ti FUleai. � .} p�clFca ®at ylm ImJLo Long fes-'-� ♦° � o \� Ia I.Itlnlela Pala, D— Ic, kva O C Frodn3 �d— QQ Project Location F °"-- = �(° a t=13 - Tijuana91 0 Miles 100 P nsenada Snorw� �rri bYodc Topn„n.; rdc Figure 1-1 Regional Location �bAK4 Crescent Elementary School 1S/MND October 201 m Greenfield School District Page 1-E o OP,IGINAL ZEWZZ EIA DR' all `lfL� 5 Project Site Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District s Figure 1-2 Aerial Location Introduction S h �N � 600 t Feet t October 20 19o1c�AKF��� Page 1-5-.' m r U � ORIGINAL L :. N;i ' r. �AlKERSFlELD A Y� e 4 ire. ."r s. rj.-i J ' -� � --� •5>5�R 157CC1111' 3.T r '.AS X11$ '. 6° •�� '' Wt K • Insets 5� • t i � v 0 Active DOGGR Well 5 O Idle DOGGR Well h , • Idle DOGGR Well (Water) z'... * Plugged DOGGR Well —F Railroads a =Airport Boundary Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District Introduction OPower Pole With Transformer ❑ Power Pole —Active Sin and inactive 61n Pipelines ®Project Site Figure 1-3 DOGGR Wells and Utilities October 2019o��AKF9P Page 1-6 m r— v o ORIGINAL Introduction - . .. .. ' - lil9u L1ell i'`� � ` sfield - I Le I i i Gd�ee • I A Project Site © Public Use Airports Alquist-Priolo Faults 8: Solid lines (accurately located fault traces) — - 8: Long dashed lines (approximately located fault traces) • • • - 10: Short -dashed lines (inferred fault traces) • • 11: Dotted lines (concealed fault traces) • 12: Thin dashed and dotted lines (aerial photo lineament) - Fire Hazard Severity Zones In State Responsibility Area (SRA) Moderate ® Hlgh I� Very High QK Sources: FEMA NHFL Datase Figure 1-4 Q14V Alquist Priolo Faults and Fire Hazard Severity Zones Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019� V,.KF9 Page 1-7 0: F m r— v; b ORIGINAL Project Description SECTION 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1- Introduction The District is proposing to construct and operate an elementary school (Project) within the unincorporated area of central Kern County at the southern end of San Joaquin Valley, California. Figure 1-1 is a map of the regional location and Figure 1-2 shows the aerial location of the Project site. 2.2 -Project Location The project site is located within Section 29, Township 30 South, Range 28 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M), within the Lamont U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 - minute topographic quadrangle. The site encompasses approximately 23 -acre portion of Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 518-030-22. The Project site is located on the southwest of Cottonwood Road and East Panama Lane. 2,3 -Project Environment The site is not currently under agricultural cultivation. However, the site was historically used for agricultural purposes over the past 50 years, and as recently as 2017. The Project site is within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP), a plan that consists of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The site is bordered by cultivated farmland property on the north and east, the Arvin -Edison canal and cultivated farmland to the south, and the Kern Island canal and undeveloped farmland to the west. Police and fire service will be served by the City of Bakersfield and/or the County of Kern. The Project will connect to the existing sewer system, and the nearest sewer line is approximately 1/4 mile from the site (City of Bakersfield, 2019). District anticipates annexing into the City of Bakersfield and would tie into the existing Panama and Union Planned Area sewer line system. Water will be provided by California Water Service and sanitation/garbage collection will be provided by Price Disposal, with waste being deposited in the Bena Landfill. 2,4 - Proposed Project The elementary school campus will occupy approximately 23 acres of the Project site. There will be multiple buildings, with an approximate area totaling almost 74,000 square feet (sq. ft.). The school will be completed in phases, with the first phase constructing: an administrative building, a cafeteria/multipurpose room, and 31 classrooms. The initial enrollment capacity will be 750 students with a potential to expand up to 1,080 students. Approximately 52 staff parking spaces and 100 visitor parking spaces will be provided. The site would be primarily accessed from Panama Lane on the northern Project Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 Greenfield School District Page 2-1 m U; O ORIGINAL Project Description boundary. The school campus site will be annexed into the City of Bakersfield and connect to the City of Bakersfield's water and sewer systems. Student population for the new school would come from existing students within the District, which is currently experiencing overcrowded facilities. The enrollment in the District during the 2018-2019 school year was 9,562 students (California Department of Education, 2019). It is anticipated that new residential development in the metropolitan Bakersfield area would exacerbate the existing overcrowding conditions without the addition of a new school. The construction of the new school would help alleviate the problem of current overcrowding and is designed to provide an elementary school for future students as the population within the District grows. An active 8 -inch crude oil pipeline and an idle 6 -inch crude oil pipeline operated by Kern Oil are present on the south side of Panama Lane. However, no gas pipelines appear to be present within 1,500 feet of the site (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019a). No known historic oil activity has occurred on the site. The Project is not located within the boundaries of an oilfield. According to the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) records and maps, no oil or gas wells were shown to be present on the Project site; however, less than a mile to the southeast of the site is a plugged and abandoned -dry hole. The Project site is located within the "C" zone of the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Kern County, 2012). Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 4gAKF9 Page 2-2,? � m r v o ORIGINAL /asitia/Study SECTION 3 - INITIAL STUDY 311- Environmental Checklist 1. Project Title: Crescent Elementary School Construction Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Greenfield Union School District 1624 Fairview Road Bakersfield, CA 93309 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jesse Avalos, Director of Maintenance (661) 837-6000 4. Project Location: Southwest corner of Cottonwood Road and East Panama Lane, Southeast of Bakersfield, CA. 5. General Plan Designation: Resource - Intensive Agriculture (R -IA) 6. Zoning: Exclusive Agriculture (A) 7. Description of Project: Please See Section 2. 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Agricultural cultivation to the east, west and north, and large lot single-family residential to the south. 9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: • California Department of Education; • California Department of Toxic Substances Control; • California Division of the State Architect; • Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; • Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission; and • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 gAKF Greenfield School District Page 3-1 U r O ORIGINAL /nitia/Study 3,2 - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Geology and Soils ❑ Hydrology and Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Wildfire 3,3 - Determination ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Transportation and Traffic ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Air Quality ❑ Energy ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (a) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 201-t-11 $P' Page 3-2 U D ORIGINAL; Initial Study ❑ I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Printed Name For Crescent Elementary School 1S/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 oFOAKF9� Page 3-3� v q ORIGINAL initiai&udy 3,4 - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to Projects like the one involved (e.g., the Project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on Project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a Project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as Project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross- referenced). S. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the Project. $NKF9 Crescent Elementary School 1S/MND October 201 sT Greenfield School District Page 34 � d ORIGINAL Initial Study 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a Project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 of 1'A11F9N Greenfield School District Page 3-5 m U r O ORIGINAL Initial Study b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ® ❑ outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C. In non -urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? If the project is in an urbanized area, would ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ nighttime views in the area? Discussion Impact #14.1a — Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The proposed school site is located in an area characterized by flat, undeveloped land that has been historically used for agricultural production. No known aesthetic resources exist on the site. The site is not within or in the vicinity of a city, County, or State identified scenic vista. The Project does not lie near or within a State Designated or Eligible State Scenic Highway (California Department of Transportation, 2011) Furthermore, development of the Project would not block or preclude views to any area containing important or what would be considered visually appealing landforms. Finally, the Project does not include the removal of trees determined to be scenic or of scenic value, the destruction of rock outcroppings or degradation of any historic building. Therefore, no scenic resources will be affected. The Project will not result in development that is substantially different than surrounding land uses. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019!,'�6AKk9q Greenfield School District Page 3-,&-'11 F- r v o ORIGINAL Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3.4.1- AESTHETICS Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ® ❑ . vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ® ❑ outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C. In non -urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? If the project is in an urbanized area, would ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ nighttime views in the area? Discussion Impact #14.1a — Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The proposed school site is located in an area characterized by flat, undeveloped land that has been historically used for agricultural production. No known aesthetic resources exist on the site. The site is not within or in the vicinity of a city, County, or State identified scenic vista. The Project does not lie near or within a State Designated or Eligible State Scenic Highway (California Department of Transportation, 2011) Furthermore, development of the Project would not block or preclude views to any area containing important or what would be considered visually appealing landforms. Finally, the Project does not include the removal of trees determined to be scenic or of scenic value, the destruction of rock outcroppings or degradation of any historic building. Therefore, no scenic resources will be affected. The Project will not result in development that is substantially different than surrounding land uses. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019!,'�6AKk9q Greenfield School District Page 3-,&-'11 F- r v o ORIGINAL initial Study LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.1b - Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? See Impact #3.4.1a, above. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant. Impact #3.4.1c - In non -urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The Project is in an area that is predominantly rural with residential development to the west. The Project campus and associated structures will be set back from the roadway but will remain visible to traveling motorists. However, changes to the visual quality and character of the Project site will be similar in nature to the nearby residential development. The Project would also include landscaping that would soften the visual impact of the school. The Project's appearance would substantially degrade the visual character of the site. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact to the visual quality of the area. See also discussion of Impact #3.4.1a, above. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.1d - Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Construction of the proposed Project would generally occur during daytime hours, typically from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. All lighting would be directed downward and shielded to focus illumination on the desired work areas only and prevent light spillage onto adjacent Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019<c'�'AKF9J, Page .3-1 r U O ORIGINAL initial Study properties. Because lighting used to illuminate work areas would be shielded, focused downward, and turned off by 6:00 p.m., the potential for lighting to affect any residents adversely is minimal. Increased truck traffic and the transport of construction materials to the Project site would temporarily increase glare conditions during construction. However, this increase in glare would be minimal. Construction activity would focus on specific areas on the sites, and any sources of glare would not be stationary for a prolonged period of time. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial glare that would affect daytime views in the area. For operations, exterior lighting would comply with Kern County Dark Skies Ordinance (19.81) standards, which include outdoor lighting design to minimize reflective glare and light scatter. The school facility would include standard lighting for the campus, and field lights for the sports field. State law requires the District to follow the California Code of Regulations Title 24 (Part 3) regarding indoor light design. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM AES -1 would require the school's lighting design to be compliance with "dark skies" standards and event lighting to be shut off by 11:00pm. These requirements would substantially reduce potential nuisances from light or glare. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AES -1, the proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) MM AES -1: Security and nighttime lighting installed at the school site shall incorporate shielding of lighting and orienting lighting downward to prevent direct uplighting. Lighting used for nighttime events shall be turned off by 11:00pm. All lights in excess of 150 watts shall be directed toward the stadium field and away from adjacent properties. All stadium field light fixtures shall be designed with appropriate reflectors, hoods and side shields to direct the angle of incidence to reflect light downward. LEVEL OFSIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 �gAKF9 sem, Page 3o-8,_ m ~' r v o ORIGINAL initial Study Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3.4.2 - AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ ❑ ® ❑ use or a Williamson Act Contract? C. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources ❑ ❑ ❑ Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion ❑ ❑ ❑ of forest land to non -forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Discussion Impact #3.4.2a - Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 20190`P% 0190` AKF9(P Page 3-!?tm U O ORIGINAL Initial The proposed Project would convert approximately 23 -acres of agricultural land to accommodate the development of a school facility. In order to determine whether this conversion would result in a significant impact on farmland, several factors must be considered. These factors include the quality of the land being converted, the availability of water to supply farming activities on the land, and the type of use being proposed on the agricultural land. CEQA uses the California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection's Farmland Mapping Project (FMMP) categories of "Prime Farmland," "Farmland of Statewide Importance," and "Unique Farmland" to define "agricultural land" for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts (PRC Section 21060.1(a)). The project site is designated as Prime Farmland (CA Department of Conservation, 2016). "Prime Farmland" is defined as "Land with the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics able to sustain long term production of agricultural crops. This land must have been used for production of irrigated crops at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date." Although the site has not been used for agriculture since 2017, it is classified as Prime Farmland according to the FMMP (CA Department of Conservation, 2016). Implementation of the Project would convert 23 acres of farmland designated as "Prime" to a non-agricultural use. However, the former property owner considered the land to be less productive than other farmland, and therefore sold the property to District for the construction of the Project. Additionally, Kern County has approximately 579,295 acres of acres of farmland designated as Prime (California Department of Conservation, 2019). The conversion of 23 acres to a non-agricultural use represents 0.0000397% of the overall available prime farmland in the County. Based on this analysis, the impact to the conversion is considered less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant. Impact #3.4.2b - Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract? The Project site is zoned for agricultural use; however, is not subject to a Williamson Act land use contract (see Figure 3.4.2-1). The Project is within the MBGP, which designates the project site as R -IA (Intensive Agriculture) and within the A (Exclusive Agriculture) zone district. Additionally, there are no lands adjacent to the that are currently held under Williamson Act Contract. The Project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes, which is consistent with the existing zoning designation. However, as a special district, the does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance or General Plan, and therefore is not subject to land use regulations. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 �gAKF9� Page 3-10 o m v o - ORIGINAL /nlya/Study Therefore, the Project's impacts related to conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use and/or Williamson Act contracts would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.2c - Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? The Public Resources Code Section 12220 (g) and Section 4526 defines "Forest land" as land that can support 10 -percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. There are no forest lands identified on the Project site or within its vicinity; therefore, there would be no conflict with or impacts to zoning for forest land or timber land. The project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land to a non - forest use. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE There would be no impact Impact #3.4.2d - Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? See discussion of Impact #3.4.2c, above. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE There would be no impact Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District �gAKF9 October 2019 � Page 3-11Z-3 o ORIGINAL Initial Study Impact #3.4.2e - Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? See discussion of Impacts #3.4.2a, #3.4.2b, and #3.4.2c, above. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 gAKF 9�� Page 3-12:t U O ORIGINAL initial Study Pl- ; _ j -_.E a Rd nt . E;P oula_ i�atk High :` 1 £chcol 1E Brook St --L 0 0.5 Miles I 4:hua', - .�lhlte Ln : E VV it- Ln' Lonv' t .r• , w1 .. Flaza3 r ;� I tit . i a _ It Dr- - _ ----, _ _.. i 4 Rii L oE Pacheco -Rd. - - k 3 f i i GaMan.Dr� ,c t Falniiaw Rd s E, Fairvpv; Rd I t 7:, - The •� 3 E Ln-_ - Tai 4 —.. Fanamitl:'a- Ll a t Y � } DINbf. Y:• 1 '. -q -E=Hoskin Ave p • c Vallee I' o c:Huds'onDr ---------- -------- � rn m-1 hicKec Riivi ttfcKee Ho.. it -'Riddle-. rA Ta fl Hvry "r; -- Q -_-."-Franarna fid- _ ._... .-- afl- � Groan(ald S3 11, M Prime Farmland Project Site 94. QK Sources: Kern Co ESRI Sources:-Esri. HERE. Garmin. Intermao. increment P Q Figure 3.4.2-1 Williamson Act Land Use Contract Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District gPKF9 October 2019 81 sem, Page 3-13 � o ORIGINAL /nMa/Study Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3.4.3 - AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the applicable air quality plan? b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non -attainment under ❑ ❑ ® ❑ an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? C. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pollutant concentrations? d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odor) adversely affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial number of people? Discussion A SPAL was previously prepared for the Project, and is included as Appendix B. Impact #3.4.3a — Would the Project Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The Project is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Using project type and size categories, the SJVAPCD has pre -quantified emissions and determined a size below which it is reasonable to conclude that a project would not exceed applicable thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. This proj ect was determined to qualify as under the Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL). As noted in the Project Description, the Project proposes an initial enrollment of 750 students_ with a maximum capacity of 1,080 students at full buildout. Therefore, it will not exceed the 1,875 -student established SPAL threshold As indicated in the SJVAPCD Guide to Mitigating and Assessing Air Quality Impacts (GAM AQI) prof ects that fall within the SPAL analysis levels are "deemed to have a less than significant impact on air quality due to criteria pollutant emissions and as such are excluded from quantifying criteria pollutant emissions for CEQA purposes. However, to meet the standards of adequacy for disclosure of potential environmental impacts and mitigation, the SJVAPCD recommends that the Lead Agency's environmental document include a narrative that identifies the sources of emissions and Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District g AK4 October 2019 81 90� Page 3-14 � o ORIGINAL Initial include sufficient discussion of SPAL values to support the conclusion that criteria pollutant emissions from the Project would have a less than significant impact on air quality." The population of the proposed elementary school upon full build -out would be 1,080 students. Emissions associated with the construction of the Project would be temporary in nature and are not anticipated to result in the generation of a substantial amount of hazardous air pollutants. Recently a comprehensive high school construction project was proposed in the vicinity of the Project, and was the subject of environmental review under CEQA (Kern High School District, 2018). The CEQA document analyze air quality emissions for the construction and operation of a high school campus on approximately 77 -acres with 14 buildings totaling between 200,000 and 250,000 square feet, and an enrollment capacity of 2,000 students that will have the ability to expand to 2,500 students. An Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) was prepared for the high school project using CaIEEMod modeling (Appendix A of that.document). Results of the AQIA showed that both construction and operations -related emissions (unmitigated and mitigated), as calculated by CaIEEMod were well under the SJVAPCD significant threshold levels, and impacts were considered less than significant. The subject Project is substantially smaller than what was analyzed for the high school (a 23 acres site with buildings totally approximately 74,000 square feet and enrollment of up to a maximum 1,080 students). Therefore, it can be concluded that the smaller elementary school project would have less emissions associated with its construction and operations and would not exceed established emissions thresholds. As such, impacts of the Project are anticipated to be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required.. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.3b - Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the proposed Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) is designated nonattainment of State and federal health - based air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The SJVAB is designated attainment for federal particulate matter less than 10 microns (PMio) standards and nonattainment of state PMio. To meet federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, the SJVAPCD has multiple air quality attainment plan (AQAP) documents, including: Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 3k�AKF9� Greenfield School District Page 3-15 m U r O ORIGINAL Initial Study • 2008 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (EOADP) for attainment of the 1 -hour ozone standard; • 2007 Ozone Plan for attainment of the 8 -hour ozone standard; • 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation; and • 2008 PM2.s Plan. Because of the region's federal nonattainment status for ozone and PM2.5, and State nonattainment status for ozone, PM2.s, and PMio, if the project -generated emissions of either the ozone precursor pollutants [reactive organic gases (ROG) or oxides of nitrogen (NOX)], PM1o, or PM2.5 were to exceed the SJVAPCD's significance thresholds, then the Project uses would be considered to conflict with the attainment plans. In addition, if the Project uses were to result in a change in land use and corresponding increases in vehicle miles traveled, they may result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled that is unaccounted for in regional emissions inventories contained in regional air quality control plans. The GAMAQI states that the SJVAPCD's established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions, which are based on the NSR, require offsets for stationary sources. "Emission reductions achieved through implementation of District offset requirements are a major component of the District's air quality plans. Thus, projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to 'Not conflict or obstruct implementation of the District's air quality plan"' (SJVAPCD 2015). Projects Contribution to Air Quality Violations As discussed in Impact c. below, predicted construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD's significance thresholds for ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.s. As a result, the project would not conflict with emissions inventories contained in regional AQAPs and would not result in a significant contribution to the region's air quality non -attainment status. Consistency with Assumptions in Air Quality Attainment Pians The primary way of determining consistency with the AQAP's assumptions is determining consistency with the applicable General Plan to ensure that the project's population density and land use are consistent with the growth assumptions used in the AQAPs for the air basin. As required by California law, city and county General Plans contain a Land Use Element that details the types and quantities of land uses that the city or county estimates will be needed for future growth, and that designates locations for land uses to regulate growth. The Kern County Council of Governments uses the growth projections and land use information in adopted general plans to estimate future average daily trips and then vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which are then provided to SJVAPCD to estimate future emissions in the AQAPs. Existing and future pollutant emissions computed in the AQAP are based on land uses from area general plans. AQAPs detail the control measures and emission reductions required for reaching attainment of the air standards. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District �gAK49 October 2019° Page 3-le-- ORIGINAL -1eORIGINAL Initial The Project is not anticipated to result in substantial direct or indirect population growth that was not previously anticipated because the student population for the proposed elementary school would come from the existing school district population. Accordingly, it can be concluded the proposed Project's uses are consistent with the growth and vehicle miles traveled projections contained in the AQP. The Project impact is less than significant for this criterion. Control Measures The AQAPs contain a number of control measures, including the rules outlined by the SJVAPCD. The AQAP control measures are enforceable requirements. The Project would comply with all of the SJVAPCD's applicable rules and regulations. Therefore, the Project would comply with this criterion. With the incorporation of the enforceable requirements outlined in the AQAP, the Project is not anticipated to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non -attainment under any federal or State ambient air quality standards. The SJVAPCD's Regulation VIII establishes required controls to reduce and minimizing fugitive dust emissions. The following SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations apply to the proposed Project (and all projects): • Rule 4102 - Nuisance; • Regulation VIII -Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions; • Rule 8011- General Requirements; • Rule 8021- Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities; • Rule 8041- Carryout and Trackout; and • Rule 8051 - Open Areas. SJVAPCD's required measures for all projects would also apply: • Water exposed areas 3 times per day; and • Reduce vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant. Impact #3.4.3c - Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 Page 3-17 m r U p ORIGINAL initial Sensitive receptors are defined as areas where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside. The closest residences are located approximately 0.25 miles to the east of the Project site. The proposed Project, because of its educational nature, is not expected to result in the generation of odors or hazardous air pollutants. However, during construction of the Project, construction activities and equipment may generate emission from construction equipment exhaust. These impacts are localized and temporary in nature and therefore are considered less than significant. The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of localized PM1o, carbon monoxide, diesel particulate matter, hazardous air pollutants, or naturally occurring asbestos, as discussed below. Hazardous Pollutants or Odors The GAMAQI guidelines introduce two types of projects that should be assessed when considering hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) which includes: 1) placing a toxic land use in an area where it may have an adverse health impact on an existing sensitive land use and 2) placing a sensitive land use in an area where an adverse health impact may occur from an existing toxic land use. Some examples of projects that may include HAPs are: • Agricultural products processing; • Bulk material handling; • Chemical blending, mixing, manufacturing, storage, etc.; • Combustion equipment (boilers, engines, heaters, incinerators, etc.); • Metals etching, melting, plating, refining, etc.; • Plastics & fiberglass forming and manufacturing; • Petroleum production, manufacturing, storage, and distribution; and • Rock & mineral mining and processing. The proposed Project is located on a site that is currently undeveloped land that was previously used for agricultural purposes. The proposed Project consists of an elementary school and associated parking lot and playground areas. During the construction period some odors could result from vehicles and equipment using diesel fuels. However, vehicles and equipment using diesel fuels at the proposed project would have to comply with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) guidelines, which limit idling time to five minutes with the Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM). In addition, the construction period would be temporary. In 2009, Senate Bill (SB) 124 (Amended Regulation) acknowledged and codified CARBs ATCM limiting school bus idling. During the operation of the proposed project, school buses may be utilized and would emit diesel, but are also subject to the CARB's ATCM limiting school bus idling and idling at or near schools to only when necessary for safety or operational concerns. Naturally Occurring Asbestos The CARB has an ATCM for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations requiring the implementation of mitigation measures to minimize emissions of asbestos - Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 A KF9 Page 3-18 F_ m r U O ORIGINAL Initial Study laden dust. This ATCM applies to road construction and maintenance, construction and grading operations, and quarries and surface mines when the activity occurs in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be found. The studies prepared for the Project did not identify naturally occurring asbestos on or near the Project site (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019c) and (Soils Engineering, Inc, 2019d). Valley Fever Exposure Valley Fever, or coccidioidomycosis, is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of the fungus, Coccidioides immitis The spores live in soil and can live for an extended time in harsh environmental conditions. Activities or conditions that increase the amount of fugitive dust contribute to greater exposure, and include dust storms, grading, and recreational off- road activities. There is a potential risk of contracting Valley Fever within the region based on the general similarity between the sediments known to contain the spores and the sediments believed to be present in the area of the proposed project. In addition, it must be noted that: 1) airborne dust containing the spores can be transported to the project area from other areas within the Bakersfield area potentially exposing those present to the disease and 2) persons who have not resided in the Bakersfield area may be more susceptible to contracting the disease than long-time residents due to any environmental, medical, and personal factors. (Note: The.conclusions regarding the potential for either exposure to or contraction of Valley Fever through the construction of the proposed Project should not be construed as a professional medical or public health opinion. These conclusions are merely a review of the geologic condition of the project site relative to potential presence of sediments known to contain the Valley Fever spore.) Although construction activities are anticipated to generate fugitive dust, the Project would minimize the generation of fugitive dust by complying with the SJVAPCD's Regulation VIII. Dust -disturbing activities would be limited in scope and duration. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.3d Would the Project result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? See #3.4.3 Discussion above. The educational nature of the Project is not expected to result in the generation of odors or hazardous air pollutants. Emissions associated with the construction of the Project would be temporary in nature and are not anticipated to result in the generation of a substantial Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District gAK4 October 2019 04" �s., Page 3-19�'_- m r v ORIGINAL Initial amount of hazardous air pollutants. Emissions associated with the operation of the Project would result from students arriving to and departing from the school and are not anticipated to be significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019K�9'p, Page 3-20 M U � O ORIGINAL /nma/Study DISCUSS on A biological reconnaissance survey was conducted to determine whether there are sensitive biological resources that might be adversely affected by the proposed Project. The evaluation is based upon existing site conditions, the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur Crescent Elementary School IS/MND. October 2019 AK,�q Greenfield School District Page 3-21 o s� r U Q ORIGINAL Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3.4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the Project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional ❑ ® ❑ ❑ plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional ❑ ❑ ® ❑ plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native ❑ ❑ ® ❑ resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ ❑ preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community ❑ ❑ ® ❑ conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSS on A biological reconnaissance survey was conducted to determine whether there are sensitive biological resources that might be adversely affected by the proposed Project. The evaluation is based upon existing site conditions, the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur Crescent Elementary School IS/MND. October 2019 AK,�q Greenfield School District Page 3-21 o s� r U Q ORIGINAL Initial Study on and in the vicinity of the Project site, and any respective impacts that could potentially occur. A literature review of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CNDDB 2019), California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2019), and United States Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species List (USFWS 2019) was conducted to identify special -status plant and wildlife species with the potential to occur within the Project site and vicinity (the surrounding nine quads and a 10 -mile radius). Information on the potential presence of wetlands and waters was obtained from the National wetlands Inventory (NWI), National Hydrography database (NHD) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Information regarding the presence of Critical Habitat in the Project vicinity was obtained from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's Critical Habitat Mapper database. The results of the database inquiries were subsequently reviewed to evaluate the potential for occurrence of special -status species and other sensitive biological resources known to occur on or near the Project site prior to conducting the biological reconnaissance survey. On August 28, 2019, a QK biologist conducted a biological reconnaissance survey of the entire Project site and a 500 -foot buffer area (Survey Area), where feasible. The purpose of the survey was to determine the locations and extent of potential plant communities and sensitive habitats, determine the potential for occurrence of special -status plant and animal species, and identify. other sensitive biological resources within the Survey Area. Survey methodologies included walking meandering pedestrian transects through all present habitat types. Protocol surveys for specific special -status wildlife species were not conducted for this report as it was determined by the consulting biologist that such surveys were not warranted due to the condition of the Project site. Photographs were taken to document existing landscape of the Project site and adjacent land uses; detailed notes on observed plant and wildlife species and site conditions were taken while conducting the survey. General Me Conditions Most of the Project site has experienced significant historical and ongoing ground disturbance from past agricultural uses surrounding the. Project site. The wildlife species inhabiting the Survey Area include those typically found in moderately- to heavily- disturbed habitats associated with agricultural development zones of Kern County and the southern San Joaquin Valley. The Project site had been previously disked, with little vegetation present. There was one irrigation ditch present along the northern boundary of the Project site. The central branch of the Kern Island Canal borders the site to the west and the Arvin - Edison Water Canal is to the south. All three waterways had flowing water present during the time of the reconnaissance survey. There were nine plant species and ten wildlife species identified during the survey, either through direct observation or by the presence of diagnostic signs (Table 3.4.4-1). Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 o� $A 449 Page 3-22 m U Q ORIGINAL Initial Study Table 3.4.4-1 List of Plant and Wildlife Species Observed within the Survey Area Scientific name Common name Plants Amaranthus sp. Asclepias sp. Digitaria Leptochloa sp. Salsola tragus Schsimus arabicus Solanium elaeagnifolium Tribulus terrestris Wildlife Buteo jamaicensis various aquatic species pigweed milkweed crab grass sprangletop Russian thistle Mediterranean grass night shade devil's thorn red-tailed hawk Cambarus sp. crayfish Canis]up usfamilia ris domestic dog* Capra aegagrushircus domestic goat Equus caballus horse Fells catus domestic cat Gallusgallus domestic chicken Lithobates catesbeianus I bullfrog Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel Phoxinusphoxinus minnow *Indicates that only sign (scat, tracks, prey remains, dens) were observed. impactAnaiysis This section describes the results of the database searches and, using conditions present on the Project site as determined by the on-site examination, provides an analysis of Project impacts on each of six biological evaluation criteria. Each of the evaluation criteria are discussed below and mitigation measures are provided as warranted to, when implemented, reduce impacts to below significant levels. Impact #3.4.4a - Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special - status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The literature search indicated that there is a potential for several sensitive natural communities and special -status species to be present on the Project site. An evaluation of each of the potentially occurring sensitive natural communities and special -status species, which included habitat requirements, likelihood of required habitat to occur within the Project area, and a comparison to the CNDDB records was conducted. The results of this evaluation concluded that no sensitive natural community or special -status plant species are Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 Greenfield School District Page 3-23 o�,Q n s ORIGINAL Initial anticipated to occur on or near the Project site, and that four wildlife species have a reasonable potential to occur on or near the Project site. Sensitive Natural Communities and Special -Status Species SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND SPECIAL -STATUS PLANTS Based on the database query, there were three sensitive natural communities and 37 special - status plant species identified as having potential to occur within the subject quadrangle and eight surrounding quadrangles. According to CNNDB recorded occurrences there are two sensitive natural communities and 17 plant species found within a 10 -mile buffer of the Project site. However, the Project site and vicinity has been highly disturbed for years due to ongoing agriculture production and nearby residential development, and it does not provide habitat for any of these sensitive natural communities or special -status plant species. No special -status plant species were identified during the biological reconnaissance survey. Although protocol -level botanical surveys were not conducted and the reconnaissance survey did not coincide with optimum blooming periods for all plant species, it is not anticipated that special -status plant species occur on the Project site. SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE Based on the database query, there were 37 special -status wildlife species that were identified as having a potential to occur within subject quadrangle and eight surrounding quadrangles. According to CNDDB recorded occurrences there are 28 special -status wildlife species found within a 10 -mile buffer of the Project site. Of the 37 species, 33 were eliminated from consideration due to the lack of suitable habitat within the Project site. The remaining four species have a low, moderate, or high potential to occur within the Project site and vicinity. There was one species with a low potential [American badger (taxidea taxus)] to occur on the Project site, two species [ western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and San Joaquin kit fox ( Vulpes macrotis.mutica)] with a moderate potential to occur, and one species [Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni)] with a high potential to occur on or near the Project site. Protocol surveys for specific special -status wildlife species were not conducted for this report because it was determined that such surveys were not warranted due to the conditions present on the Project site. Swainson's Ha wk The Swainson's hawk has a high potential to occur within the immediate area surrounding the Project site. The most recent CNDDB recorded occurrence (EONDX 115317) of Swainson's hawk was approximately 4.1 miles southwest of the Project site. Swainson's hawks are known to forge in old field and open agricultural fields, such are hay or alfalfa. The area surrounding the Project site has been historically used for such agricultural production, but no Swainson's hawks or sign of the species was observed during the reconnaissance level biological survey. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 6AKF- Page 3-2f I U p ORIGINAL. initiaiStudy Potential nesting habitat is present in two locations. One location is in the large trees located outside the Survey Area, on the residential properties to the northeast and east boundaries of the Project site. Another potential location is in trees adjacent to the canal on the western boundary of the Project site. There are also small trees on the northwest corner of the Project site that could provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory nesting birds, but those trees are not suitable for nesting raptors. Although the Project site does not contain nesting habitat it does contain suitable foraging habitat. Western Burrowing o wl The western burrowing owl has a moderate potential to occur within the Project site and immediate surrounding area. The most recent CNDDB recorded occurrence (EONDX 105727) of a burrowing owl is approximately 7.0 miles south of the Project site. There is a moderate potential for burrowing owl to reside or forage on the Project site and in open fields in the vicinity of the Project site. There were no potential burrows observed within the Project site. No burrowing owl or sign were observed at the time of the survey, but they could become present at any time. San Joaquin Kit Fox The San Joaquin kit fox has a moderate potential to occur within the Project site and immediate surrounding area. The most recent CNDDB recorded occurrence (EONDX 115009) of a San Joaquin kit fox observation is approximately 8.0 miles northwest of the Project site. Due to the lack of high-quality habitat and the lack of suitable foraging opportunities, there is a only moderate potential for San Joaquin kit fox to reside or forage on the Project site or in the agricultural fields surrounding the Project site. No San Joaquin kit fox or their sign (e.g., potential dens, tracks, scat) were observed within the Survey Area during the reconnaissance survey. However, the San Joaquin kit fox is known to occur in the vicinity of the Project site and could potentially be present from time to time as a transient forager. American Badger The American badger has a low potential to occur within the Project site and immediate surrounding area. The most recent CNDDB record occurrence (EONDX 74778) of an American badger is approximately 8.0 miles northeast of the Project site. There is a low potential for American badger to reside or forage on the Project site. The American badger is known to occur in the vicinity of the Project site and could potentially be present from time to time as a transient forager. CONCLUSION The Project site and surrounding area has been disturbed for years by ongoing agriculture crop cultivation and residential development. The Project site and vicinity does not provide suitable habitat for any special -status plant species and no mitigation measures to protect, avoid, or minimize impacts to special -status plant species are warranted. �gNKF9 Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 o s� Greenfield School District Page 3-25 U p ORIGINAL /nNa/Study 4 There is the potential for some special -status or protected wildlife species to be impacted by Project activities. Mitigation Measures MM BIO -1 through MM Bio -6 would protect, avoid, and minimize impacts to special -status wildlife species, as provided below. When implemented, these measures would reduce impacts to these species to below significant levels. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) NM BIO -1: Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a biological clearance survey no more than 30 calendar days prior to the onset of construction. The clearance survey shall include walking transects to identify presence of San Joaquin kit fox, American badger, Swainson's hawk, Western burrowing owl, nesting birds -and other special -status species or signs of, and sensitive natural communities. The pre -construction survey shall be walked by no greater than 30 -foot transects for 100 percent coverage of the Project site and the 50 -foot buffer, where feasible. Exclusion zones for kit fox shall be placed in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Recommendations using the following: r Potential Den" 50 `foot Known Den 100 -foot radius Atypical Den 50 -foot radius Buffer zones shall be considered Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and no ground disturbing activities shall be allowed within a buffer area. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) shall be contacted upon the discovery of any SJKF individuals within 500 feet, natal or pupping dens is found during construction activities. CDFW staff shall be contacted at (559) 243-4014 and R4CESA@wildlifeca.gov. Potential kit fox dens may be excavated provided that the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the den has been monitored for at least five consecutive days and is deemed unoccupied by a qualified biologist; (2) the excavation is conducted by or under the direct supervision of a qualified biologist. Den monitoring and excavation should be conducted in accordance with the Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011). In addition, impacts to occupied burrowing owl burrows shall be avoided in accordance with the following table unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through non-invasive methods that either: 1) the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation; or 2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 �gAKF9 Page 3-26 U p ORIGINAL /nitia/Study Location Time of Year Level of Disturbance Low Med High Nesting sites April 1 -Aug 15 200 500 m 500 m Nesting sites Aug 16 -Oct 15 200 m 200 m 500 m Nesting sites Oct 16 -Mar 31 50m 100 m 500 m MM BI0-2: Prior to ground disturbance activities, or within one week of being deployed at the Project site for newly hired workers, all construction workers at the Project site shall attend a Construction Worker Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program, developed and presented by a qualified biologist. The Construction Worker Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program shall be presented by the biologist and shall include information on the life history wildlife and plant species that may be encountered during construction activities, their legal protections, the definition of "take" under the Endangered Species Act, measures the Project operator is implementing to protect the species, reporting requirements, specific measures that each worker must employ to avoid take of the species, and penalties for violation of the Act. Identification and information regarding special -status or other sensitive species with the potential to occur on the Project site shall also be provided to construction personnel. The program shall include: An acknowledgement form signed by each worker indicating that environmental training has been completed. A copy of the training transcript and/or training video/CD, as well as a list of the names of all personnel who attended the training and copies of the signed acknowledgement forms shall be maintain on site for the duration of construction activities. MM BI0-3: If all Project activities are completed outside of the Swainson's hawk nesting season (February 15 through August 31), this mitigation measure shall need not be applied. If construction is planned during the nesting season, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to evaluate the site and a 0.5 -mile buffer around the site for active Swainson's hawk nests. If potential Swainson's hawk nests or nesting substrates occur within 0.5 mile of the Project site, then those nests or substrates must be monitored for Swainson's hawk nesting activity on a routine and repeating basis throughout the breeding season, or until Swainson's hawks or other raptor species are verified to be using them. Monitoring shall be conducted according to the protocol outlined in the Recommended Timingand MethodologyforSwainson'sHawkNestingSurveysin California's Central Valley (Swainson's Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000). The protocol recommends that ten visits be made to each nest or nesting site: one during January 1 -March 20 to identify potential nest sites, three during March 20 -April 5, three during April 5 -April 20, and three during June 10 -July 30. To meet the minimum level of protection for the species, surveys shall be completed for at least the two survey periods immediately prior to Project -related Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 6p K Greenfield School District Page 3-27 0`` �'p`rI H- m U � O ORIGINAL Initial Study ground disturbance activities. During the nesting period, active Swainson's hawk nests shall be avoided by 0.5 mile unless this avoidance buffer is reduced through consultation with the CDFW and/or USFWS. If an active Swainson's hawk nest is located within 500 feet of the Project or within the Project site, including the stick nest located within the Project, the Project proponent shall contact CDFW for guidance. MM BIO -4: A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre -construction survey on the Project site and within 500 feet of its perimeter, where feasible, to identify the presence of the western burrowing owl. The survey shall be conducted between 14 and 30 days prior to the start of construction activities. If any burrowing owl burrows are observed during the preconstruction survey, avoidance measures shall be consistent with those included in the CDFW staff report on burrowing owl mitigation (CDFG 2012). If occupied burrowing owl burrows are observed outside of the breeding season (September 1 through January 31) and within 250 feet of proposed construction activities, a passive relocation effort may be instituted in accordance with the guidelines established by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2012). During the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a 500 -foot (minimum) buffer zone should be maintained unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive methods that either the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation or that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. MM BI0-5: If construction is planned outside the nesting period for raptors (other than the western burrowing owl) and migratory birds (February 15 to August 31), no mitigation shall be required. If construction is planned during the nesting season for migratory birds and raptors, a preconstruction survey to identify active bird nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to evaluate the site and a 250 -foot buffer for migratory birds and a 500 - foot buffer for raptors. If nesting birds are identified during the survey, active raptor nests shall be avoided by 500 feet and all other migratory bird nests shall be avoided by 250 feet. Avoidance buffers may be reduced if a qualified on-site monitor determines that encroachment into the buffer area is not affecting nest building, the rearing of young, or otherwise affecting the breeding behaviors of the resident birds. Because nesting birds can establish new nests or produce a second or even third clutch at any time during the nesting season, nesting bird surveys shall be repeated every 30 days as construction activities are occurring throughout the nesting season. No construction or earth -moving activity shall occur within a non -disturbance buffer until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged (left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid Project construction areas. Once the migratory birds or raptors have completed nesting and young have fledged, disturbance buffers will no longer be needed and can be removed, and monitoring can cease. MM BI0-6: During all construction -related activities, the following mitigation shall apply: 1. All food -related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in securely closed containers. All food -related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District gAKF9 October 2019 11 mm Page 3-28 o ORIGINAL /nitia/Study securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from the construction or Project site. m. Construction -related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads and predetermined ingress and egress corridors, staging, and parking areas. Vehicle speeds should not exceed 20 miles per hour (mph) within the Project site. n. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit fox or other animals during construction, the contractor shall cover all excavated, steep -walled holes or trenches more than two feet deep at the close of each workday with plywood or similar materials. If holes or trenches cannot be covered, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen fill or wooden planks shall be installed in the trench. Before such holes or trenches are filled, the contractor shall thoroughly inspect them for entrapped animals. All construction -related pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four -inches or greater that are stored on the Project site shall be thoroughly inspected for wildlife before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in anyway. If at any time an entrapped or injured kit fox is discovered, work in the immediate area shall be temporarily halted and USFWS and CDFW shall be consulted. o. Kit foxes are attracted to den -like structures such as pipes andmay enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four -inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods shall be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until the USFWS and CDFW has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped. p. No pets, such as dogs or cats, shall be permitted on the Project sites to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens. q. Use of anti -coagulant rodenticides and herbicides in Project areas shall be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional Project -related restrictions deemed necessary by the USFWS and CDFW. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide shall be used because of the proven lower risk to kit foxes. r. A representative shall be appointed by the Project proponent who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The representative shall be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the USFWS. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 Page 3-29 o``gAKF9� 1 � o ORIGINAL initiaiStudy s. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office of USFWS and CDFW shall be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during Project -related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information. The USFWS contact is the Chief of the Division of Endangered Species, at the addresses and telephone numbers below. The CDFW contact can be reached at 41(559) 243-4014 and R4CESA@wildlifeca.gov. t. All sightings of the San Joaquin kit fox shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed shall also be provided to the Service at the address below. u. Any Project -related information required by the USFWS or questions concerning the above conditions, or their implementation may be directed in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at: Endangered Species Division, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W 2605, Sacramento, California 95825-1846, phone (916) 414-6620 or (916) 414-6600. v. If burrowing owl are found to occupy the Project site and avoidance is not possible, burrow exclusion may be conducted by qualified biologists only during the non -breeding season, before breeding behavior is exhibited, and after the burrow is confirmed empty through non-invasive methods (surveillance). Replacement or occupied burrows shall consist of artificial burrows at a ratio of 1 burrow collapsed to 1 artificial burrow constructed (1:1). Ongoing surveillance of the Project site during construction activities shall occur at a rate sufficient to detect Burrowing owl, if they return. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.4b - Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional .plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? According to CNDDB there are two sensitive natural communities, including Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest (EONDX 28905) and Valley Saltbush Scrub (EONDX 16319) with the potential to occur within 10 -miles of the Project site (CNDDB 2019). The Project site is highly disturbed and does not provide habitat to maintain these communities. No sensitive natural communities were identified within the Project site or buffer area during the biological reconnaissance survey. There are no anticipated impacts to sensitive natural communities as a result of the proposed Project. The Project site covers an area of approximately 49.5 acres and consists of vacant, previously disturbed land. The Project site is surrounded by disturbed cultivated land. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019oF gAKF�� Greenfield School District Page 3-36 m r U p ORIGINAL initial Riparian habitat is defined as lands that are influenced by a river, specifically the land area that encompasses the river channel and its current or potential floodplain. The Project is not located within a river or an area that encompasses a river or potential floodplain. The proposed Project would not have any adverse effect to a riparian habitat. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.4c - Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has regulatory authority over the Clean Water Act (CWA), as provided for by the EPA. The USACE has established specific criteria for the determination of wetlands based upon the presence of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophilic vegetation. There are no federally protected wetlands or vernal pools that occur within the Project site. Wetlands, streams, reservoirs, sloughs, and ponds typically meet the criteria for federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA and State regulatory authority under the Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Streams and ponds typically meet the criteria for State regulatory authority under Section 1.602 of the California Fish and Game Code. There are no features on the Project site that would meet the criteria for either federal jurisdiction or State regulatory authority. The Project site is bounded on the south by the Arvin Edison Canal and the Kern Island Canal to the west, However, construction activities would not be conducted along or in the canals. Once constructed, the Project site would be fenced and therefore would restrict access to either canal. There would be no impact to federally protected wetlands or waterways or State wetlands or waters. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant. Impact #3.4.4d - Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 o�OA►GF�,� Page 3-31 m r U O ORIGINAL initial Wildlife migratory corridors are described as a linear stretch of land that connects two open pieces of habitat that would otherwise be unconnected. These routes provide shelter and sufficient food supplies to support wildlife species during migratory movements. Movement corridors generally consist of riparian, woodlands, or forested habitats that span contiguous acres of undisturbed habitat and are important elements of resident species' home ranges. The proposed Project and surrounding area does not occur within a known terrestrial migration route, significant wildlife corridor, or linkage area as identified in the Recovery Plan for Upland Species in the San Joaquin Valley (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998) or in areas identified by the Essential Habitat Connectivity Project (Spencer, W.D., et al, 2010). The survey conducted for the Project did not provide evidence of a wildlife nursery or important migratory habitat being present on the Project site. Migratory birds and raptors could use habitat on or near the Project for foraging and/or as stopover sites during migrations or movement between local areas. The Central Branch Kern Island Canal boarders the site to the west and the Arvin -Edison Water Canal borders the site to the south and both could potentially be used as a wildlife corridor. The canals bordering the western and southern boundaries of the Project may serve as a local movement corridor for frogs, toads, and fish. However, there is no native habitat for wildlife species to utilize along the canal or in the immediate area of the Project site, and the Project will not eliminate, modify, or otherwise impact these features. The Project would not substantially affect migrating birds or other wildlife. The Project will not restrict, eliminate, or significantly alter a wildlife movement corridor, wildlife core area, or Essential Habitat Connectivity area, either during construction or after the Project has been constructed. Project construction will not substantially interfere with wildlife movements or reduce breeding opportunities. Additionally, the land surrounding the Project site is developed with residences or is planned for continuation of agricultural development that would sever wildlife movement through the site and eliminate any nursery site. The proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of any.native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, there would be no impacts to wildlife movements, would not affect movement corridors, or impeded a nursery site. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant. Impact #3.4.4e — Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 20190� �AKF9( Page 3-3;2� m 0 ORIGINAL Initial Study There are no adopted local policies or ordinances protecting biological that would apply to this Project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would have no conflict related to an adopted local policies or ordinances protecting biological. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE There would be no impact Impact #3.4.4f - Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The Project site is within the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) boundaries and the associated Incidental Take Permit (ITP) issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. However, under the MBHCP other agencies that do not obtain permits from the City or County, such as schools and hospitals, are not automatically covered by the MBHCP. The proposed Project would not be covered under the MBHCP ITP. The Project is subject to biological resources mitigation and this environmental analysis has concluded that the Project would have a less than significant impact with incorporation of mitigation. The Project would follow approved survey protocols and avoidance. and minimization measures similar to what is required by the MBHCP. The Project is not located within any other Natural Community Conservation Plan or any other local, regional, or state conservation plan. With mitigation, the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant. �gAKF9 Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 20190 Greenfield School District Page 3-33= U � ORIGINAL /nitia/Study b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ 0 - ❑ ❑ pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? C. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ® ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion This section is based on a cultural resource record search (RS # 19-341) conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at the California State University, Bakersfield (Parr, Robert, 2019) , and the technical memo is included in this document as Appendix C. The purpose of the search was to determine whether any known cultural resources or previously conducted cultural resource surveys were located on or near the Project. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was also contacted and a Sacred Lands File search was conducted. The results of that search and the list of local tribal groups that was included is also included in Appendix C of this document. Impact #3.4.5a — Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, "historical resources" are: • A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, 'for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 4850 et seq.). • A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as -defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 201-ck gAKF,Q Page 3-31 sm r U O ORIGINAL Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3.4.5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the Project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant ❑ ® ❑ ❑ to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ 0 - ❑ ❑ pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? C. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ® ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion This section is based on a cultural resource record search (RS # 19-341) conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at the California State University, Bakersfield (Parr, Robert, 2019) , and the technical memo is included in this document as Appendix C. The purpose of the search was to determine whether any known cultural resources or previously conducted cultural resource surveys were located on or near the Project. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was also contacted and a Sacred Lands File search was conducted. The results of that search and the list of local tribal groups that was included is also included in Appendix C of this document. Impact #3.4.5a — Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, "historical resources" are: • A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, 'for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 4850 et seq.). • A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as -defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 201-ck gAKF,Q Page 3-31 sm r U O ORIGINAL initial Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, .military, or cultural annals of California maybe considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following: ■ Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; ■ Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; ■ Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or ■ Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The records search covered an area within one -half -mile of the subject property and included a review of the National Register of Historic Places, California Points of Historical Interest, California Registry of Historic Resources, Historical Landmarks, California State Historic Resources Inventory,, and a review of cultural resource reports on file. Nine cultural resource studies have been conducted within a half mile of the property. No cultural resources have been recorded on or within a half mile of the Crescent Elementary School Construction Project property. The records search indicated that the subject property has never been surveyed for cultural resources and it is not known if any exist there. Although there is no obvious evidence of historical or archaeological resources on the Project site, there is the potential during construction for the discovery of cultural resources. Grading and trenching, as well as other ground -disturbing actions, have the potential to damage or destroy these previously unidentified and potentially significant cultural resources within the Project area, including historical resources. In the unlikely event the disturbance of any deposits that have the potential to provide significant cultural data would be considered a significant impact under CEQA. However, implementation of MM CUL -1 would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to less than significant levels MITIGATION MEASURE(S) MM CUL -1: If prehistoric or historic -era cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire -affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 of 0AKF9� Greenfield School District Page 3-35 m U r O ORIGINAL Initial Study maybe required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.5b - Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? On August 23, 2019, letters were mailed to each of the Native American tribes within the geographic area as identified by the NAHC (see Appendix Q. The letters included a Project description and location maps. To date, one response was received from the San Manual Band of Mission Indians that indicated the Project site is located outside of their ancestral territory. See also discussion of Impact #3.4.5a, above. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM CUL -1 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.5c - Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Although unlikely, subsurface construction activities, such as trenching and grading, associated with the proposed Project could potentially disturb previously undiscovered human burial sites. Accordingly, this is a potentially significant impact. Although considered unlikely subsurface construction activities could cause a potentially significant impact to previously undiscovered human burial sites. The records searches did not indicate the presence of human remains, burials, or cemeteries within the Project site. No human remains have been discovered at the Project site, and no burials or cemeteries are known to occur within the area of the site. However, construction would involve earth -disturbing activities, and it is still possible that human remains may be discovered, possibly in association with archaeological sites. Implementation of the below mitigation measure would ensure that the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly destroy previously unknown human remains. It is unlikely that the proposed Project would disturb any known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. However, with implementation of MM CUL -2, the Project would have a less than significant impact. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District gAKF October 2019 Page 3-36'_' U O ORIGINAL Initial Study MITIGATION MEASURE(S) MM CUL -2: If human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement, in the event of discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 Page 3-37 gAK' 9q U r - O ORIGINAL Initial Study Discussion The following analysis is based primarily on the Energy Consumption Technical Memo (QK, 2019)prepared for this Project (see Appendix D), and other available data. Impact #3.4.6a — Would the Project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Energy demand during the construction phase would result from the transportation of materials, construction equipment, and employee vehicle trips. Construction equipment includes excavators, graders, off-highway trucks, rubber -tired dozers, scrapers, tractors, loaders, backhoes, forklifts, cement and mortar mixers and cranes. The Project would comply with the SJVAPCD requirements regarding the use of fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment, to the extent feasible. Using a typical fuel efficiency of 5:85 miles per gallon, the delivery of building materials is expected to require approximately 15,827 gallons of diesel per construction phase (QK, 2019) The Project will not use natural gas during the construction phase. Compliance with standard regional and local regulations, the Project would minimize fuel consumption during construction. There are no unusual project characteristics that would cause construction equipment to be less energy efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the State. Thus, construction -related fuel consumption of the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use. Energy demand during the operational phase would result from ongoing school activities the use of typical appliances and school equipment, maintenance equipment and six existing school buses. It is anticipated that approximately 78% of student are bussed and 22% either walk or ride their bicycle to school. According to calculations based on construction equipment data provided by the applicant, the total fuel consumption for the Project would Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 A KF9 Page 3-38 ° � m r U p ORIGINAL Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3.4.6 - ENERGY Would the Project: a. Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ energy resources, during project construction or operation? b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan ❑ ❑ ® ❑ for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Discussion The following analysis is based primarily on the Energy Consumption Technical Memo (QK, 2019)prepared for this Project (see Appendix D), and other available data. Impact #3.4.6a — Would the Project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Energy demand during the construction phase would result from the transportation of materials, construction equipment, and employee vehicle trips. Construction equipment includes excavators, graders, off-highway trucks, rubber -tired dozers, scrapers, tractors, loaders, backhoes, forklifts, cement and mortar mixers and cranes. The Project would comply with the SJVAPCD requirements regarding the use of fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment, to the extent feasible. Using a typical fuel efficiency of 5:85 miles per gallon, the delivery of building materials is expected to require approximately 15,827 gallons of diesel per construction phase (QK, 2019) The Project will not use natural gas during the construction phase. Compliance with standard regional and local regulations, the Project would minimize fuel consumption during construction. There are no unusual project characteristics that would cause construction equipment to be less energy efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the State. Thus, construction -related fuel consumption of the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use. Energy demand during the operational phase would result from ongoing school activities the use of typical appliances and school equipment, maintenance equipment and six existing school buses. It is anticipated that approximately 78% of student are bussed and 22% either walk or ride their bicycle to school. According to calculations based on construction equipment data provided by the applicant, the total fuel consumption for the Project would Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 A KF9 Page 3-38 ° � m r U p ORIGINAL initiaiStudy not increase, based on current existing bus routes, parent drop-offs, and pick-ups. The school district will not be expanding their district. Construction and operationally related fuel consumption at the project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use. The Project would have a . less than significant impact. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.6b — Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The Project must comply with Title 24, Chapter 4 of the California Building Standards Commission for all school buildings and Part 6, of the California Energy Code (CEC) (California Building Standards Commission, 2019). Additionally, the Project must comply with Section 100 of the CEC for information and applications of CEC adoptions (California Building Standards Commission, 2019). Finally, the Project must comply with the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 20 with adoptions of the California Energy Commission (California Building Standards Commission, 2019) The Crescent Elementary School Project would result in the construction of a new school. Energy saving strategies will be implemented where possible to further reduce the Project's energy consumption, during the construction phase. Strategies being implemented include those recommended by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that may reduce both the Project's energy consumption, including diesel anti -idling measures, light-duty vehicle technology, usage of alternative fuels such as biodiesel blends and ethanol, and heavy-duty vehicle design measures to reduce energy consumption. Additionally, as outlined in the SJVAPCD's GAMAQI, the Project includes recommendations to reduce energy consumption by shutting down equipment when not in use for extended periods, limiting the usage of construction equipment to eight cumulative hours per day, usage of electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment, and encouragement of employees to carpool to retail establishments or to remain on-site during lunch breaks. The Project will also incorporate energy saving design features to offset electrical lighting use in the facility by installing Solatube Brighten .Up Series skylights and dual -pane glass windows with window treatments throughout the campus and by the use of renewable energy. The Project proposes to install photovoltaic solar panels shade structures over the 52 -space staff parking lot. Energy efficient lighting,. motion detector switches, will be installed throughout the interior of the facility. In addition, the Project will use low flow Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 "6AKFq Greenfield School District Page 3-3913 s� F. m r V O ORIGINAL Initial Study toilets, xeriscaping, drought tolerant plans and drip irrigation to reduce water consumption. Based on this analysis, the Project would be consistent and not conflict with or obstruct a State of local plan related to renewable energy or energy consumption. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) No mitigation is required. Level ofSignificance Impacts would be less than significant Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October2019 (§0AKF9� Page 3-40F m U r - O ORIGINAL 3.4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the Project: a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? C. Be located on a geologic unit or. soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District Initial Study Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact . Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ October 2019o�gAKF9� Page 3-41 m U r O ORIGINAL initial Study Discussion The following analysis is based primarily on the Geologic Hazard Study (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019a), prepared for this Project, and other available data. Impact #3.4.7a(i) - Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? All of Kern County and the central Valley is considered seismically active. The proposed construction and operation of the Project would increase the potential exposure of persons working on the Project site to seismic events including risk of loss, injury, and death related to earthquakes and related hazards. Although the Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone, however, is within the vicinity of several active faults. The nearest active fault is the Kern Front Fault, approximately 10 miles to the northwest. Fault Rupture Hazard Zone is the Edison Fault located approximately 7 miles northeast (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019a). The nearest Seismic Source Type A fault is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 30 miles from the site. In addition, pursuant to the California Educational Code Sections 17212 and 17212.5 construction of school buildings have to comply with safety standards that prohibit schools to be located on an active earthquake fault or fault trace. The proposed project would comply with the most recent California Building Standards Code which is implemented by the Division of the State Architect (DSA) and provides criteria for the seismic design of buildings. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impact would be less than signifrcant Impact #3.4.7a(ii) - Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Given the high seismicity of the southern San Joaquin Valley region, moderate to severe ground shaking associated with earthquakes on the nearby faults can be expected within the project area and throughout Kern County. In the event of an earthquake on one of the nearby faults, it is likely that the Project site would experience ground shaking and expose people and structures associated with the Project. The Lamont Seismic Hazards Atlas Map shows the nearest actives include the Kern Front Fault approximately 16.3 kilometers, the White Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 � R) Page 3-42 m r U p ORIGINAL Initial Study Wolf Fault, approximately 17.8 km and the Pleito Fault approximately 32 km from the (Soils Engineering, Inc., 20.19a). An estimated ground motion of 0.270g occurred at the site from an aftershock resulting from a 7.7 magnitude earthquake on the White Wolf Fault in July 1952; and, the White Wolf Fault and the San Andreas Fault has produced most of the historical earthquakes in the vicinity of the project site. While such shaking would be less severe from an earthquake that originates at a greater distance from the Project site, the effects could potentially be damaging to school buildings and supporting infrastructure. The Project is required to design all school development and associated infrastructure to withstand substantial ground shaking in accordance with applicable State law IBC CBC and Title 5 and Title 24 earthquake construction standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. Adherence to all applicable local and State regulations would avoid any potential impacts to structures resulting from liquefaction at the project site. Therefore, there would be less than significant. . MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.7a(iii) — Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction could result in local areas during a strong earthquake or seismic ground shaking where unconsolidated sediments and a high-water table coincide. The subsurface soils generally consisted of well -graded sand, sandy clay, sandy silt, silty sand, and poorly - graded sand in the top 50 feet below ground surface Shallow groundwater was encountered at a depth of 20-25 feet, and the unconfined aquifer is not less than 50 feet below ground surface. Based on the analysis of multiple borings taken from the site and available data, there is a low potential for liquefaction to occur during a major earthquake. (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019a). Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure including liquefaction. Structures constructed as part of the Project would be required by State law to be constructed in accordance with all applicable IBC CBC, Title 5 and Title 24 construction standards. Adherence to all applicable regulations would reduce. or avoid any potential impacts to structures resulting from liquefaction at the Project site and impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 !<gAK�c9 Page 3-43 0 r U p ORIGINAL Initial Study LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.7a(iv) — Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? The site and surrounding area is flat, with no significant topological features. There is no potential for rock fall and landslides to impact the site in the event of a major earthquake, as the area has no dramatic elevation changes. Based on the predicted maximum horizontal accelerations at the project site and the soil types, minor subsurface settlement may occur on site during a major earthquake, and this is considered less than significant. The property is flat and there is a low potential for landslides. The site would not be subject to liquefaction impacts due to the depth of groundwater below ground surface (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019a). MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact 03.4.7b - Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would disrupt surface vegetation and soils and would expose these disturbed areas to erosion by wind and water. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permitting programs regulate stormwater quality from construction sites, which includes erosion and sedimentation. Under the NPDES permitting program, the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) are required for construction activities that would disturb an area of one acre or more. A SWPPP must identify potential sources of erosion or sedimentation that may be reasonably expected to affect the quality of stormwater discharges as well as identify and implement best management practices (BMPs) that ensure the reduction of these pollutants during stormwater discharges. Typical BMPs intended to control erosion include sandbags, retention basins, silt fencing, storm drain inlet protection, street sweeping, and monitoring of water bodies. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1 requires the approval of a SWPPP to comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In the long-term and after construction activities have been completed on the Project site, the ground surface will have impermeable surfaces as well as permeable surfaces. The impermeable surfaces would include roadways, driveways, parking lots, and building sites. The permeable surfaces would include the ball fields and landscape areas which would Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 gAKF� Greenfield School District Page 3-443 1P U r O ORIGINAL initiaiStudy stabilize the permeable areas. Overall, development of the Project would not result in conditions where substantial surface soils would be exposed to wind and water erosion. The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) MM GEO-1: Prior to construction, the District shall submit 1) the approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and 2) the Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The requirements of the SWPPP and NPDES shall be incorporated into design specifications and construction contracts. Recommended best management practices for the construction phase may include the following: • Stockpiling and disposing of demolition debris, concrete, and soil properly; • Protecting existing storm drain inlets and stabilizing disturbed areas; • Implementing erosion controls; • Properly managing construction materials; and • Managing waste, aggressively controlling litter, and implementing sediment controls. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.7c - Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? The Project site and surrounding area is flat is not located in an unstable geologic unit or on soil that is considered unstable; there is no evidence of landslides on the Project site. The site has generally flat relief with a slight slope to the south-east. The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service indicates that Kimberlina Fine Sandy Loam underlies the project site (see Figure 3.4.7-1). This soil is characterized by the following attributes: 0-2% slopes, well drained, moderate permeability, high water capacity, slow run-off, slight water erosion hazard, low -shrink swell potential, and a storie index rating of 95. As indicated in the Geological Hazard Study, groundwater levels in the project vicinity range between 160-180 feet below ground surface . (bgs) (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019a). Liquefaction potential appears to be low to moderate. A perched aquifer currently exists due to agricultural production but will likely dissipate upon the cessation of agricultural activities onsite. Therefore, although permeable unconsolidated strata provide the opportunity for liquefaction and lateral spreading to occur, the absence of groundwater near the surface (pending dissipation of the perched aquifer) keeps the potential for liquefaction Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 3AKF9 Page 345 ° `r-, r U p ORIGINAL initiai&Udy and lateral spreading to occur to a minimum. This being said, as recommended in the Geologic Hazard Study completed for the project, the potential for liquefaction and settlement to occur on site is predicated on the perched groundwater dissipating at the site. Therefore, the Mitigation Measure MM GEO-2 will be implemented to confirm dissipation of the perched water table. As indicated in the MBGP EIR, the southern portion of the planning area is susceptible to subsidence; the Project is located in this area (City of Bakersfield, 2002) Implementation of Uniform Building Code Standards as well as DSA requirements will help to reduce impacts associated with subsidence of the Project site. Further, the estimated amount of settlement that would occur at this site during a major earthquake is up to 4.38 inches if water is present and 0.63 inches if water is not present in the top 50 feet (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019a). Consequently, if the perched water table has not dissipated by the commencement of construction, subsidence could occur. Implementation of MM GEO-2 will reduce potential subsidence impacts to a less than significant level. As indicated in previous responses, the site is located on 0-2% slopes, which do not provide the conditions required for significant on-site land sliding. Additionally, the site is not located near any areas with sufficient slope which could result in off-site landslides. Moreover, the Project will be designed by an engineer to resist spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) MM GEO-2: Prior to the commencement of construction, the contractor shall evaluate whether the perched water table has begun to dissipate under the site. Results of the testing and evaluation shall be submitted to the Lead Agency for review and evaluation. If evaluation determines that the perched water is not dissipated, the Lead Agency will consult with the Division of the State Architect to discuss possible changes in project design to provide protection from liquefaction and settlement. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.7d - Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Based on the lithology encountered in the top 10 feet. of soil in the Project area, it was determined that it is unlikely expansive soils would be encountered. The Project is located within an area where the lowest amount of subsidence and hydrocompaction has occurred (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019a) The Project would comply with all applicable requirements of the California Department of Education Title 5, California Code of Regulations, and the most recent California Building Standards Code that provides criteria for the appropriate design of buildings. The proposed Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 P, KF Page 3-46 U r O ORIGINAL initial Study Project would not be located on any identified expansive soils, as defined in the California Building Code. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.7e - Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The proposed Projectwill not use a septic system. Once annexed into the City of Bakersfield, the Project will connect to the existing sewer line/system located about 1/4 mile to the west. That system is the "Panama and Union Planned Sewer Area." Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.7f - Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Geological records of the region indicate that the Project area is underlain by recent alluvial deposits (2,000 - 150 BP) to all depths likely to be reached by excavations associated with development (Meyer, Jack et al, 2010). These alluvial deposits appear to be too young geologically to contain significant fossil remains based on the age of Buena Vista Lake deposits, which represent the distal end of the Kern River deposits. Therefore, the Project area is considered to have a very "low potential." (City of Bakersfield, 2002). However, there remains the possibility for previously unknown, buried paleontological resources or unique geological sites to be uncovered during subsurface construction activities. Therefore, this would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation is proposed requiring standard inadvertent discovery procedures to be implemented to reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) MM GEO-3: During any ground disturbance activities, if paleontological resources are encountered, all work within 25 feet of the find shall halt until a qualified paleontologist as Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 Greenfield School District Page 3-47 s y 41 � m r U O ()RInIAIaI initiaiStudy defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (2010), can evaluate the find and make recommendations regarding treatment. Paleontological resource materials may include resources such as fossils, plant impressions, or animal tracks preserved in rock. The qualified paleontologist shall contact the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or other appropriate facility regarding any discoveries of paleontological resources. If the qualified paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations and fossil recovery may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated for their significance. If the resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are significant, they shall be avoided to ensure no adverse effects, or such effects must be mitigated. Construction in that area shall not resume until the resource appropriate measures are recommended or the materials are determined to be less than significant. If the resource is significant and fossil recovery is the identified form of treatment, then the fossil shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution. Copies of all correspondence and reports shall be submitted to the Lead Agency. Crescent Elementary School 1S/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 gAKF Page 3-48 v o ORIGINAL Pr SSUR( 27 46 QI \y/ 11, Initial Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 Page 3-49 ORIGINAL Initial b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact #3.4.8a - Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Although construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in emissions of GHGs, the Project does not exceed the SPAL established by the SJVAPCD. Therefore, the Project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on the environment. As noted in 3.4.3- Air Quality an AQIA was prepared for a comprehensive high school construction project, which included greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions modeling (Kern High School District, 2018). GHG emissions were determined to be minimal. Since this Project is significantly smaller in size and scope, it can be extrapolated that emissions of GHG would also be minimal. See also Impact 3.4.3a. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.8b - Would the Project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? See Impact 3.4.8 Discussion above. The Project will not exceed the 1,875 -student SPAL established by the SJVAPCD.'Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and impacts would be less than significant. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 gAKF 9(PI Page 3-50 �_ m U r O ORIGINAL Less than Significant Potentially, with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3.4.8 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the Project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact #3.4.8a - Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Although construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in emissions of GHGs, the Project does not exceed the SPAL established by the SJVAPCD. Therefore, the Project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on the environment. As noted in 3.4.3- Air Quality an AQIA was prepared for a comprehensive high school construction project, which included greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions modeling (Kern High School District, 2018). GHG emissions were determined to be minimal. Since this Project is significantly smaller in size and scope, it can be extrapolated that emissions of GHG would also be minimal. See also Impact 3.4.3a. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.8b - Would the Project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? See Impact 3.4.8 Discussion above. The Project will not exceed the 1,875 -student SPAL established by the SJVAPCD.'Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and impacts would be less than significant. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 gAKF 9(PI Page 3-50 �_ m U r O ORIGINAL MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District initiaiStudy October 2019 Page 3-51 ORIGINAL initial DISCUSSIO17 This section is based on the Geologic Hazard Study (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019a), the Power Line Information Letter report (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019b) Preliminary Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 �gP KF,9� Page 3-53� m � r v o ORIGINAL Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3.4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the Project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, ❑ ® ❑ ❑ use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ release of hazardous materials into the environment? C. Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- ❑ ® ❑ ❑ quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as ❑ ❑ ❑ a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result ❑ ® ❑ ❑ in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area? f. Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency ❑ ® ❑ ❑ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ injury, or death involving wildland fires? DISCUSSIO17 This section is based on the Geologic Hazard Study (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019a), the Power Line Information Letter report (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019b) Preliminary Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 �gP KF,9� Page 3-53� m � r v o ORIGINAL initial Study Environmental Assessment (PEA) (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019c) and a Hazardous Waste Landfills, Potentially Hazardous Sites and Naturally Occurring Asbestos letter report (Soils Engineering, Inc, 2019d) prepared for the Project. These studies are included in Appendix C of this document. Impact #3.4.9a - Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Kern County Environmental Health Services Division is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the County. The CUPA unifies and consolidates the various requirements for businesses handling hazardous materials, generating or treating hazardous wastes, The Business Plan consists of the following items: Hazardous Materials Business Plan Certification Form, Business Activities Page, Business Owner/Operator Identification Page, Hazardous Materials Inventory Pages(s), Site Map Form, Emergency Response Plans and Procedures, and Employee Training Program. Construction of the Project would involve the transport and use of minor quantities of hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, paints and solvents. The types and quantities of hazardous materials to be used and stored onsite would not be of a significant amount to create a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident condition. The handling and transport of all hazardous materials onsite would be performed in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations. During Project operation, minor amounts of custodial chemicals would be used for cleaning purposes. The presence of such materials could present risk if not managed properly. The presence and use of these materials, which can be classified as hazardous materials, create the potential for accidental spillage and exposure of workers to these substances. The District has procedures in place for the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials which comply with the CDE Title 5. Hazardous and non -hazardous wastes would likely be transported to and from the Project site during the construction phase of the proposed Project. Construction would involve the use of some hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, hydraulic oil, grease, solvents, adhesives, paints, and other petroleum-based products, although these materials are commonly used during construction activities and would not be disposed of on the Project site. Any hazardous waste or debris that is generated during construction of the proposed Project would be collected and transported away from the site and disposed of at an approved off-site landfill or other such facility. In addition, sanitary waste generated during construction would be managed through the use of portable toilets, which would be located at reasonably accessible on-site locations. Hazardous materials such as paint, bleach, water treatment chemicals, gasoline, oil, etc., may be used at the proposed school. These materials are stored in appropriate storage locations and containers in the manner specified by the manufacturer and disposed of in accordance with local, federal, and State regulations. Additionally, and in accordance with applicable federal and State Health and Safety Codes, and Kern County regulations, the Project proponent would be required to prepare and submit a hazardous materials business plan to include the new school site to the appropriate regulatory agency. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1, no significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 o�c $AK'9s Greenfield School District Page 3-53 -1m U � O ORIGINAL initiaiStudy transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste during construction or operation of the new school campus would occur. SEI collected shallow (0 to 6 inches) discrete soil samples at 36 locations evenly spread across the site, along with soil samples beneath a pole -mounted electrical transformer and adjacent to a water transfer pump. The 36 discrete soil samples from the field areas were combined by the analytical laboratory into 12 composite soil samples and were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (OCPs). Twelve (12) discrete soil samples (-B sample from each composite) were analyzed for CAM 17 metals. The discrete soil samples collected beneath the electrical transformer and adjacent to the water transfer pump were analyzed for PCBs and petroleum hydrocarbons and metals, respectively (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019c). DTSC accepted the results of this sampling event but required additional soil sampling be conducted in the irrigation ditches and low-lying areas along the northern and eastern property boundaries. Discrete soil samples were collected at depths of 0 to 6inches and 2 feet to 2.5 feet at nine locations within the irrigation ditches located along the northern and eastern property boundaries and were analyzed for OCPs. The shallow (0 to 6 inches) soil samples collected at the end of the irrigation ditches were also analyzed for CAM 17 metals, with the other shallow soil samples analyzed for arsenic. Oil -stained soil was encountered in the central area of the northern irrigation ditch at sample location D3, so additional soil samples (3 locations) were collected in this area and analyzed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). Selected soil samples in this area of concern were also analyzed for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and CAM 17 metals. s (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019c) The site is absent of significant concentrations of pesticides and metals in the soil. An active 8 -inch crude oil pipeline and an idle 6 -inch crude oil pipeline operated by Kern Oil on located the south side of Panama Lane. No high-pressure natural.gas pipelines appear within 1,500 feet of the site (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019c). A pipeline risk assessment (PRA) of the pipelines was conducted per CDE protocols. Based on that analysis, the probabilities for individual risk were calculated to be insignificant at a value of 2.3 x 10-7 for the combined pipelines and 2.2 x 10-7 for the 6 inch or the 8inch pipeline. Analysis indicates that a 120 -foot setback from the 8 -inch crude oil pipeline is appropriate for this.Project. To reduce impacts from the pipelines, Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-3 requires and setback of 120 feet from the pipeline, and the inclusion of a high-pressure pipeline release scenario in the emergency response program for the school. A visual site reconnaissance indicated that no power lines are present within 350 feet of the site boundaries carry greater than 50 kilovolt (kV) power overhead or underground. Overhead power lines at 21 kV are present along the south side of Panama Lane, on the west side of the site and along the east side of Cottonwood Road. No underground power lines are present within or along the borders of the site. No setbacks from these power lines are required since they carry power <50 kV (Soils Engineering, Inc., 2019b). Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 20190)` Page 3-5,4� �m U O ORIG&L Initial With mitigation, the proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Based on analysis above, Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4 have been proposed to mitigate potential impacts. With this mitigation, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials nor create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) MM HAZ-1: Prior to operation of the Project, the Project proponent shall prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan that identifies the new location of the new school campus and submit it to the appropriate regulatory agency for review and approval. The Project proponent shall provide the hazardous materials business plan.to all contractors working on the Project and shall ensure that one copy is available at the Project site at all times. MM HAZ-2: In the event that other abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading activities, all work shall cease and the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources shall be contacted for requirements and approvals. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources may determine that remedial plugging operations maybe required. MM HAZ-3: Prior to commencement of construction, the location of all classroom buildings will be a minimum of 120 feet away of the crude oil pipelines. MM HAZ-4: Prior to operation of the Project, a high-pressure pipeline release scenario shall be included as part of the school's emergency response program. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.9b - Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? See Impact #3.4.8a, above. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 1<gAK, ,q Greenfield School District Page 3-55_,C) s� � m r U O ORIGINAL Initial Study LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.9c -Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? See Impact #3.4.8a, above. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.9d - Would the Project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? An online search was conducted of Cortese List to identify locations on or near the Project site. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) website, indicated that there are no hazardous or toxic sites in the vicinity (within one mile) of the Project site (Cal EPA, n.d.). The State Water Resources Control Board website indicated that there are no Permitted Underground Storage Tanks, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, or any other cleanup sites on or in the vicinity (within one mile) of the project site (California Water Resources Board, n.d.). The Project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Project site is not within the immediate vicinity of a hazardous materials site and would not impact a listed site. Literature review of available federal, State, and local database information systems was performed for the purpose of identifying known recognized environmental conditions present on the site and the nearby properties that have the potential to adversely impact the site. There is no data identifying any facilities within 'Amile of the site that might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or wastes that might affect the proposed school site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. �gAKF9 Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 201 Greenfield School District Page 3-5& o ORIGINAL Initial LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.9e - For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area? The nearest public or private airport is Bakersfield Municipal Airport, located on East Planz Road, approximately 6,500 feet northwest of the project site. The proposed Project is located within the "C" Compatibility Zone of the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Two existing schools are located within close proximity to this Airport, Leo G. Pauly Elementary School is located 2,500 feet west and Casa Loma Elementary School is located 2,600 feet north. A letter has been received from the California Department of Transportation - Division of Aeronautics (included as Appendix E of this document). The letter states that Caltrans has reviewed the proposed site in relation to the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, and other relevant documentation. Although the Project appears to be in conflict with the adopted Kern County ALUCP; however, in an inspection of the site, the proposed Project provides an "appropriate level of safety suitable for a school." Caltrans encouraged the incorporation of noise attenuation methods to Project design and construction. With the addition of noise attenuations design features such as dual pane glass, the Project would have a less than significant impact. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.9f - Would the Project Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The proposed Project is required to adhere to the standards set forth in the Uniform Fire Code, which identifies the design standards for emergency access during both the Project's construction and operational phases. The Project would also comply with the appropriate local and State requirements regarding emergency response plans and access. Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-4 recommends that a high-pressure pipeline release scenario be included in the emergency response program for the school. The proposed Project would not inhibit the ability of local roadways to continue to accommodate emergency response and evacuation activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-4, the proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan Crescent Elementary SchoollS/MND October 2019 �gAKF9 Greenfield School District Page 3-57 U r O ORIGINAL initial Study or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with the incorporation of mitigation. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-4. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.9g - Would the Project Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The proposed Project is surrounded by a mix of agricultural and residential land uses and would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, as there are no wildlands in the vicinity. According to available data, (see Figure 1-3), the Project site is not located within a hazard zone classified as Very High, High or Moderate for wildland fires (Cal Fire, 2006). Construction and operation of the Project is not expected to increase the risk of wildfires on and adjacent to the Project site. The Project will also be required to comply with all applicable standards as required by the State Fire Marshall, CDE Title 5 and Title 24 regulations, as well as local fire codes. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 OAKFq Page 3-58 o s� r U p ORIGINAL initial + 0 2,D00 FE Feet { i I C4 I v ; m " EI l .-v fc Aw U' Ln I _ .. -_ - - f Pvn ma Ln - Aw _ 11m42ealand DI. rvl. CI' Vulln -Bora Baia Ln - Ere Tunlary Sclnol Gfln C6mr. Ln' I V r9os Ln . .E Puclixo Rd I.Mmfree Ln - E S LOAe.Va Cay DI ? v minl Boy DI S Uzy.RISer Ln. -_ <' - Darllm P0119 DI - Q .I• VJe Bn Avc ' ✓' - l' ,I Denson Acv I R -1-d Cr _ ' I - ' CaIIcDr� .. _ Reaand Acres - -- Brymil 51 - n, Ily _. _ i _ �. P.— SI 'r - Cf+d lly SI I� 7 initial + 0 2,D00 FE Feet { i I C4 I 356H Plugged Well 1'ufsoll' ® DOGGR Administrative Boundaries nfield Project Site Leo Ln 8 E - E r.lc Kae Rd UK Sources: California Department of Conser Figure 3.4.9-1 Oil / Gas Wells and Field Boundaries Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 A KF9 Page 3-59 F— m � o ORIGINAL m " EI l .-v fc Aw U' Ln I _ .. -_ - - f Pvn ma Ln - 356H Plugged Well 1'ufsoll' ® DOGGR Administrative Boundaries nfield Project Site Leo Ln 8 E - E r.lc Kae Rd UK Sources: California Department of Conser Figure 3.4.9-1 Oil / Gas Wells and Field Boundaries Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 A KF9 Page 3-59 F— m � o ORIGINAL m " EI l .-v fc Aw . --Cluapas-Ave.. _ . _ 11m42ealand DI. rvl. CI' Vulln -Bora Baia Ln - Ere Tunlary Sclnol Gfln C6mr. Ln' I V r9os Ln . EE_nzhue Rd .__.. _ I.Mmfree Ln - E S LOAe.Va Cay DI ? v minl Boy DI S Uzy.RISer Ln. -_ <' - Darllm P0119 DI - Q bvnohrh Bay Dr VJe Bn Avc ' ✓' - l' ,I Denson Acv I ' I - -- --'- E-HosMOJ-Ave ._. - __-_ - .. ---- - -------- - Gt+bYnllay - - -- 356H Plugged Well 1'ufsoll' ® DOGGR Administrative Boundaries nfield Project Site Leo Ln 8 E - E r.lc Kae Rd UK Sources: California Department of Conser Figure 3.4.9-1 Oil / Gas Wells and Field Boundaries Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 A KF9 Page 3-59 F— m � o ORIGINAL 3.4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the Project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii. Substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result flooding on- or offsite? iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality,control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District initial study Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ October2019 ��AKF9 Page 3-60 � m r U � ORIGINAL initial Discussion Impact #14.10a - Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water quality? Construction of the Project would involve excavation, soil stockpiling, mass and fine grading, the installation of supporting drainage facilities, and associated infrastructure. During site grading and construction activities, large areas of bare soil could be exposed to erosive forces for long periods of time. Construction activities involving soil disturbance, excavation, cutting/filling, stockpiling, and grading activities could result in increased erosion and sedimentation to surface waters. Additionally, accidental spills or disposal of potentially harmful materials used during construction could possibly wash into and pollute surface water runoff. Materials that could potentially contaminate the construction area, or spill or leak, include lead-based paint flakes, diesel fuel, gasoline, lubrication oil, hydraulic fluid, antifreeze, transmission fluid, lubricating grease, and other fluids. A SWPPP for construction -related activities would include, but not be limited to, the following types of BMPs to minimize the potential for pollution related to material spills: • Vehicles and equipment will be cleaned. • Vehicle and equipment fueling, and maintenance requirements will be established. • A spill containment and clean-up plan will be in place prior to and during construction activities. In order to reduce potential impacts to water quality during construction activities, Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1 requires the Project proponent to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit and prepare a SWPPP. The Project SWPPP would include BMPs targeted at minimizing and controlling construction and post - construction runoff and erosion to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation Measure MM HYD -1 requires the District to limit grading to the minimum area necessary for construction and operation of the Project. Additionally, as noted in Section 3.4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1 requires that all hazardous wastes be stored and properly managed in accordance with the approved Hazardous Waste Exclusion Plan and hazardous materials business plan. In order to reduce potential impacts to water quality during construction and operation activities, Mitigation Measures MM GEO-1, MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4 as well as MM HYD -1 would be required. With mitigation, the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with incorporation of mitigation. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 Greenfield School District Page 3-61 a�c�AKF9 s� ORIGINAL Initial Study MITIGATION MEASURE(S) MM HYD -1: The District shall limit grading to the minimum area necessary for construction and operation of the Project. Final grading plans shall include best management practices to limit onsite and offsite erosion. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM GEO-1, MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.10b - Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? The Project site is located within the Kern County Subbasin within the San Joaquin Vlley Groundwater Basin (Basin Number 5-22.14, DWR Bulletin 118), which is identified as being critically overdrafted (California Department of Water Resources, 2003), The City of Bakersfield is a member of the Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KRGSA, Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requirements and the newly formed Groundwater Sustainability Agencies. SGMA consists of three legislative bills and the legislation provides a framework for a long-term sustainable groundwater management across California. Local stakeholders have until 2020 to develop, prepare, and begin to implement the plan. GSAs will then have the responsibility to achieve groundwater sustainability. However, at this time, no additional requirements or implementation measures are applicable since a GSP has not been adopted within the subbasin. The water purveyor for the Project area will be California Water Service, supplied by combination of groundwater wells, treated and untreated surface water, and imported water. The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Bakersfield District prepared by California Water Service (City of Bakersfield, 2016) concludes that sufficient water supplies will exist to satisfy all current and projected future customers of the water district, during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years. The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Mitigation measure HYD -3 requires the District to obtain a water "will serve" letter from California Water Service. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact. See also Impact #3.4.1-19b. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) MM HYD -2: Prior to initiation of grading activities, the District shall obtain a water "will serve" letter from California Water Service. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 OAKe, � Page 3-62 � m r v o ORIGINAL Initial Study LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.10c(i) - Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The rate and amount of surface runoff is determined by multiple factors, including the following: topography, the amount and intensity of precipitation, the amount of evaporation that occurs in the watershed and the amount of precipitation and water that infiltrates to the groundwater. The proposed Project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, which would have the potential to result in erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. The disturbance of soils on-site during construction could cause erosion, resulting in temporary construction impacts. In addition, the placement of permanent structures on-site could affect drainage in the long-term. Impacts from construction and operation are discussed below. As discussed in Impact #3.4.10a. above, potential impacts on water quality arising from erosion and sedimentation are expected to be localized and temporary during construction. Construction -related erosion and sedimentation impacts as a result of soil disturbance would be less than significant after implementation of an SWPPP (see Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1) and BMPs required by the NPDES. No drainages or other water bodies are present on the Project site, and therefore, the proposed Project would not change the course of any such drainages; however, erosion may occur on-site during rain events or high winds. Mitigation Measure MM HYD -1 requires the District to limit grading to the minimum area necessary for construction and operation of the Project. Additionally, as noted in Section 3.4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1 requires that all hazardous wastes be stored and properly managed in accordance with the approved Hazardous Waste Exclusion Plan and hazardous materials business plan. With mitigation, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with incorporation of mitigation. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-1, MM GEO-1, and MM HYD -1. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.10c(ii) - Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 0� 0 A K4� Page 3-63 m U p ORIGINAL initial the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result flooding on- or offsite? See also Impact #3.4.9c, above. The Project site is relatively flat, and grading would be minimal. The topography of the site would not appreciably change because of grading activities. The site does not contain any blue -line water features, including streams or rivers. The Arvin Edison and Kern Island canals runs along the southerly and westerly border of the site, respectively. However, the Project would not impact the canals, as they are off site. The Project would develop significant areas of impervious surfaces that could significantly reduce the rate of percolation at the site or concentrate and accelerate surface runoff in comparison to the baseline condition. However, a water retention basin on the south portion of the Project site would be sufficient to retain stormwater on the Project site. In addition, there are areas of the Project that would be undeveloped (Le, kindergarten yard, portions of the recreational field) and stormwater would generally allow water to percolate to ground. Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-1 would require the Project proponent to prepare and implement a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, which would minimize this impact by ensuring safe handling of hazardous materials on site and providing for cleanup in the event of an accidental release. MM GEO-1 and MM HYD -1 requires the development of a SWPPP and the use of BMPs, and limit the amount of grading where feasible to reduce impacts to water quality during construction and operation activities, respectively. The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial drainage patterns or cause substantial surface runoff that would result in flooding on- or off- site, therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with the incorporation of mitigation. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-1, MM GEO-1 and MM HYD -1. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.10c(iii) - Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Please see response #3.4.10(a through c (ii)), above. The Project would comply with all applicable State and City codes and regulations. Additionally, there is a proposed stormwater retention basin on the site. Therefore, the Project would not create or contribute runoff $ Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2014 9p Greenfield School District Page 3-64 � o fn - ORIGINAL Initial water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. No streams or rivers exist within the Project's vicinity that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. With implementation of MM HAZ-1, MM GEO-1 and MM HYD -1 as noted above, the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site, contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, nor provide additional sources of polluted runoff. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-1, MM GEO-1 and MM HYD -1. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.1Oc(iv) - Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? As discussed above Impact #3.4.10 a through c (iii), construction and operations activities could potentially degrade water quality through the occurrence of erosion or siltation at the Project site. Additionally, accidental release of potentially harmful materials, such as engine oil, diesel fuel, or other substances used in operation of the facilities, could potentially degrade water quality onsite. Construction of the Project would include soil -disturbing activities that could result in erosion and siltation, as well as the use of harmful and potentially hazardous materials required to operate vehicles and equipment. The transport of disturbed soils or the accidental release of potentially hazardous materials could result in water quality degradation. The District would be required to request coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit. A SWPPP would be prepared to specify BMPs to prevent construction pollutants as required by MM GEO-1. Mitigation Measure MM HYD -1 requires the District to limit grading to the minimum area necessary for construction and operation of the Project. Additionally, as noted in Section 3.4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1 requires that all hazardous wastes be stored and properly managed in accordance with the approved Hazardous Waste Exclusion Plan and hazardous materials business plan. The proposed Project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-1, MM GEO-1, and MM HYD -1. Crescent Elementary School 1S/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 $AKF,9 Page 34 s= m r V � ORIGINAL Initial LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.10d - Would the Project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation? The Project site is not located near the ocean or a steep topographic feature (i.e., mountain, hill, bluff, etc.). Therefore, there is no potential for the site to be inundated by tsunami or mudflow. Additionally, there is no body of water within the vicinity of the Project site. There is no potential for inundation of the Project site by seiche. As shown by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the school property is not located within a 100 -year flood zone (see Figure 3.4.10-1). The potential for flooding at the site appears to be very low. The proposed Project site is located within a FEMA Flood Hazard Zone X: Area of Minimal Flood Hazard. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.10e - Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Please see response #3.4.10b above. At this time, a GSP has not been prepared for the Kern County Subbasin, which is within the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. Therefore, no additional requirements or implementation measures are applicable. The Project. Mitigation measure HYD -2 requires the District to obtain a water "will serve" letter from California Water Service. It is not anticipated that the Project would substantially deplete groundwater supplies or conflict with any future adopted groundwater management plan. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM HYD -2 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 �k 0 A KF9 Page 3-66? i-- m V r ORIGINAL initial N 0 1000 L Feet � ; ® Project Site ® 1 % Annual Chance Flood Hazard ///•, Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Figure 3.4.10-1 FEMA Flood Hazards Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District SourcE October 2019 §$AKF9s� Page 3-6T- m r U p ORIGINAL initial Discussion Impact #3.4.11a - Would the Project physically divide an established community? The proposed Project site is presently undeveloped land and is surrounded by agricultural land to the east, west, north and rural residential to the south. The boundary of incorporated City of Bakersfield is approximately lh mile west of the Project site and surrounding agricultural lands in the area are in the process of being converted to urban uses as envisioned by the MBGP. The Project also intends to be annexed into the City in the near future. The proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, the project will have a no impact. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE There would be no impact Impact #3.4.11b - Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The Project is within the MBGP, which designates the project site as R -IA (Resource - Intensive Agriculture) (Figure 3.4.11-1) and is within an A (Exclusive Agriculture) zone district (Figure 3.4.11-2). While schools are not expressly allowed in this designation, they are conditionally permitted by the County. However, Government Code Section 53091 does not require a school district to comply with County land use designations and therefore, the Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 �OAKF,9 Greenfield School District Page 3-68 `r-� M r U p ORIGINAL Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3.4.11- LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the Project: a. Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ community? b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the ❑ ❑ ❑ purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Discussion Impact #3.4.11a - Would the Project physically divide an established community? The proposed Project site is presently undeveloped land and is surrounded by agricultural land to the east, west, north and rural residential to the south. The boundary of incorporated City of Bakersfield is approximately lh mile west of the Project site and surrounding agricultural lands in the area are in the process of being converted to urban uses as envisioned by the MBGP. The Project also intends to be annexed into the City in the near future. The proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, the project will have a no impact. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE There would be no impact Impact #3.4.11b - Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The Project is within the MBGP, which designates the project site as R -IA (Resource - Intensive Agriculture) (Figure 3.4.11-1) and is within an A (Exclusive Agriculture) zone district (Figure 3.4.11-2). While schools are not expressly allowed in this designation, they are conditionally permitted by the County. However, Government Code Section 53091 does not require a school district to comply with County land use designations and therefore, the Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 �OAKF,9 Greenfield School District Page 3-68 `r-� M r U p ORIGINAL initial Study District is not seeking a General Plan amendment or zone change for the subject site. The Project is not anticipated to result in substantial direct or indirect population growth that was not previously anticipated by the MBGP. The proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, the Project would have no impact. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE There would be no impact Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 Page 3-69 o``OAKF T s ORIGINAL Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019011— ,Q� Page 3-7&- m r- U O, ORIGINAL 7(I J I _ Project Site HC - Heavy Commercial SR - Suburban Residential :SI - Service Industrial ® ER - Estate Residential HI - Heavy Industrial LMR - Low Medium Density Residential P - Public Facilities HR - High Density Residential ® LR/PS - Low Density Residential/Public and private schools 5M HMR - High Medium Density Residential ® PT - Public Transportation 3N LMR/LR - Low Medium Density/Low Density Residential PSW - Solid Waste Facility Sites I= LR - Low Density Residential PS - Public and private schools i IELD HMR/LMR - High Medium Density/Low Medium Density Residential M OS -P - Parks M SR/LR - Suburban/Low Density Residential R -IA- Intensive Agriculture (r GC - General Commercial Figure 3.4.11-1 I(I\� Land Use Designations Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019011— ,Q� Page 3-7&- m r- U O, ORIGINAL R 1j +R 'C (R X11 IR;1i R I! iR R"11 Ad ROU 817a1e�� . OL iR I$'R' a JRF IiR r R-17 iR1r ,7 Sala n r Ove M1 W Corregidora .Ave S = LU , Cardia Ave. . initial IE(20);RS 'D D O u Project Site M A- Exclusive Agriculture ® A-1 - Limited Agriculture ® C-1 - Neighborhood Commercial C-2 - General Commercial 0 E(2 112) RS MH - Estate 2.5 Acres, Residential Suburban Combining, Mobilehome Combining E(20) - Estate 20 Acres, Residential Suburban Combining M-1 -Light Industrial R-1 - Low Density Residential Figure 3.4.11-2 Zone Districts Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 ��,AKF9 Greenfield School District Page 3-71�? � m r— U O ORIGINAL N OL Feet t A IE(20);RS 'D D O u Project Site M A- Exclusive Agriculture ® A-1 - Limited Agriculture ® C-1 - Neighborhood Commercial C-2 - General Commercial 0 E(2 112) RS MH - Estate 2.5 Acres, Residential Suburban Combining, Mobilehome Combining E(20) - Estate 20 Acres, Residential Suburban Combining M-1 -Light Industrial R-1 - Low Density Residential Figure 3.4.11-2 Zone Districts Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 ��,AKF9 Greenfield School District Page 3-71�? � m r— U O ORIGINAL initiaiStudy b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ® ❑ delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Discussion Impact #3.4.12a - Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No current mineral extraction activities exist on the project site nor are any mineral extraction activities included in the project design. As illustrated in Figure 3.4.9-1, the Project site is not located in an oilfield and there are no known wells located on the site. The closest oil well is located approximately 1,500 feet to the west of the project site. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of mineral resources as the project does not propose the extraction of mineral resources. Additionally, the proposed project would not restrict the ability of mineral rights' holders, in the area, to exercise their legal rights to access surrounding sites for the exploration and/or extraction of underlying oil research or other natural resources. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Therefore, there would be no impact. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 A KFS Page 3-72 M U p ORIGINAL, Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3.4.12 - MINERAL RESOURCES Would the Project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ® ❑ delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Discussion Impact #3.4.12a - Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No current mineral extraction activities exist on the project site nor are any mineral extraction activities included in the project design. As illustrated in Figure 3.4.9-1, the Project site is not located in an oilfield and there are no known wells located on the site. The closest oil well is located approximately 1,500 feet to the west of the project site. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of mineral resources as the project does not propose the extraction of mineral resources. Additionally, the proposed project would not restrict the ability of mineral rights' holders, in the area, to exercise their legal rights to access surrounding sites for the exploration and/or extraction of underlying oil research or other natural resources. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Therefore, there would be no impact. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 A KFS Page 3-72 M U p ORIGINAL, Initial Impact #3.4.12b - Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? As seen in Figures 3.4.11-1 and 3.4.11-2 in Section 3.4.11, Land Use and Planning, the proposed Project is not designated as a mineral recovery area by the MBGP. The Project would not alter any existing plans that protect mineral resources. As a result, the proposed Project would not interfere with mining operations and would not result in the loss of land designated for mineral and petroleum. The proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Therefore, the project would have no impact. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant. ®AKF9 Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 o s; rn Greenfield School District Page 3-73! o ORIGINAL Less than Significant Potentially with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 3.4.13 - NOISE Would the Project result in: a. Generation of a substantial temporary or ❑ permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Generation of excessive groundborne ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? C. For a Project located within the vicinity of a ❑ private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? /I Initial Study Less than Significant No Impact Impact LE ❑■ ❑■ Analysis is based on available information and a determination from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics ( California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, 2005), included in Appendix E of this document. Discussion Impact #3.4.13a - Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? The MBGP has noise policies within the Noise Element of the plan (City of Bakersfield, 2007). It discusses the noise environment in the metro planning area and establishes policies regarding land uses that may generate noise, and sensitive land uses that may be affected by noise generated elsewhere. Schools are identified as a sensitive land use. The primary function of the Noise Element is to incorporate noise considerations into the land use decision-making process. The Noise Element identifies the existing and projected major sources of noise in the County. These include roadways, railways, airports, industry, and facilities used for special events. The project site is not located in the immediate vicinity of any.of these identified sources, Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 Greenfield School District Page 3-74 gAKF9� 4 ORIGINAL initial Study with the exception of its location on the corner of Panama Lane and Cottonwood Road within two miles of the Bakersfield Municipal Airport. The roadway sections identified as a major noise source in the Noise section of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan EIR (City of Bakersfield, 2002) that are closest to the project site are 1) adjacent to the north of the project site on Panama Lane between Union Avenue & Cottonwood Road; and 2) adjacent to the east of the project site on Cottonwood Road between Panama Lane and Panama Rd. Table 4.5-7 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR projects that the 65 dBA contour will be located approximately 48 feet and 21 feet from the roadway centerline, respectively. For site buildings along Panama Lane, the 65-dBA contour line lies 48 feet from road centerline. Since the average right-of-way for arterial streets is 110 feet, the southern half of Panama Lane from centerline to the property boundary would be a distance of 55 feet. Therefore, the 65 dBA lies within the designated road right of way (ROW). Additionally, for site buildings along Cottonwood Road the 65-dBA contour line lies 21 feet from the road centerline. Since the average right-of-way for an arterial road is 110 feet, the western half of Cottonwood Road from centerline to the property boundary would be 55 feet. Therefore, the 65dBA contour lies within the designated ROW. Consequently, all exterior noise levels at the property boundaries will be less than City of Bakersfield standards for acceptable outdoor noise levels. Consequently, sensitive receptors located at the school site will not be exposed to noise levels that violate applicable noise standards. Impacts to sensitive receptors onsite are considered less than significant. The Noise Element establishes a land use compatibility criterion of 65 dB CNEL for exterior noise levels generated by stationary sources and 45 dB CNEL for interior living spaces. Outdoor activity areas generally include backyards of single-family residences, individual patios or decks of multi -family developments, and common outdoor recreation areas of transient lodging developments. The intent of the exterior noise level requirement is to provide an acceptable noise environment for outdoor activities and recreation. When the school is constructed, traffic on local roadways would be expected to increase. School -related activities could also result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the immediate project vicinity. Activities that could be expected to generate noise include voices from students and staff, bell or alarm systems, and mechanical systems related to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems on school buildings. Additionally, nearby existing sensitive uses could be affected by noise and vibration during the construction of the project. Noise levels from school activities would be intermittent and mostly occur during periods when students are arriving at school in the morning or leaving school in the afternoon, and during periods of recess or physical education classes on the play fields. The noise levels generated by such activities would occasionally be audible in the existing residential areas to the west of the new school but would not exceed the County's 65 dB CNEL standard. It is noted that student gathering and play areas are located near the center of the campus at a Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 $ X KF9 Page 3-75 F m U r O ORIGINAL Initial Study distance of more than 1,450 feet from the closest home. School bells or alarms would also be audible by the closest residence but would not generate noise levels in excess of applicable noise standards. The closest school buildings would be at least 1,200 feet from the nearest homes located to the east of the school site. School buildings would have ground- or roof -mounted HVAC equipment that would generate noise. Details on the number, size and placement of such units were not available for analysis. However, based upon data from similar projects, it is estimated that hourly values from the continuous operation of HVAC systems could be less than 40 dB at the closest noise -sensitive receivers. Even if it is assumed that HVAC systems could operate continuously, 24 hours per day, HVAC system noise would not approach or exceed the County's 65 dB CNEL standard at the closest residential uses. As indicated in the foregoing discussion of the project's noise impacts, because the Project would generate noise levels below standards established in the MBGP or noise ordinance, and applicable standards of other agencies, its permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity and temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity would not be considered substantial. Construction of the proposed project would include grading, truck traffic and the various noises generally associated with construction activities. There are a few residences to the east of the project site across Cottonwood Road which could be affected by noise from construction of the project. All other residences or sensitive receptors are located at distances sufficient to attenuate noise to acceptable levels. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce temporary noise impacts from construction of the project to levels considered less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) MM NSE -1: During construction, the contractor shall situate implement the following measures: • All stationary construction equipment on the Project site shall be located so that noise emitting objects or equipment faces away from any potential sensitive receptors. The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is equipped with manufacturer -approved mufflers and baffles During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. Construction activities shall not take place outside of the allowable hours specified by Section 9.22.050 of the City Noise Ordinance. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 208 AKF9� Greenfield School District Page 3-,,76 m r V O ORIGINAL Initial Study Impact #3.4.13b - Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? construction Construction activities in general can have the potential to create groundborne vibrations. However, based on the soil types found in the general project vicinity, it is unlikely that any blasting or pile -driving would be required in connection with construction of the school. Therefore, the potential for groundborne vibrations to occur as part of the construction of the Project is considered minimal. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 inch/second) appears to be conservative even for sustained pile driving. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. The typical vibration produced by construction equipment is illustrated in Table 3.4.13-1. Table 3.4.13-1. Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Reference peak particle velocity Approximate peak particle velocity at at 25 feet (inches/second)' 100 feet (inches/second)Z Large bulldozer 0.089 0.011 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.010 Small bulldozer 0.003 0.0004 Jackhammer 0.035 0.004 Vibratory 0.210 0.026 compactor/roller Source: Kern County Planning Department, 2013., Notes: 1 - Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006. Table 12-2. 2 - Calculated using the following formula: PPV equip = PPVref x (25/1))1.5 where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV (ref) _ the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 12-2 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 � 6P KF9 Page 3-77 � m r U O ORIGINAL Initial Study As indicated in Table 3.4.13-1, based on the FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment that would be used during Project construction range from 0.003 to 0.644 inch -per -second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the source of activity. With regard to the proposed project, ground -borne vibration would be generated during site clearing and grading activities on-site facilitated by implementation of the proposed project. As demonstrated in Table 3.4-13-1, vibration levels at 100 feet would range from 0.0004 to 0.026 PPV. Therefore, the anticipated vibration levels would not exceed the 0.2 inch -per - second PPV significance threshold during construction operations at the nearest receptors, which are 1,400 feet to the east. It should be noted that 0.2 inch -per -second PPV is a conservative threshold, as that is the construction vibration damage criteria for non - engineered timber and masonry buildings (Kern County Planning Department, 2013). Buildings within the Project area would be better represented by the 0.5 inch -per -second PPV significance threshold (construction vibration damage criteria for a reinforced concrete, steel or timber buildings) (Kern County Planning Department, 2013). Therefore, vibration impacts associated with construction are anticipated to be less than significant. Operatlons Further, operation of the school would not contain any activities that would create groundborne vibrations. The proposed Project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.13c - For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? As noted in response #3.4.9(e), the Bakersfield Municipal Airport is located 6,500 feet northwest of the Project site and is located within the "C" Compatibility Zone of the Kern County ALUCP. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics was notified of the potential purchase of the project site and its intended use as a school site. and a response was provided to the Lead Agency ( California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, 2005). As such, the District has incorporated the following design features into the project to sufficiently address noise issues associated with the airport. Implementation of mitigation measure MM NSE -2 would require the integration of design features to reduce noise coupled with regulatory requirements. These would sufficiently address noise impacts from potential gAKF Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 Greenfield School District Page 3-78 v c ORIGINAL /nitia/Study aircraft flyover of the project site. Therefore, noise impacts are considered less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) MM NSE -2: Project architect/contractor shall incorporate noise attenuation methods into the design and construction of Project. These include but are not limited to the following design features: • R-30 insulation will be placed in the ceilings, which has a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 37. • R-19 insulation will be placed in the walls, which has a STC rating of 37. • All windows will be 1 -inch dual paned insulating glass, which has a STC rating of 32 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 !�gAKF� Page 3-79.,? CPO r U p ORIGINAL initial Study Discussion Impact #3.4.14a - Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Development of the new elementary school is in response to the overcrowded conditions in the existing surrounding schools within the District. The MBGP (City of Bakersfield, 2002) recognized growth throughout the metropolitan area, and instituted policies and implementation measures to assure orderly growth as the metropolitan area expands. The proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Therefore, impacts of the Project would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.14b - Would the Project displace substantial. numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? o`` 6AKF,9N Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 m Greenfield School District Page 3-80 3 o ORIGINAL Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3.4.14 - POPULATION AND HOUSING the Project: a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the 1:1 ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion Impact #3.4.14a - Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Development of the new elementary school is in response to the overcrowded conditions in the existing surrounding schools within the District. The MBGP (City of Bakersfield, 2002) recognized growth throughout the metropolitan area, and instituted policies and implementation measures to assure orderly growth as the metropolitan area expands. The proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Therefore, impacts of the Project would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.14b - Would the Project displace substantial. numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? o`` 6AKF,9N Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 m Greenfield School District Page 3-80 3 o ORIGINAL initial The proposed Project site is undeveloped, therefore, would not displace any existing housing or people nor would implementation of the Project require construction or replacement of housing. In addition, it is anticipated that construction workers would come from the surrounding area and would not require new housing. The proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the Project would have no impact. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE There would be no impact. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 Greenfield School District Page 3-81 o``0AKF9� > P' U r O ORIGINAL /nitiaMudy Discussion Impact #3.4.15a(i) - Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services - Fire Protection? The proposed Project would have to comply with the California Department of Education Title 5, California Code of Regulations Section 14001, which requires that "all schools are designed to meet federal, State, and local statutory requirements for structure, fire, and public safety, and shall be conveniently located for public services including but not limited to fire protection, police protection, public transit and trash disposal whenever feasible." There are 13 fire stations located within the City of Bakersfield. However, in combination, the City and County maintain a total of 26 stations in the metropolitan area. Currently each station is responsible for a first -in response area of approximately 9 square miles. Fire Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 0AKF9 Greenfield School District Page 3-82 `rte U p ORIGINAL Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3.4.15 - PUBLIC SERVICES Would the Project: a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental - impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Discussion Impact #3.4.15a(i) - Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services - Fire Protection? The proposed Project would have to comply with the California Department of Education Title 5, California Code of Regulations Section 14001, which requires that "all schools are designed to meet federal, State, and local statutory requirements for structure, fire, and public safety, and shall be conveniently located for public services including but not limited to fire protection, police protection, public transit and trash disposal whenever feasible." There are 13 fire stations located within the City of Bakersfield. However, in combination, the City and County maintain a total of 26 stations in the metropolitan area. Currently each station is responsible for a first -in response area of approximately 9 square miles. Fire Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 0AKF9 Greenfield School District Page 3-82 `rte U p ORIGINAL initial Study suppression support for this campus would come from Kern County Fire Station #52 located on Taft Highway near South Union Avenue. Various agreements have been adopted between the Kern County Fire Department and the City of Bakersfield Fire Department. They generally facilitate the following: • Closest station response concept • Dual agency training facility • Emergency radio communication between both agencies The existing Kern County Fire Department Station 52 or the City or Bakersfield Fire Station 5 would provide fire suppression and emergency medical services at the Project site. Station 52 is located a little over 3 miles to the southwest of the Project site along Taft Highway and Station 5 is located a little over two miles to the northwest along White Lane. An approved water supply system capable of supplying required fire flow for fire protection purposes is to be provided to all portions of the school campus where buildings are to be located. The establishment of gallons -per -minute requirements for fire flow shall be based on the Guide for Determination of Required Fire Flow, published by the State Insurance Service Office and Kern County's adopted Fire Code. Fire hydrants would also be located and installed per the County of Kern standards. The District would install the required infrastructure to meet water supply demands for municipal fire protection services. These design standards coupled with existing fire protection infrastructure would provide for proper fire suppression services on site. By meeting these standards and incorporating needed design features in the project design, no additional fire protection services would be required. Therefore, the project would not increase the need for such services beyond the baseline condition. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant. Impact #3.4.15a(ii) - Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services - Police Protection? The Kern County Sheriff's Office (KCSO) provides law enforcement services to the unincorporated areas of the County. KCSO would provide primary public protection to the Crescent Elementary School 1S/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 ,,�$AK4 99 Page 3-83,�-- m r U O ORIGINAL Initial Project site and surrounding areas. In addition, the Project site is located in the California Highway Patrol's Central Division. Although the school will not directly cause an increase in population that would require more police protection services, development of a new elementary school campus could result in additional police service calls. This being said the Greenfield Union School District provides its own on -campus security service, which will relieve the need for most service calls by the Bakersfield Police Department. Therefore, impacts to police protection services are considered less than significant MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant. Impact #3.4.15a(iii) — Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services — Schools? As stated previously, the new school site (Project) would serve students in the vicinity and alleviate possible overcrowding and high teacher -student ratios. The new school would also provide safe and modern educational and recreational opportunities for the existing and future student, faculty and staff population. The construction of an elementary school has been anticipated by the MBGP. Therefore, the proposed project has no impacts on school services. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE There would be no impact Impact #3.4.15a(iv) - Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services - Parks? The nearest park facilities are Stiern Park located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the proposed school site; Kern Delta Park located approximately 2.3 miles southwest of the Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 0 A KF9 Page 3-84 � m U O ORIGINAL /nitIa/Study proposed school site; and Greenfield Park located approximately 1.75 miles south-southwest of the proposed school site. As the population served by the school will most likely come from existing student populations and future student populations will be served by parks set aside by developers per City of Bakersfield development standards, development of a new elementary school would not be the cause of new demand for park services in the community, and, therefore, would not have any adverse impacts on existing parks or recreation areas. Moreover, it is likely that the school will have beneficial effects in the area because the school site and associated outdoor recreational areas could be used to host some of the activities currently held at nearby parks. Therefore, no impacts to parks and recreational facilities are expected. The new school would provide recreational space for the students during the school day. Existing parks would not be affected by the Project because the MBGP has anticipated the growth that is driving the need for the school as well as the need for future parks to serve the anticipated population. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE There would be no impact. Impact #3.4.15a(v) - Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services - Other Public Facilities? The Project is proposed as a part of the MBGP and the predicted residential development in the area in order to reduce classroom overcrowding and teacher/student ratios. The project would not induce the appreciable use of other public facilities such as libraries, courts, and other Kern County services. The proposed Project would indirectly affect the demand for public. services through the addition of school/educational capacity to serve increased population growth. However, this growth is in accordance with the MBGP. The school would provide an additional resource in the community and could be used for many other public facility purposes, off -setting some of the need for additional public facilities, therefore, having an overall net benefit to the community. The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019oF OAKF,9� Page 3-85 m U � ORIGINAL Initial Study governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact. Therefore, no impacts are expected. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE There would be no impact Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District $AKF9 October 201R` sem, Page 3-80 ORIGINAL initial b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational ❑ ❑ ® ❑ facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion Impact #3.4.16a - Would the Project Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? As described in Impact 3.4.15 a(iv), there are three parks located within 2.5 miles of the proposed project. Further, as a matter of policy, the Greenfield School District has made its school campuses available to the community for recreational use outside of school hours. Development of a new school is expected to have an overall beneficial effect by increasing the amount of land available for recreational needs in the southeast Bakersfield area. Therefore, no impacts to recreational resources are expected to occur. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant. Impact #3.4.16b - Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project includes facilities that are integral to a school facility, including buildings and outdoor areas that provide recreational opportunities for students. Impacts Crescent Elementary School lS/MND October 2019 V'K Greenfield School District Page 3-87 �9s� M U r O ORIGINAL Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3.4.16 - RECREATION Would the Project: a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical ❑ ❑ ❑ deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational ❑ ❑ ® ❑ facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion Impact #3.4.16a - Would the Project Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? As described in Impact 3.4.15 a(iv), there are three parks located within 2.5 miles of the proposed project. Further, as a matter of policy, the Greenfield School District has made its school campuses available to the community for recreational use outside of school hours. Development of a new school is expected to have an overall beneficial effect by increasing the amount of land available for recreational needs in the southeast Bakersfield area. Therefore, no impacts to recreational resources are expected to occur. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant. Impact #3.4.16b - Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project includes facilities that are integral to a school facility, including buildings and outdoor areas that provide recreational opportunities for students. Impacts Crescent Elementary School lS/MND October 2019 V'K Greenfield School District Page 3-87 �9s� M U r O ORIGINAL initial from construction of such facilities are included as part of the evaluation of the impacts as identified in the various sections of this Initial Study. Therefore, environmental impacts associated with provision of these facilities are already being assessed and addressed. The development and operation of the recreational areas will have a less than significant impact... MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019,§ Page 3-8E�: m r U O ORIGINAL 3.4.17 - TRANSPORTATION Would the Project: a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? C. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Result in inadequate emergency access? Discumlon Initial Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ The analysis below is based on a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared for this Project (Ruettgers & Schuler, 2019), which is found in Appendix F of this document. The TIS was prepared using trip generation and design hour volumes calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 9th Edition as well as data provided in the project description. The following traffic scenarios were analyzed in the Traffic Study: • Existing (2019) • Existing + Project (2019) • Future Cumulative (2022) • Future Cumulative + Project (2022) • Future Cumulative (2040) • Future Cumulative + Project (2040) Impact #3.4.17a - Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The construction of the proposed elementary school is intended to relieve current overcrowding in the other District schools. It is anticipated that students living in the vicinity Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 Page 3-89 o``0AKF9� U p ORIGINAL Initial of the Project would attend this school, possibly reducing the distance from their homes to school, and reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled on a daily basis. The existing roadways, providing the main circulation in the vicinity of the Project, include the following: Cottonwood Road is designated as an arterial. It currently exists within the study area as a two-lane, north -south roadway, with graded shoulders and provides access to agricultural and low density residential land uses throughout eastern Metropolitan Bakersfield. Fairview Road is an east -west roadway located east of SR 99 midway between Panama Lane and Pacheco Road. It is designated as a collector and provides access to residential land uses within the study area. Fairview Road currently exists as a two-lane roadway with graded shoulders adjacent to residential development. Pacheco Road is an east -west roadway that is designated as an arterial west of Old River Road and as a collector east of Old River Road. In the vicinity of the project, East Pacheco Road exists as a two-lane roadway with graded shoulders and provides access to residential, commercial, and agricultural areas, as well as a crossing over the Kern Island Canal. Monitor Street is a two-lane, north -south midway located midway between South H Street and South Union Avenue. Is it designated as a collector and provides access to residential areas. Panama Lane is designated as an arterial. It extends east from SR 43 near Interstate 5 through the southern Metropolitan Bakersfield area and provides access from agricultural, residential and commercial areas to north -south arterials and collectors and SR 43 and SR 99. In the vicinity of the project, Panama Lane exists as.a two-lane facility at various stages of widening adjacent to development. South H .Street is a north -south arterial which extends from Taft Highway (SR 119) to Brundage Lane and continues northward through downtown Bakersfield as H Street. It exists as a two-lane roadway in the vicinity of the Project. Union Avenue is designated as an arterial and was formerly a segment of SR 99. South Union Avenue extends from SR 99 to Brundage Lane and continues north to Columbus Street. In the Project vicinity, South Union Avenue operates as a 4 -lane divided roadway and provides access to residential and commercial land uses. Existingand Future Traffic Existing peak hour turn movement volumes were field measured in May and October of 2018 at the study intersections for the hours of 7:30-8:30 AM and 3:00-4:00 PM in order to coincide with the school's peak hours of operation. Annual growth rates of up to 3.0% were applied to existing traffic volumes to estimate future traffic volumes for the opening year and 2040 scenarios. These growth rates were Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 201&rONK, 9q Page 3-9p � m r U � ORIGINAL Initial estimated based on KernCOG 2040 traffic model data. Table 3.4.17-1 shows the Project's trip generation assumptions used for the traffic modeling. An investigation was also conducted for general plan amendments and zone changes for projects that would not yet be accounted for in the KernCOG traffic model. The only project that was found to interact with the roadway system in the study area was the Kern High School District's proposed high school on the northeast corner of Panama Lane and Cottonwood Road. Cumulative trip generation and distribution for the proposed high school was added to the future traffic volume estimates at the study intersections. Table 3.4.17-1 Project Trip Generation Iiifo'imation,., ..Daily Trips 'AMP6Ak Hawn Trips °PM Peak Hour Trips ITE Dev Type Variable ADT ADT Rate In % Out % Rate In % Out % CODE RATE Split/ Split/ Split/ Split/ 520 , Elem �_,':� ° 1080 eq 2116 0'6:7_ 54% G ° „"46o/a 0.34 45% ;55% ° School "Students 391 �_ 333 165 202 Source: Appendix F. Levels of Service Criteria for intersection level of service (LOS) are shown in the Tables 3.4.16-2 and 3.4.16-3 below. Table 3.4.17-2 Level of Service Criteria - Unsignalized Intersections <10 A Little or no delay 15 and <25 C Average traffic delays _ ... F77 .. ° 25°'and <'35 D :' Long traffic delays 35 and <50 E Very long traffic delays Extrern ''delays~ Table 3.4.17-3 Level of Service Criteria Signalized Intersections <0.60 <10 A 0.71-0.80 >20 and <35 C Crescent Elementary SchoollS/MND October 2019 ,$NK49q LP Greenfield School District Page 3-91 m � r U � ORIGINAL /nitia/Study 0:81 0 90`= >35 and <5S D 0.91-1.00 >55 and <80 E F Level of service for the study intersections is presented in Tables 3.4.16-4 through 3.4.16-7. According to the MBGP the level of service goal for the roadways within the scope of this study is "C". Table 3.4.17-4 AM Intersection Level of Service 2019+ 20221+ 20401 20401+ 2040+ # Intersection Existing 2019 Project 20221 Project Project Project Control w/Mitigation' Type 1 Cottonwood Rd Stop- EB C C C E F F B (62.8) & Pacheco Rd (85.7) 7 Project Signal -3 C (39.5) (267.6) (>300) 2 Monitor St & Signal C C C C D D C Panama Ln Fairview Rd (35.9) (40.6) 3 Union Ave & Signal C C C C C C - (68.4) Fairview Rd NOTE: (#) = Delay in Seconds; AWSC = All Way Stop Control 4 S H St & Signal C C C C C C - Panama Ln 30nly studied with project 5 Monitor St & Signal C C C C D D C Panama Ln Crescent Elementary School IS/MND (35.4) (36.2) 6 Union Ave & Signal C D D E E F C Panama Ln (37.9) (53.6) (62.8) (61.3) (85.7) 7 Project Signal -3 C -3 C -3 C4 - Entrance4 & Panama Ln 8 Cottonwood Rd AWSC A B F F F F C & Panama Ln (57.2) (63.3) (65.8) (68.4) NOTE: (#) = Delay in Seconds; AWSC = All Way Stop Control 'Includes cumulative traffic volumes from other projects 2See Table 7 for mitigation details 30nly studied with project 4Analyzed with Panama Lane RTIF Phase IV improvements (addition of 1 EBT,1 WBT) Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 Greenfield School District Page 3-92 of 6AKF19N �-- m U � O ")RIGINAL Initial 6 Union Ave & Signal D D D E Table 3.4.17-5 F C Panama Ln (39.6) (44.5) (49.0) (55.2) (93.1) (100.1) PM Intersection Level of Service -3 C _s C4 _ Entrance4 & Panama Ln 8 Cottonwood AWSC 2019+ F 20221+ 20401 20401+ 2040+ # Intersection Existing 2019 Project 20221 Project Project. Project Control w/Mitigation' Type 1 Cottonwood Stop- EB D D F F F F B Rd (26.3) (31.8) (57.7) (83.1) (>300) (>300) & Pacheco Rd 2 Monitor St & Signal C C C C C C - Fairview Rd 3 Union Ave & Signal C C C C C C - Fairview Rd 4 S H St & Signal C C C C D D C Panama Ln (35.8) (44.0) 5 Monitor St & Signal C C C C D D C Panama Ln (40.3) (46.1) 6 Union Ave & Signal D D D E F F C Panama Ln (39.6) (44.5) (49.0) (55.2) (93.1) (100.1) 7 Project Signal -3 B -3 C _s C4 _ Entrance4 & Panama Ln 8 Cottonwood AWSC C E F F F F C Rd & Panama (41.9) (68.7) (72.3) (78.1) (78.1) Ln NOTE: (#) = Delay in seconds; AWSC = All Way Stop Control 'Includes cumulative traffic volumes from other projects. 2See Table 7 for mitigation details. 'Only studied with project. 4Analyzed with Panama Lane RTIF Phase IV improvements (addition of 1 EBT, 1 WBT). Traffic Signal WanantAnalysis Peak hour signal warrants were evaluated for each of the unsignalized intersections within the study based on the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Peak hour signal warrants assess delay to traffic on the minor street approaches when entering Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019!,0 KF9 Greenfield School District Page 3-9-� s; U p ORIGINAL /nitia/Study or crossing a major street. Signal warrant analysis results for existing and future AM and PM peak hours are shown in Tables 3.4.17-6 (a -b) and 3.4.17-7 (a -b). It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which signalization of an intersection might be warranted. Meeting this threshold does not suggest traffic signals are required, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be considered in order to determine whether signals are justified. It is also noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with level of service. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above an acceptable level of service or operate below an acceptable level of service and not meet signal warrant criteria. Table 3.4.17-6a AM Traffic Signal Warrants - Existing Table 3.4.17-6b AM Traffic Signal Warrants - Future 2019 Cumulative 2019+Project Major Minor Major Minor 2040 # Intersection Street Total Street High Street Total Street High Major Minor Approach Approach Approach Approach Minor Major Vol Vol Warrant Vol Vol Warrant # Intersection Street Met Street Street Met Street Cottonwood Rd Street Street 1 at Pacheco Rd 539 148 NO 613 183 YES Total Project Entrance Total High 7 at Panama Ln -1 _i -1 1084 333 YES Approac Cottonwood Rd Approa Approa 8 at Panama Ln 507 109 NO 624 191 YES Table 3.4.17-6b AM Traffic Signal Warrants - Future Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 201%6pKF9 Page 3-9� r U p ORIGINAL 2022 Cumulative+ 2040 # Intersection 2022 Cumulative Project 2040 Cumulative Cumulative+Project Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor Street Street Warra Street Street Street Street Street Street Total High nt Met Total High Total High Total High pproac Approa Approa Approa Approac Approa Approa Approa h ch ch ch Warr h ch arra ch ch arrant Vol Vol Vol Vol t Vol Vol nt Met Vol Vol Met Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 201%6pKF9 Page 3-9� r U p ORIGINAL Initial Study 1 Cottonwoo d Rd at Pacheco Rd 760 233 YES 834 258 YE S 1198 282 YES 1272 317 YES Street High Project Street Total Street High Approach Vol Approach Vol Approach Vol Approach Vol 7 Entrance at -1 -1 -1 187 333 YE -1 -1 -1 2401 333 YES Met Panama Ln Cottonwood Rd 0 S 1 at Pacheco Rd 758 186 YES 798 Cottonwoo YES Project Entrance 7 at Panama Ln ' 8 d Rd at 1405 304 YES 152 386 YE 1637 389 YES 1754 471 YES at Panama Ln Panama Ln 287 YES 736 2 YES S Table 3.4.17-7a PM Traffic Signal Warrants - Existing 'Studied with Project Only Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 -,< ,bAKF.p Page 3-95 r U O ORIGINAL 2019 Cumulative 2019+Project Major Minor Major Minor Street Total Street High Street Total Street High Approach Vol Approach Vol Approach Vol Approach Vol Warrant Warrant # Intersection Met Met Cottonwood Rd 1 at Pacheco Rd 758 186 YES 798 201 YES Project Entrance 7 at Panama Ln ' ' -' 1032 201 YES Cottonwood Rd 8 at Panama Ln 670 287 YES 736 292 YES 'Studied with Project Only Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 -,< ,bAKF.p Page 3-95 r U O ORIGINAL /nNa/Study Table 3.4.17-7b PM Traffic Signal Warrants - Future 'Studied with Project Only RoadwayAna/ysis The volume -to -capacity ratios shown in Table 3.4.16-8b were calculated for roadways with published ADT information and future projected traffic as shown in Table 3.4.16-8a. A volume -to -capacity ratio (v/c) of greater than 0.80 corresponds to a LOS of less than C, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual. Mitigation is required where project traffic reduces the LOS to below an acceptable level, or where the pre-existing condition of the roadway is below an acceptable level of service and degrades below the pre-existing LOS with the addition of the project. Table 3.4.17-8a Roadway ADT & Capacity _ Street 2022 Cumulative 2022 Cumulative+Project 2040 2040 Cumulative+Project 2022 2040 Major Minor Mitigated Major Minor ADT Major Minor Project2 Major Minor Capacity Capacity Fairview Rd: Street Street 257 Street Street 10850 Street Street Street Street Total High Total High Union Ave Total High Total High Approac Approac Warran Approach Approach Warran pproach Approach Warran Approach Approach Warran # Intersection h Vol h Vol t Vol Vol t Vol Vol t Vol Vol t Met Panama Ln: 86642 Met 2557 11670 Met 14901 16400 Met 40000 Cottonwood Rd Cottonwood Rd 1 at Pacheco Rd 926 211 YES 966 226 YES 1579 302 YES 1579 302 YES Project Entrance 7 at Panama Ln 1 1429 201 YES 1 1669 201 YES Cottonwood Rd 8 at Panama Ln 1206 331 YES 1272 349 YES 1576 556 YES 1576 556 YES 'Studied with Project Only RoadwayAna/ysis The volume -to -capacity ratios shown in Table 3.4.16-8b were calculated for roadways with published ADT information and future projected traffic as shown in Table 3.4.16-8a. A volume -to -capacity ratio (v/c) of greater than 0.80 corresponds to a LOS of less than C, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual. Mitigation is required where project traffic reduces the LOS to below an acceptable level, or where the pre-existing condition of the roadway is below an acceptable level of service and degrades below the pre-existing LOS with the addition of the project. Table 3.4.17-8a Roadway ADT & Capacity _ Street 20191 Project Cum. ADT 2022 ADTe 2022 2040 2040+ Existing Mitigated ADT Project2 ADTz Projectz Capacity Capacity Fairview Rd: 74352 75 257 8078 8153 10850 10925 20000 Monitor St to Union Ave Panama Ln: 229852 802 1348 24820 25622 27966 28768 40000 - SHSt.toS Union Ave Panama Ln: 86642 1499 2557 11670 13169 14901 16400 15000 40000 S Union Ave to Cottonwood Rd Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 < g`o, Page 3-96,0rn U p ORIGINAL initial Monitor St: 73922 213 452 8007 8220 9066 9279 30000 - Panama Ln to 2022+Prof 2040 2040+Proj Fairview Rd: Fairview Rd Monitor St to Union Ave 0.37 0.38 0.40 0.41 0.54 - Panama Ln: S Union Ave: 160022 352 688 17669 18021 24942 25294 20000 40000 Panama Ln to - Panama Ln: S Union Ave to Cottonwood Fairview Rd 0.68 0.78 0.88 0.99 0.41 Rd Cottonwood 78982 444 945 9655 10099 16607 17051 15000 30000 Rd: 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.30 - S Union Ave: Panama Ln to Panama Ln to Fairview Rd 0.80 0.82 0.88 0.90 1.25 Pacheco Rd Cottonwood Rd: Panama Ln to Pacheco Rd 0.53 12019 data not available, traffic estimated from most recent year available. 2Cumulative traffic from other Project included in all future volumes Table 3.4.17-8b Roadway Level of Service Street v/c(EX) v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c 2019 2019+Prof 2022 2022+Prof 2040 2040+Proj Fairview Rd: Monitor St to Union Ave 0.37 0.38 0.40 0.41 0.54 - Panama Ln: S H St to S Union Ave 0.57 0.59 0.62 0.64 0.70 - Panama Ln: S Union Ave to Cottonwood 0.58 0.68 0.78 0.88 0.99 0.41 Rd Monitor St: Panama Ln to Fairview Rd 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.30 - S Union Ave: Panama Ln to Fairview Rd 0.80 0.82 0.88 0.90 1.25 0.63 Cottonwood Rd: Panama Ln to Pacheco Rd 0.53 0.56 0.64 0.67 1.11 0.57 Intersection and roadway improvements needed by the year 2040 to maintain or improve the operational level of service of the street system in the vicinity of the project is shown in Tables 3.4.16-9 and 3.4.16-10. The Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) Program is a fee imposed on new development and contains a Regional Transportation Facilities List and a Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. The Facilities List includes many of the facilities needed to maintain a Level of Service (LOS) C or better for new growth or to prevent the degradation of facilities which are currently operating below LOS C. The Fee Schedule sets forth the fees to be collected from new development to mitigate the need for the facilities. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 gAKF Page 3-97 � r U O ORIGINAL initial Table 3.4.17-9 Future Intersection Improvements and Local Mitigation Northbound, SB = Southbound, L = Left -Turn Lane, W H = Westbounn, 1-= I nrougn Lane, HH = Hastbouna, K = K1gnt- t urn Lan Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 Page 3-98 ORIGINAL Local Mitigation # Intersection Total Improvements (Improvements not Percent Required by 2040 covered by RTIF or . Share adjacent development) 1Cottonwood Rd & Pacheco Rd Signal; NBT, SBT Signal 5.45% Change NBT/R to 1 NBT, Add 1 NBR _ r&onitor2St Farview (Striping Only) d 4 S H St & Add 1 EBT - - Panama Ln Add 1 EBT, 1 WBT Monitor St OTE: Roadway has been widened to 6 -lane 5 Panama arterial width but is currently striped for 4 - - lanes only. No widening is necessary, only Ln striping for the addition of one lane in each direction. Add 1 EBL, 1 WBL, 1 NBL, 1 SBL 6 Union Ave Change WBT/R to 2 WBT, - - & Panama Add 1 WBR Change SBT/R Ln o 2 SBT, Add 1 SBR roject Entrance Add 1 EBT 1 WBT ' - - & Panama Ln Signal Cottonwood Rd Change EBL/T/R to 2 -EBL, 2 -EBT, EBR - 8 & Panama Ln Change WBL/T/R to 2-WBL, 2-WBT, - WBR; Change NBL/T/R to 2-NBL, 2 T, NBR; Chane SBL/T/R to 2 -SBL, 2-SBT, SBR Northbound, SB = Southbound, L = Left -Turn Lane, W H = Westbounn, 1-= I nrougn Lane, HH = Hastbouna, K = K1gnt- t urn Lan Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 Page 3-98 ORIGINAL Intra/Study Table 3.4.17-10 Future Roadway Improvements and Local Mitigation Level of Service Analysis With the exception of Cottonwood Road & Pacheco Road and Union Avenue & Panama Lane all other intersections operate with an acceptable level of service during peak hours in the existing year prior to the addition of project traffic. With the addition of Project traffic to the existing year, the intersection of Cottonwood Road & Panama Lane is anticipated to operate below an acceptable level of service. All other intersections continue to operate at an acceptable level of service through the future year 2022 and are anticipated to do so with the addition of project traffic. By the future year 2040, it is anticipated that the intersections of Monitor Street & Fairview Road and S H Street & Panama Lane will operate below an acceptable level of service. All other intersections continue to operate at an acceptable level of service in the future year 2040 and are anticipated to do so with the addition of project traffic. The remaining intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service during the peak hour and are expected to continue to do so with the addition of project traffic in the future year. Roadway Capacity All roadway segments in the project scope currently operate at an acceptable level of service in the existing year. With the addition of project traffic, all roadway segments continue to operate at an acceptable level of service with the exception of South Union Avenue from Panama Lane to Fairview Road. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 OpKF Greenfield School District Page 3-94- � r U O ORIGINAL Local Mitigation Roadway Segment Total Improvements (Improvements not covered Required by 2040 by RTIF or adjacent development) Panama Ln: Add 2 Lanes S. Union Ave to Cottonwood Rd S Union Ave: Add 2 Lanes - Panama Ln to Fairview Rd Cottonwood Rd: Add 2 Lanes - Panama Ln to Pacheco Rd Level of Service Analysis With the exception of Cottonwood Road & Pacheco Road and Union Avenue & Panama Lane all other intersections operate with an acceptable level of service during peak hours in the existing year prior to the addition of project traffic. With the addition of Project traffic to the existing year, the intersection of Cottonwood Road & Panama Lane is anticipated to operate below an acceptable level of service. All other intersections continue to operate at an acceptable level of service through the future year 2022 and are anticipated to do so with the addition of project traffic. By the future year 2040, it is anticipated that the intersections of Monitor Street & Fairview Road and S H Street & Panama Lane will operate below an acceptable level of service. All other intersections continue to operate at an acceptable level of service in the future year 2040 and are anticipated to do so with the addition of project traffic. The remaining intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service during the peak hour and are expected to continue to do so with the addition of project traffic in the future year. Roadway Capacity All roadway segments in the project scope currently operate at an acceptable level of service in the existing year. With the addition of project traffic, all roadway segments continue to operate at an acceptable level of service with the exception of South Union Avenue from Panama Lane to Fairview Road. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 OpKF Greenfield School District Page 3-94- � r U O ORIGINAL initiaimtudy All roadway segments operating at an acceptable level of service in the future year 2022 continue to do so. With the addition of project traffic in the future year 2022, it is anticipated that the roadway segment of Panama Lane from S Union Avenue to Cottonwood Road will operate below an acceptable level of service. In the future year 2040, it is anticipated that the roadway segment of Cottonwood Road from Panama Lane to Pacheco Road will operate below an acceptable level of service. All other roadway segments operating at an acceptable level of service in the future year 2040 will continue to do so with the addition of the Project. CONCLUSION Based on the County of Kern's standards for determining whether Project traffic has a significant impact on intersections and roadways, the mitigation measures identified in Tables 3.4.16-9 and 3.4.16-10 are anticipated to be needed in order to reduce the impacts for the listed facilities to. less than significant levels in the year 2040. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) MM TRA -1: Prior to commencement of construction, the District shall pay fair share costs of 5.45% for a signal at the intersection of Cottonwood Road and Pacheco Road to the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department prior to Project commencement. The District shall also pay Regional Transportation Impact Fees. Based on negotiations with the Public Works Department, it may be determined that full improvements to the Cottonwood Road and Pacheco Road intersection, along with local road improvements along the proposed Site's frontage maybe acceptable in lieu of RTIF payment. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.17b - Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? See Impact #3.4.17a, above. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM TRA -1. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.17c - Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 Page 3-100!<®AKF9`f41 r U O ORIGINAL Initial Study The entry and exit of school buses and private automobiles could create conditions that would create unsafe roadway conditions. Vehicles exiting the campus should be provided with a clear view of the roadway without obstruction. Landscaping associated with the entry driveway could, if improperly installed, impede such views. Specific circulation patterns and roadways for the proposed project would incorporate all applicable safety measures in the project design, which would ensure that hazardous design features or inadequate emergency access to the site or other areas surrounding the project area would not occur. The District's conservative assumption is 22% of the students would walk or bicycle and approximately 78% of students would come by car or bus. The school site is located on the corner of Panama Lane and Cottonwood, a busy arterials intersection. Students using these transportation methods could be exposed to hazards from automobiles if safe routes are not identified. Therefore, with incorporation of design features and the mitigation measure below, impacts are expected to be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) MM TRA -2: Prior to commencement of operations, the District shall prepare and circulate a "Safe Route to School" Plan that has been developed that defines the routes that children should use to travel to and from school. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.17d - Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? The proposed Project would be required to comply with all emergency access requirements adopted by City, County, regional, and State agencies. Site access requirements are set forth in the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code as well as dictated by the DSA. These requirements and all others required to be included in the project design will be verified by the appropriate agency prior to project approval. Therefore, emergency access impacts are considered less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Crescent Elementary School 1S/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 gAKF Page 3-101,§ 9��, ~ r v o ORIGINAL 3.4.18 - TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the Project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or objectwith cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 502.4.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Discussion initia/Study Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Impact #3.4.18a(i) - Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? See the discussion presented in Section 3.4.5 - Cultural Resources, Impacts #3.4.5a through 3.4.5c. On September 23, 2019, letters were mailed to each of the Native American tribes within the geographic area (see Appendix_ C). The letters included a brief Project description and location maps. To date, one response was received from the San Manual Band of Mission Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 0� OAK�,Qcn Page 3-102 -� m U r - O ORIGINAL /nima/Study Indians that indicated the Project site is located outside of their ancestral territory. No other letters from tribal groups were received. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM CUL -1 and MM CUL -2. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.18a(ii) - Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? See discussion for Impacts #3.4.5a through#3.4.5c. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM CUL -1 and MM CUL -2. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 204�AKFq Greenfield School District Page 3-.'03 � m r v o ORIGINAL Potentially Significant Impact 3.4.19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the Project: a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or ❑ telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable ❑ future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? C. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to ❑ serve the Project's Projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated ■❑ ►1 U Initial Study Less than Significant Impact ►1 No Impact ❑■ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulations related to solid waste? D/SCUBSlon This analysis relied upon review of applicable requirements of the RWQCB- Central Valley as provided on their web site, the Kern County Waste Management Department online resources, and analysis provided by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan EIR (City of Bakersfield, 2007). Impact #3.4.19a - Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 gAKF9 Page 3-104` sem, � m r U p ORIGINAL initial The infrastructure necessary to serve the Project would be made available through construction of the new school. The school campus site will be annexed into the City of Bakersfield and connect to the City of Bakersfield's sanitary sewer system. The school site is located within the planned future service area for the City of Bakersfield Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 3 located west of highway 99, at the Corner of McCutchen and Ashe Roads. The wastewater plant upgraded to 32 MGD, which will adequately service the proposed Project. Therefore, no additional sewer service would be required for the proposed project. Impacts are considered less than significant. Construction of the Project would necessitate the construction of an on-site stormwater retention basin to retain water displaced by impermeable surfaces created by the new school. Stormwater would be retained on site, and therefore not impact existing treatment facilities. The school will connect to existing PG&E transmission for electrical power, however, the installation of solar panels also used as shade structures on the parking lot would offset the consumption of electricity needed from the regional grid. Telecommunication requirements for the new school are typical of this type of land use and would not require any expansion or construction of new telecommunication facilities. The proposed Project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of existing of new water, wastewater treatment, electrical or telecommunications facilities. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.19b - Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? The City of Bakersfield lies above a series of water aquifers, which are part of a larger groundwater basin called the Southern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin. Sources of recharge for these aquifers include the Kern River Channel, runoff, canal seepage, spreading/banking, and wastewater reclamation, all of which are surface waters, and recharge the aquifers for use at a later date (City of Bakersfield, 2000). As can be seen in the chart below water balance in the City of Bakersfield will be sufficient to service projected populations in the year 2020. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019oF 6P KS9q Page 3-105- m r U p ORIGINAL Initial Study 0 1970 7980 t9g0 29G] 2010 2020 Year Source: City of Eakersfle11 Water Ealaartw RE -port, 200 Table 3.4.19-1 Projected Water Demand and Resources Fr*(tcd Water DeXIA - Unndcn :,Sgpea The Project would be served by water provided by California Water Service (CalWater) and water lines would be constructed to supply water to the school. As discussed in response to Impact #3.4.19a, above, there is adequate water supply for the Project and MM HYD -2 requires the District to obtain a will -serve letter from CalWater signifying its ability and capacity to provide an adequate water supply to the Project. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM HYD -2. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, Impact #3.4.19c - Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's Projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? See #3.4.19a and b. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significantimpact Impact #3.4.19d - Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? ®AKF9 Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 201 s; Greenfield School District Page 3-10 U � ORIGINAL Initial Study Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of solid waste on the project site, which would increase the demand for solid waste disposal. Solid waste removed from the site would be transported to the Bena Landfill located approximately 13 miles northeast of the proposed project site. According to the CalRecycle, Bena Landfill has a maximum disposal capacity of 4,500 tons/day. A generation of solid waste resulting in a significant impact is not anticipated, as Bena Landfill has a remaining capacity of 32,808,260 cubic yards (CalRecycle, 2013). The Bena Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed Project. The Project, in compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, would dispose of all waste generated on-site at an approved solid waste facility (Bena Landfill). The Project does not, and would not conflict with federal, State, or local regulations related to solid waste. The proposed Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs in compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significantimpact Impact #3.4.19e - Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? See discussion for Impact #3.4.19d. The 1989 California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) requires Kern County to attain specific waste diversion goals. In addition, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended, requires expanded or new development projects to incorporate storage areas for recycling bins into the proposed project design. Reuse and recycling of construction debris would reduce operating expenses and save valuable landfill space. As stated above, the Bena Sanitary Landfill has available capacity to accommodate solid waste generated by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to significantly impact Kern County landfills. The proposed project would be required to comply with all federal, State, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts in this regard. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation is required. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 �eA.KF99 Page 3-107 U � ORIGINAL Initial Study LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Crescent Elementary School IS/MND October 2019 gAKF Greenfield School District Page 3-108 Q 9lT � m r U O ORIGINAL Initial b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ concentration from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? C. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines ❑ ® ❑ ❑ or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Discussion Impact #3.4.20a - If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? As previously noted in Impact #3.4.9g, the proposed Project site is not located in or near SRA or lands classified as being a very high hazard severity zones. The construction of an elementary school would not impair implementation of the Kern County Emergency Operations Plan or other applicable emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The Project will also be required to comply with all applicable standards as required by the State Fire Marshall, CDE Title 5 and Title 24 regulations, as well as local fire codes. Once operational, the school would also develop and implement an emergency response plan in case of fire or other emergency situation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 �gAKF9 Page 3-109 0 �� a F_ m r V p ORIGINAL Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3.4.20 - WILDFIRE If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project: a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency ❑ ❑ ® ❑ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ concentration from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? C. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines ❑ ® ❑ ❑ or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Discussion Impact #3.4.20a - If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? As previously noted in Impact #3.4.9g, the proposed Project site is not located in or near SRA or lands classified as being a very high hazard severity zones. The construction of an elementary school would not impair implementation of the Kern County Emergency Operations Plan or other applicable emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The Project will also be required to comply with all applicable standards as required by the State Fire Marshall, CDE Title 5 and Title 24 regulations, as well as local fire codes. Once operational, the school would also develop and implement an emergency response plan in case of fire or other emergency situation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 �gAKF9 Page 3-109 0 �� a F_ m r V p ORIGINAL Initial Study MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation needed. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.20b - If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentration from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? As discussed in Impact #3.4.20a, above, the proposed Project site is not located in or near SRA or lands classified as very high hazard severity zones. Additionally, the proposed Project site is flat and does not exacerbate the risk of exposure of Project occupants to wildfire. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation needed. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Impact #3.4.20c - If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? See Impacts # 3.4.9a and g, #3.4.20a and b. As discussed, the proposed Project site is not located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high hazard severity zones. Additionally, the Project is not located within 350 feet of high voltage transmission lines. The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk or result in environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) No mitigation needed. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 201 ZNKF9 Page 3-1;0 s= � m r U O ORIGINAL /nitia/Study Impact #3.4.20d If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post - fire slope instability, or drainage changes? See Impacts See Impacts # 3.4.9a and g, #3.4.20a, b and c, above. The topography of the site is relatively flat, and the Project is not within a FEMA -designated floodplain. Additionally, MM GEO-1 requires the preparation of a SWPPP to mitigate the site drainage changes during the construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, no flooding is anticipated as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes, and impacts would be lessthan significant. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implementation of MM GEO-1. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 Page 3-11�'c�PKF9s� > m F- r � v ORIGINAL Initial Study b. Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.) C. Does the Project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects ❑ ® ❑ ❑ on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion Impact #3.4.21a - Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As evaluated in this IS/MND, the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. With implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 �gAKF9� Page 3-112 U � ORIGINAL Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3.4.21- MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.) C. Does the Project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects ❑ ® ❑ ❑ on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion Impact #3.4.21a - Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As evaluated in this IS/MND, the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. With implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 �gAKF9� Page 3-112 U � ORIGINAL initial document, the proposed Project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, significantly impact biological resources, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM BIO -1 through MM BIO -6; MM CUL -1 and MM CUL -2. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The Project would have a less than significantimpact with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.21b - Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a Project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.)? As described in the impact analyses in Sections 3.4.1 through 3.4.20 of this IS/MND, any potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project would be reduced to a less than significant level following incorporation of the mitigation measures listed in Section 6, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. Projects completed in the past have also implemented mitigation as necessary. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not otherwise combine with impacts of related development to add considerably to any cumulative impacts in the region. With mitigation, the proposed project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact with mitigation incorporated. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM AES -1, MM 13I0-1 through MM 13I0-6, MM CUL - 1 and MM CUL -2, MM GEO-1 through MM GEO-3, MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4, MM HYD -1 through MM HYD -4, MM NSE -1 and MM NSE 2, and MM TRA -1 and MM TRA 2. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The Project would have a less than significantimpact with mitigation incorporated. Impact #3.4.21c - Does the Project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? All of the Project's impacts, both direct and indirect, that are attributable to the Project were identified and mitigated. As shown in Section 6, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the District has agreed to implement mitigation measures that will substantially reduce or eliminate impacts of the Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not either directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings because all potentially Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 0AKF9 Page 3-113(�s; � m r L) O ORIGINAL Initial Study adverse direct impacts of the proposed Project are identified as having no impact, less than significant impact, or less than significant impact with mitigation. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM AES -1, MM 13I0-1 through MM BIO -6, MM CUL - 1 and MM CUL -2, MM GEO-1 through MM GEO-3, MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4, MM HYD -1 through MM HYD -4, MM NSE -1 and MM NSE 2, and MM TRA -1 and MM TRA 2. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The Project would have a less than signiflcantimpact with mitigation incorporated. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 $NKF Page 3-1140` CPO � r V � ORIGINAL SECTION 4 - LIST OF PREPARERS LeadAgency- Greenfield Union SchooiDistrict Ramon Hendrix- Superintendent Jesse Alvos - Director of Maintenance consultant- Off Jaymie Brauer - Project Manager, QA/QC Amber Williams - Lead Author Conor McKay - Author Robert Parr - Technical Author (Cultural) Karissa Denney - Technical Author (Biological) Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District List of October 2019 " 0A KF9 Page 4-11V U p ORIGINAL Bibliography (n.d.). California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics. (2005). Caltrans Airport Clearance. CA Department of Conservation. (2016). FMMP. Retrieved from http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Pages/gh_maps.aspx Cal EPA. (n.d.). Cortese List (SuperFund Cleanup Site List). Retrieved March 9, 2016, from http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype=C ORTESE&site_type=CSITES,0PEN,FUDS,CLOSE&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle =HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST. Cal Fire. (2006). California Wildland Hazard SeverityZone Map Update. Retrieved from Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Map: http://www.fire. ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_statewi de California Building Standards Commission. (2019). California Code ofRegulations California Building Standards Commission. (2019). Guide to Title 24. California Department of Conservation. (2016, May). Retrieved from Important Farmland Finder: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html California Department of Conservation. (2019, October 3). ImportantFarmlandAvailability. Retrieved from Kern County: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Kern.aspx California Department of Education. (2019). 2018-19Enrollmentby Grade. California Department of Transportation. (2011). California Scenic Highway Mapping System. California Department of Water Resources. (2003). California's Groundwater -Bulletin 118 Update 2003. http://www.water. ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin-118/california's-ground. California Water Resources Board. (n.d.). GeoTracker. Retrieved March 9, 2016, from https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=desert +hot+springs%2C+ca CalRecycle. (2013). SWIS Facility Detail - Bena. City of Bakersfield. (2000). Water Balance Report. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 �gPKF9� Page 5-116, m h- r v O ORIGINAL Bibliography City of Bakersfield. (2002). Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update- EIR Section 4.10 Cultural Resources City of Bakersfield. (2002). Metropolitian Bakersfield General Plan Environmental Impact Report Update. City of Bakersfield. (2002a). Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan . City of Bakersfield. (2007). Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update. City of Bakersfield. (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Water Resources Department. City of Bakersfield. (2019). Map Gallery and Spatial Data Library. County of Kern. (2019). Public Works - Trash Collection. Department of Conservation. (2016). California Important Farmland Finder. Retrieved from California Department of Conservation: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cif`f/ciff.html Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources. (n.d.). Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). Retrieved March 11, 2016, from Well Finder: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/index.html#close Department of Toxic Substances Control . (2015). EnviroStor. California, United States of America. Geotab. (2017). The State of Fuel Economy in Trucking. Retrieved from Geotab: https://www.geotab.com/truck-mpg-benchmark/ Greenfield Union School District. (20.16). Vision and Goals Insight Environmental/Trinity Consultants. (2018). Air QualitylmpactAnalysis Kern County. (2012). AiportLand Use Compatability Plan. Kern County. Kern County. (2016). Zoning Ordinance. Kern County Planning Department. (2013). Lerdo Jail- justice Facility Project Enviromental Impact Report- Noise Section 4.11. Kern High School District. (2018). Indal Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the SE Comprehensive High School Construction Project. Meyer, Jacket al. (2010). Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 619. Volume 1-A GeoarchaeologicalOverWewandAssessmentofCaltransDistricts 6and 9. Caltrans. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 20�, Page 5-1- R, U r O ORIGINAL Bibliography Meyer, Jack et al. (2010). Volume 1: A Geoarchaeolgoical Overview and Assessment of Caltrans District 6and 9. California Department of Transportation. Parr, Robert. (2019). Cultural Resources Technical Memo. QK. (2019). Energy Consumption Technical Memo. Ruettgers & Schuler. (2019). TrafRcStudy. Soils Engineering, Inc. (2019). GUSD Powerline Info Letter. Soils Engineering, Inc. (2019a). Geologic Hazard Study. Soils Engineering, Inc. (2019b). Power Line Information. Soils Engineering, Inc. (2019c). Update of Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report. Bakersfield. Soils Engineering, Inc. (2019d). Hazardous Waste Landfills, Potentially Hazardous Sites and Naturally OccurringAsbestos Spencer, W.D., et al. (2010). California Essential Habitat ConnectivityProject-AStrategyfor Conservinga Connected California. Caltrans: United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011). Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. US Fish and Wildlife Service. (1998). Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, CA. Crescent Elementary School IS/MND Greenfield School District October 2019 gAKF9 Page 5-119 s= ~ m r U O ORIGINAL