HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 222-02RESOLUTION NO. 2, ~ ,~, - 0 2,
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA P01-0973,
UPDATE TO THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD
GENERAL PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield is accordance with the
provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held a public hearing on MONDAY,
OCTOBER 28, 2002, on the proposed update to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan
(GPA No. 01-0973), notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least ten (10)
calendar days before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local
newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, the update to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (GPA P01-0973) is
as follows:
The "Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update" proposes to amend the text
and land use, circulation, and bikeways maps of the current Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Proposed revisions address current and future
development as well as acknowledge programs that conserve responses and
address quality of life issues including the incorporation of concepts from the
Greater Bakersfield Vision 2020 program. It is the intent of this update program
to reflect the community development issues and policy changes that have
occurred since adoption of the plan in 1990; and
WHEREAS, for the above-described proposal, the City of Bakersfield, in association
with the County of Kern determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be
required for the proposed update to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, and, therefore, a
Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared for the project in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to study the following environmental resources: aesthetics,
agriculture, air quality, biological, cultural, geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, mineral resources, noise, public services, recreation,
transportation/traffic, and utilities/service systems; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for GPA P01-0973 was sent to all agencies
having any involvement in this project per Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was subjected to a forty-five (45)
day review period in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines which began on
July 17, 2002, and ended on August 30, 2002; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Draft Environmental impact Report was held on
Monday, August 12, 2002, during the public review period as required by the City of
Bakersfield's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Implementation Procedures; and
WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of
Environmental Impact Reports set forth in CEQA and City of Bakersfield's CEQA
Implementation Procedures, have been duly followed by the city staff and the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 145-02, the Planning Commission recommended
certification of the Final EIR for Case No. 01-0973, the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan
Update, and this Council has fully considered the findings made by the Planning Commission as
set forth in that Resolution; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 135-02, the Planning Commission recommended
approval and adoption of Case No. 01-0973, the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update,
and this Council has fully considered the findings made by the Planning Commission as set
forth in that Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Bakersfield, in accordance with the provisions of
Section 65355 of the Government Code, conducted and held a public hearing on
WEDNESDAY, December 11, 2002, on the above described Case No. GPA 01-0973 of the
proposed amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, notice of time and
place of the hearing having been given at least ten (10) calendar days before the hearing by
publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general cimutation; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Bakersfield has certified the Final EIR for GPA 01-
0973 in a separate resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings:
The above recitals and findings are true and correct and constitute the Findings
of the Council, incorporated herein.
2, The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act have been met.
That this project was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to
CEQA and the entire environmental record is hereby adopted and incorporated
herein by reference including the resolution certifying the Final Environmental
Impact Report.
That this amendment will go into effect with the next amendment of the General
Plan by the City Council.
The proposed project is consistent with the intent and purpose of the original
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan adopted in 1990.
Based on the evidence in the record, as required by Section 21082.2 of the State
of California Public Resources Code (CEQA) for the purpose of documenting
significant effects, and the mitigation measures proposed to address impacts on
biological resources, it is the conclusion of the Lead Agency that this project will
result in impacts that fall below the threshold of significance with regard to
wildlife resources and, therefore, must be granted a "de minimis" exemption in
accordance with Section 711.4 of the State of California of Fish and Game Code.
Additionally, the assumption of adverse effect is rebutted by the above-
referenced evidence and the conclusion of the Final Environmental Impact
Report that the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would
reduce project and cumulative impacts on biological resources to a level that is
less than significant.
2
WHEREAS, it is not the intention of the City Council to reverse any land use decisions.
If there is a conflict between an individual case and the General Plan Land Use Map the
individual case will take precedence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and found by the Council of the City of
Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals and findings incorporated herein, are true and correct.
The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports and
papers relevant thereto, transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning
Commission to the City Council, is hereby received, accepted and approved.
The Statement of Facts, Findings, and Mitigation Measures attached in Exhibit A
are hereby adopted for GPA 01-0973.
That certain environmental impacts regarding traffic/circulation, air quality, noise,
and agriculture and soils are considered unavoidable and cannot feasibly be
mitigated to a less than significant level. Moreover, the project alternatives
analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report would not feasibly mitigate
the impacts. These impacts are discussed in attached Exhibit A. Notwithstanding
disclosure of these impacts, the City Council is approving the project based on
the overriding considerations as set forth in the "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" attached in Exhibit B.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached in Exhibit C is hereby
adopted for GPA No. P01-0973.
The City Council hereby approves and adopts Case No. GPA P01-973 of the
proposed amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan
constituting changes as shown in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan
Update text, attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth.
That Case No. P01-0973, approved herein, be combined with other approved
cases described in separate resolutions, to form a single General Plan
Amendment with the next amendment to the General Plan by the City Council.
The Planning Division of the Development Services Department is hereby
directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of Kern County,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code and
Section 15094 of the CEQA Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto and a
Certificate of Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 711.4 (c)(2)(B) of the State of
California Department of Fish and Game Code.
No individual City Council land use decision is intended to be changed via the
adoption of the new Metropolitan Bakersfield Land Use Map.
3
......... 000 .........
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted, by
the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on DFC 1
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ASSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER i~_ (~ 1 ~
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, C~IC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED DEC 11 ZOOZ
Mayor of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form
BART J. THILTGEN
City Attorney
S:\General Plan Update P01-0973\Reso to Adopt\Resolution GPA P01-0973 10-31 .doc
FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
FOR
THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
SCH # 1989070302
Lead Agency:
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Contact: Mr. Marc Gauthier
661.326.3733
COUNTY OF KERN
2700 "M" Street
Bakersfield, California 93301
Contact: Mr. Ted James
661.862.8600
Consultant:
RBF CONSULTING
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, California 92618
Contact: Mr. Glenn Lajoie, AICP
949.472.3505
December 2002
JN 10-100548
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXHIBIT A -
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS ................................................... 1
1
Introduction ......................................................................................................
Project Description ........................................................................................... 2
Findings with Respect to Significant Effects ................................................. 3
Findings with Respect to the Environmental Review Process ..................... 3
Findings Regarding Effects Determined to be Insignificant
or Less Than Significant .................................................................................. 4
Findings Regarding Effects Determined to be Mitigated
to Less Than Significant Impacts ................................................................... 43
Findings Regarding Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures
for Significant impacts ..................................................................................... 52
Finding Regarding Infeasible Alternatives .................................................... 67
EXHIBIT B - STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ................................ 69
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
EXHIBIT A
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS
I. INTRODUCTION
The following statement of facts and findings have been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Public Resources Code Section 21081.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides that:
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental
impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects
on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out
unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
The following potential significant impacts of the proposed project have been separated into
three categories:
(1)
Those potential impacts that have been determined to be less than significant,
based on review of available information in the project record, and in
consideration of existing standard development review requirements and existing
codes and regulations;
(2)
Those potential impacts that could be mitigated to a level that is considered less
than significant with the implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures; and
(3)
Those potential impacts that could not be reduced to a less than significant level
with the implementation of the existing policies and standards and the
recommended mitigation measures.
For potentially significant impacts (categories (2) and (3) above), the City of Bakersfield ("City")
and County of Kern has made one of the following three findings for each potentially significant
impact and provides facts in support of each finding in accordance with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Those changes or alterations required in the project to mitigate or avoid
significance environmental effects are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that
other agency.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the final environmental impact
report. '
The Final EIR for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update identifies certain significant
environmental effects which may occur as a result of the project. Therefore, findings are set
forth herein pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Summary of Mitigation
JN 10-101248 1 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
Measures is based in part on the requirements contained in Section 21081.6 of the Public
Resources Code (see Exhibit B). A Mitigation Monitoring Program will be adopted as part of the
Resolution.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Planning area includes the City of
Bakersfield, its designated sphere of influence and contiguous properties located in the
unincorporated portions of Kern County. Approximately 408 square miles of both City and
County lands are included as part of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update. The
boundaries of the Planning area were mutually agreed upon by the City of Bakersfield and the
County of Kern as part of the joint adoption of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan in
1990.
The Planning area is located at the eastern portion of southern San Joaquin Valley, in the
County of Kern (refer to Exhibit 3-1, Regional Vicinity). Kern County is the third largest county
in California, covering approximately 8,142 square miles. The County borders Ventura and Los
Angeles Counties to the south, San Luis Obispo and the tip of Santa Barbara Counties to the
west, Kings, Tulare and Inyo Counties to the north and San Bernardino County to the east.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield area (i.e., Planning area) is located at the base of the Sierra
Nevada Mountains, within the west central portion of Kern County. The Planning area covers
approximately 408 square miles and is characterized by a core of urban and suburban ~and use
types that were developed along the principal north-south arterial of the Central Valley, Highway
99, and the Kern River. The core area is generally surrounded by Iow intensity agriculture, oil
production and open spaces in which small communities historically developed as agricultural
centers.
As localities and their resources are ever changing, it is periodically necessary to update and
revise the general plan. The state recommends that the entire plan be thoroughly reviewed and
revised periodically to reflect new conditions, local attitudes and political realities. In addition,
the short-term portions of the general plan should be reviewed annually and revised as
necessary to reflect new implementation tools, changes in funding sources, and the results of
monitoring the effectiveness of past decisions. The update to the Metropolitan Bakersfield
General Plan was intended to make those changes necessary to more accurately reflect
existing goals, policies and implementation measures. The text revisions are intended to give an
updated version of the existing development environment.
The Final EIR evaluates potential environmental impacts resulting from the following revisions to
the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, including but not limited to:
· Deletion of redundant and/or completed policies, goals and programs.
· Revision to maps, figures, text, charts and tables to reflect updated data/information.
· Update of the City and County's land use database.
· Update of the Kern Council of Governments (COG) traffic model information.
· Revision to General Plan noise and air quality data based on the new traffic model.
Section 65300 of California Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city jurisdiction
to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its development. It must contain seven
principal elements including Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise,
and Safety. The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan contains each of these elements, and in
JN 10-101248 2 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
addition has incorporated two optional elements to reflect the specific needs and objectives of
the Planning area: Public Services and Facilities, and Parks. Chapter "reservations" for the
Kern River Plan Element and Historical Resources Element are also included. The Housing
Element revision is under a separate effort.
III. FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
The City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, as Lead Agencies and decision-makers for the
project, have reviewed and considered the information contained in both the Draft and Final
EIRs prepared for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update and the public record. The
Lead Agencies make the following finding pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines:
The City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, as Lead Agencies and decision-
makers, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft
and Final EIRs prepared for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update
and public records, find that changes or alterations to the project will avoid or
substantially lessen potentially significant environmental impacts. These
changes or alterations are related to the implementation of the mitigation
measures detailed in this document.
The City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, as Lead Agencies and decision-
makers, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft
and Final EIRs prepared for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update
and the public record, find that there are specific economic, social, or other
considerations which make the mitigation measures for Traffic/Circulation, Air
Quality, Noise and Soils and Agricultural Resources in the Draft and Final EIR's
infeasible.
The City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, as Lead Agencies and decision-
makers, find that significant and unmitigable impacts on Traffic/Circulation, Air
Quality, Noise and Soils and Agricultural Resources, may occur with future
development in conjunction with implementation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield
General Plan Update. This finding requires that the Lead Agencies issue a
"Statement of Overriding Considerations" under Section 15093 and 15126(b) of
the State CEQA Guidelines if the Lead Agency wishes to proceed with approval
of the project.
IV, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PROCESS
The City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, acting as Lead Agencies for the environmental
review of the project, make the following findings with regard to the environmental review
process undertaken to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project:
Due to the decision to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), an Initial
Study was not prepared. This is pursuant to Section 15063(a) of the CEQA
Guidelines, which states that if the Lead Agency determines an EIR will be
required for a project, the Lead Agency may skip further initial review and begin
work on the EIR.
J N 10-101248 3 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as
amended, the City of Bakersfield, as Lead Agency, circulated a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) to public agencies, special districts, and members of the
public requesting such notice for a 30-day period commencing on July 23, 2001,
and concluding on August 23, 2001.
During the circulation period for the Notice of Preparation, the City of Bakersfield,
as Lead Agency, advertised and conducted a public scoping meeting on August
16, 2001 at the City of Bakersfield City Hall Council Chambers in the City of
Bakersfield.
A Draft EIR was prepared which analyzed project-related impacts related to the
following environmental issue areas: land use; aesthetics/light and glare; traffic
and circulation; air quality, noise, geologic and seismic hazards, soils and
agricultural resources, hydrology and drainage, biological resources, cultural
resources, public services and facilities, parks and recreation, public health and
safety, and mineral and energy resources. Project alternatives, growth-inducing
impacts, and cumulative effects were also analyzed in the Draft EIR.
During the Draft EIR's public review period which began on July 17, 2002 and
concluded on August 30, 2002, the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern held a
noticed public hearing on August 12, 2002 regarding the Draft EIR. The public
was afforded the opportunity to orally comment on the Draft EIR at the public
hearing, and the testimony was considered by the decision-makers. Upon the
close of the public review period, the Lead Agency proceeded to evaluate and
prepare responses to all written comments received from both citizens and the
public agency during the public review period.
The aforementioned comments and responses and other information consistent
with the requirements of Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as
amended, comprise the Final EIR. Following completion of the Response to
Comments document, the Lead Agency's responses to the comments received
from the public agencies were transmitted to those public agencies for
consideration at least 10 days prior to the Final EIR's certification.
V. FINDINGS REGARDING EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE
INSIGNIFICANT OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The Lead Agencies find that based on substantial evidence appearing of the Final EIR,
Technical Appendices and in the administrative record, that the proposed project would have
insignificant or less than significant impacts in the following areas:
LAND USE
THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COULD CONFLICT WITH EXISTING PLANS,
POLICIES OR REGULATIONS.
Impact Analysis: Future development in the Planning area is anticipated to be in
accordance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan which contains a map and
text describing the Planning area's future land use pattern. The Land Use Policy Map
JN 10-101248 4 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
(available at the City and County offices) presents the distribution of land uses in the
Planning area, Total acreages for each of these land use designations are presented in
Table 4.1-2, Percentage of Land Use Within Primary Land Use Categories, of the Final
EIR. Two basic principles govern the Plan: new development is focused into distinctive
centers separated by Iow land use densities and new development is situated such that
it takes advantage of the environmental setting. These principals are defined as the
"centers" and "resource" concepts, respectively.
The "centers" concept provides for a land use pattern consisting of several concentrated
mixed-use commercial and high density residential centers surrounded by medium
density residential uses. Single-family residential uses are the primary uses located
between these mixed-use commercial/residential centers. This concept encourages
people to live and work in the same area, thereby, minimizing sprawl and reducing
traffic, travel time, infrastructure costs, and air pollution. In addition to promoting the
formation of several large concentrated mixed-use centers, the Plan also attempts to
consolidate smaller, neighborhood-serving commercial development by prescribing
minimum distances between commercial parcels and by discouraging strip commercial
development.
The "resources" concept emphasizes the siting of development to reflect the Planning
area's natural and visual resources: its river, canals, and foothills. Aisc, the "resources"
concept uses as a point of departure, the 1985 Kern River Plan Element (as amended)
which takes advantage of the recreational potential of the river while respecting the
river's sensitive natural habitats and aesthetic resources. The Plan encourages linkages
to unique resources and includes Policies to promote utilization and sensitivity of natural
and visual resources.
Generally, the sphere of influence boundaries were utilized to help define the boundaries
of planned urban growth. There are three exceptions to this definition of boundaries:
the southwest center, Oildale and Lamont. The southwest commercial center itself is
situated within the sphere-of-influence area. However, the "lower suburban-type
density" residential uses associated with the southwest center extend beyond the
western boundary of the present sphere of influence. According to the General Plan,
justification for extending beyond the sphere of influence boundary includes the
following: (a) rapid growth has already taken place in this direction in recent years and
shows no signs of slowing; (b) the area presents an opportunity to capitalize on the Kern
River as a visual and aesthetic resource; and (c) the ease with which services may be
extended. The second exception to the sphere-of-influence defined boundaries occurs
in Oildale. In particular, a major airport terminal including supporting commercial and
industrial uses is master planned just north of the existing terminal at Meadows Field,
beyond the sphere-of-influence boundaries. Finally, the unincorporated community of
Lamont, which suppor[s the surrounding agricultural community, is a residential and
commercial urban center within the Metropolitan area.
The General Plan Update for Metropolitan Bakersfield has refined and supplemented
policies regarding future development within the Planning area. As described in Section
3.0, Project Description, of the Final EIR, the General Plan Update does not propose any
changes to existing density standards and/or floor area ratio (FAR) assumptions, nor
does the Plan involve any changes to existing land use designations. Although there are
no physical land use changes in the General Plan Update, the Update would produce a
beneficial effect by making the General Plan a more effective planning tool to review
future projects and to coordinate with other jurisdictions and regulatory agencies on
regional planning and environmental matters.
JN 10-101248 5 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
The General Plan Update contains policies and implementing actions that continue to
support current procedures followed by the City/County when development applications
are reviewed, including the referral of plans to appropriate federal, state, regional, and
adjacent jurisdictions and agencies to assure consistency between City/County and
other agency regulations and requirements. General Plan Update policies and actions
recognize that all communities within the area have an interest in area-wide land use
and transportation planning, economic development, environmental protection, and the
provision of adequate services and facilities.
Policies and programs in the General Plan Update continue to provide for
implementation of and participation in area-wide planning efforts. An analysis of the
consistency of the General Plan Update with specific federal, state, regional, and local
plans is presented below.
Federal Plans and Policies
Clean Air Act. The General Plan Update is in compliance with policies/regulations of the
Clean Air Act. The Conservation/Air Quality Element of the Plan contains goals and
policies consistent with the Clean Air Act. These goals and policies are detailed in
Section 4.4, Air Quafity, of the Final EIR. Goals which have been identified include the
following:
Promote air quality that is compatible with health, well being, and enjoyment of
life by controlling point sources and minimizing vehicular trips to reduce air
pollutants.
· Continue working toward attainment of Federal, State and local standards as
enforced by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
· Reduce the amount of vehicular emissions in the planning area.
Clean Water Act (Section 404). The General Plan Update contains goals and policies
designed to protect water resources (including wetlands) and enhance water quality.
These goals and policies are detailed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Drainage, of the
Final EIR, and Section 4.9, Biological Resources, of the Final EIR. Additionally, any
future development permitted through implementation of the Plan would be subject to
permit requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The General Plan Update is
in compliance with the Clean Water Act.
National Pollutant Discharqe Elimination System Permit Proqram. The General Plan
Update provides goals and policies designed to protect water quality. These goals and
policies are detailed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Drainage, of the Final EIR.
Development allowed through implementation of the proposed Plan would be required to
implement storm water management practices during and after construction in
accordance with the NPDES permit. The General Plan Update is in compliance with the
NPDES program.
Federal Endanqered Species Act. The General Plan Update provides goals and policies
designed to protect plant and animal life in critical wildlife habitat and wetlands. These
goals and policies are detailed in Section 4.9, Biological Resources, of the Final EIR.
The City of Bakersfield and County of Kern have determined that the appropriate
approach to conservation of protected biological resources in the Metropolitan
Bakersfield area is through the habitat conservation planning process (i.e, the
JN 10-101248 6 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan). The City and County obtained
permits under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the United States Endangered Species Act for
incidental take of protected species in connection with development projects. Through
the ongoing discretionary review process, the City preserves habitat and avoids take of
protected species in compliance with the MBHCP. The General Plan Update is
consistent with the Federal Endangered Species Act.
State Plans and Policies
California Wetlands Policy. Development pursuant to the General Plan Update with the
potential to affect marshlands and designated wetlands would be subject to the
requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game streambed alteration
agreements. These agreements require the avoidance of wetlands and implementation
of mitigation measures for any related wetlands impacts. In addition, the General Plan
Update contains goals and policies designed to protect wetlands. These goals and
policies are detailed in Section 4.9, Biological Resources. The General Plan Update is
in compliance with this policy.
California Endanqered Species Act. The General Plan Update provides goals and
policies designed to protect plant and animal life in critical wildlife habitat and wetlands.
These goals and policies are detailed in Section 4.9, Biological Resources. The General
Plan Update is in compliance with the California Endangered Species Act.
Regional and Local Plans/Policies
Regional Plans
2000 Reqional Transportation Plan and Conqestion Manaqement Proqram. These
documents are both long-range policy documents that address transportation issues and
propose mitigation programs to meet the multi- and inter-modal transportation objectives
of Kern County. The General Plan Update proposes to update the City's traffic model
based on the Kern Council of Governments (COG) traffic model information. An update
to the City's traffic model would reflect Kern COG's current data relative to population
growth, traffic growth, and air quality improvements. In this regard, the General Plan
Update would be in compliance with 2000 Regional Transportation Plan and Congestion
Management Program.
1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan. Refer to Section 4.4, Air Quafity, for a discussion of
the General Plan Update's consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan and an
outline of the goals and policies relative to air quality.
Local Plans
Kern River Plan Element. The following two implementation programs specifically
address compliance with the Kern River Plan Element:
· Open Space Element: Implement Kern River Plan Element policies regarding
development sensitivity to the river resource.
JN 10-101248
Safety/Flooding Element: Comply with the regulations and guidelines contained
in the City/County adopted Kern River Plan Element of the City and County
General Plans, and the zoning and floodplain management regulations which
implement the Plan.
7 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
Additionally, the Land Use, Conservation, Open Space, Safety, and Parks Elements of
the General Plan include goals and policies pertaining to Kern River corridor resources.
These goals and policies are intended to avoid impacts to Kern River corridor resources
and generally involve the following:
· Siting of new development in relation to the River;
· The provision of transportation facilities;
· The provision of open space/trail links;
· The creation of activity corridors;
· Preservation of natural resources;
· Continued maintenance;
· Management of surface water supplies; and
· Provision of recreation resources.
The General Plan Update is in compliance with the Kern River Plan Element after
implementation of the specified programs, goals, and policies regarding Kern River
corridor resources.
Bakersfield Airpark and Meadows Field Master Plans. Land uses proposed in the
General Plan Update are generally consistent with land use designations proposed in
the airport Master Plans. The City and County have adopted the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. The General Plan Update has identified an implementation program
which requires review of the airport master plans for conformance with the Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan and General Plan. The program requires that the Plans be
amended as necessary to make them compatible. Additional implementation programs
identified in the General Plan Update require that: each airport prepare and periodically
update a plan discussing future expansion, improvements, and operations; and that
consideration be given to aviation easements for discretionary projects to provide for
orderly development and as a means of preventing new noise and safety impacts. The
General Plan has specified a policy to "ensure compatibility between the General Plan,
airport master plans and airport land use plans." After compliance with the specified
programs and policy, the General Plan Update would be considered consistent with the
Bakersfield Airpark and Meadows Field Master Plans.
Specific Plans
It is the intent of the General Plan Update to incorporate those specific plans within the
boundaries of the Planning area, by reference, and to make provision for the adoption of
future specific plans as may be desired or required.~
Specific plans are intended to be an amplification of the goals and policies of the
General Plan Update and are, therefore, consistent therewith. The Land Use Plan Map
for the General Plan Update replicates land use designations of these specific plans
schematically. To determine exact land use designations within presently existing, or
any subsequently adopted, specific plans, it is necessary to refer to those adopted
documents. Thus, the General Plan has anticipated certain inconsistencies between the
Land Use Map and specific Plans. A less than significant impact is anticipated in this
regard.
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update, Introduction, January 2002.
JN 10-101248 8 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
Other Approved Plans/Project
Redevelopment Plans
As previously noted, three redevelopment plans exist in the Planning area: the
Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Area; the Old Town Kern-Pioneer
Redevelopment Area; and the Downtown Redevelopment Area. The General Plan
Update has included various policies with respect to redevelopment plans. Two of these
policies specifically address the Downtown Redevelopment Area providing for the area's
revitalization through California law and exempting the area from the Level of Service
Ordinance. The remaining policies generally involve the use of redevelopment
authorities and the provision of recreational facilities. The General Plan Update is
anticipated to result in a less than significant impact with respect to redevelopment
plans.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Land Use, Circulation, and
Parks Elements contain the following goals and policies: LU-G-5, CIR/AP-G-2, OS-G-5,
OS-G-6, SAF/FL-G-3, LU-P-39, LU-P-40, LU-P-42, LU-P-45, LU-P-46, LU-P-68, LU-P-
81, LU-P-83, LU-P-96, CIR/ST-P-38, CIR/AP-P-2, CON/BR-P-2, CON/MR-P-6,
CONNVR-P-4, OS-P-l, OS-P-5, OS-P-18, SAF/FL-P-2, SAF/FL-P-3, SAF/FL-P-4, PAR-
P-6, PAR-P-14, PAR-P-15, and PAR-P-18.
DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE HAS THE
POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IMPACTS.
Impact Analysis: Generally, the intermixing of land uses has the potential to result in
land use incompatibilities. Land use compatibility impacts associated with land
development are a factor of quality of life issues, including, but not limited to traffic,
noise, air quality, risk, and aesthetics (views/physical scale). While these may generally
be perceived as subjective issues, the significance criteria detailed in each of the
respective issues sections in this EIR provide a basis for assessing land use
compatibility impacts.
The goals, objectives, policies and standards contained in the Land Use Element
encourage architectural and site compatibility in designated areas. Additionally, the
Circulation, Conservation, and Open Space Elements of the General Plan Update have
identified goal and policies which are inducive to land use compatibility. The identified
goals include accommodating new development which is compatible with and
complements existing land uses and the establishment of a built environment which
achieves a compatible functional and visual relationship among individual buildings and
sites. Additionally, as part of their on-going development review process, the two
jurisdictions carries out various duties which serve to implement those goals and policies
inducive to land use compatibility. In essence, procedures of the respective jurisdictions
provide the vehicle by which the concept of compatibility is implemented.
Based on these factors, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not
result in direct impacts regarding land use compatibility within the Plan area.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Land Use Element contains the
following goals and policies: LU-G-3, LU-G-7, LU-P-6, LU-P-13, LU-P-17, LU-P-25, LU-
P-26, LU-P-27, CIR/AP-P-2, CON/MR-P-7, CON/MR-P-8, CON/MR-P-11, and OS-P-9.
JN 10-101248 9 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
AESTHETICS
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN
MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT SCENIC VlEWSHEDS/VlSTAS WITHIN METROPOLITAN
BAKERSFIELD.
Impact Analysis: New development in accordance with the General Plan Update has
the potential to adversely affect viewsheds and/or scenic vistas due to grading and
placement of structures on previously undeveloped land. Scenic vistas are located
solely within the northeast portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield. The General Plan Land
Use Element identifies the potential for new development on the periphery of urban
Bakersfield which would be consistent with designated mixed-use activity centers
located in the southwest, northwest and northeast. Future urban land uses that would
occur within the scenic viewshed areas include Iow-density, estate, suburban and rural
residential uses. These land uses would convert existing agricultural and/or vacant land
to urbanized uses. Analyses of topographical features indicate that the most significant
ridgelines in the northeast portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield would not be affected by
urban development. However, the proposed urban land uses could potentially alter
secondary ridgelines and result in undesirable cut and fill grading in areas with
considerable topographical relief.
General Plan implementation programs include requirements for proposed development
projects to undergo environmental and design review on a site-specific, project-by-
project basis to ensure compliance with code requirements in areas of topographical
relief. Applicable requirements include the Hillside Management Ordinance that
regulates development in areas of excessive slope by minimizing visual impacts
resulting from grading in hillside areas in northeast Bakersfield. As a result of General
Plan Update goals and policies listed below, along with project-specific environmental
and design review by the City and/or County, aesthetic impacts to scenic
vistas/viewshed impacts are considered less than significant. Ministerial projects will
undergo site plan review in accordance with the City and County Zoning Ordinance.
Through the implementation of the General Plan Update's Land Use and Open Space
Elements goals and policies, the visual environment and character of Metropolitan
Bakersfield would maintain the high level of quality desired by both the City and County.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Land Use and Open Space
Elements contain the following applicable goals and policies: LU-G-5, LU-G-6, LU-P-47,
OS-P-l, OS-P-2, OS-P-3, OS-P-4, OS-P-5, and OS-P-6.
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITHIMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE COULD AFFECT SCENIC RESOURCES WITHIN METROPOLITAN
BAKERSFIELD.
Impact Analysis: Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in an
increase in the amount of residential and non-residential development in the community
and therefore alter the existing aesthetic environment. Specifically, implementation of
the General Plan Update would result in an intensification of land uses in designated
areas. Land use intensification has the potential to alter landforms, scenic vantage
points, overall character and potentially affect scenic resources. However, many of the
outstanding resources (such as the major ridgelines in the northeast, scenic recreational
areas in Kern County River Park, Lake Ming, and the Kern River Corridor) are set aside
for preservation or open space and, therefore, would not be adversely affected by future
JN 10-101248 10 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
growth. Impacts to scenic recreation areas, including the area surrounding Lake Ming,
are considered to be less than significant because City and County policies and
implementation actions set forth in the Parks and Recreation Element, Kern River
Element and Open Space Element promote the establishment, maintenance and
protection of open space and recreational resources.
Currently, Metropolitan Bakersfield contains several scenic areas located on
undeveloped and/or vacant land, which allow for unobstructed views. However, several
of these scenic vantage points are not located in areas designated for open space or
preservation land uses, but rather for residential land uses. Future development
involving residential land uses around these areas could potentially obstruct views.
Impacts to all scenic areas are considered to be less than significant because future
development would be guided by the City's and/or County's policies and implementation
actions set forth in the Land Use Element, Open Space Element and the City/County
Hillside Ordinances. Thus, natural features that provide topographical relief to
Metropolitan Bakersfield would not be significantly altered by future development due to
site-specific environmental and design review of development plans by City and/or
County staff.
Impacts on water courses are also considered to be less than significant because City
and County policies and implementation actions set forth in the Kern River Element and
Open Space Element provide for the preservation of the Kern River riparian community,
and the preservation and/or enhancement of water courses as natural open space
features.
Development within the visual corridors scenic rights-of-way highways could degrade
visual quality if appropriate setbacks and rights-of-way are not provided or if
development obstructs long-range scenic views. Also, views along these corridors could
be degraded if landscaping and architectural designs are of poor quality. The potential
for aesthetic impacts along scenic highways from new development is considered less
than significant based on the anticipated fulfillment of requirements set forth for projects
by the County of Kern General Plan, specifically the Land Use, Open Space,
Conservation, and Recreation Element. The Elements seek to protect and enhance
scenic areas adjacent to designated scenic routes/highways and outline measures to
preserve scenic land. The review of development plans by the City would ensure the
preservation of visually attractive natural and manmade features along Metropolitan
Bakersfield's scenic highway corridors.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Land Use and Open Space
Elements contain the following applicable goals and policies: LU-G-3, LU-G-5, LU-G-6,
LU-G-7, OS-G-l, OS-G-2, OS-G-3, LU-P-47, LU-P-68, LU-P-71, LU-P-79, OS-P-l, OS-
P-2, OS-P-3, OS-P-4, OS-P-5, and OS-P-6.
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE COULD DEGRADE THE VISUAL CHARACTER OR QUALITY OF
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD.
Impact Analysis: The General Plan Update designates areas within the northeast
portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield as scenic resources. These resources are
associated with the Kern River Corridor and elevated natural land features that provide
topographical relief. It is recognized that new development projects may obstruct views
from or to these scenic resources. In addition to the important scenic resources,
physical elements such as landscaping, architecture, signs, streets, open space, etc.,
JN 10-101248 11 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
collectively form the area's visual environment and character. New projects may create
development that is out of scale or character with the surrounding urban environment.
However, most new development projects would undergo environmental and design
review on a site-specific, project-by-project basis to ensure visual compatibility and
enhancement with the surrounding environment.
Furthermore, strategies are also in place to provide development guidance to the
downtown area. These strategies include: increasing the amount of green spaces (i.e.,
parks), expanding the downtown street light and streetscape design, develop a center
for community activities and outdoor enjoyment, encourage water systems (i.e.,
fountains, pools, ponds, etc.), encourage private courtyards and landscaped spaces that
provide opportunities for formal and informal land use and activities, and develop
permanent displays that recognize historical places. Also, through the implementation of
the General Plan Update's Land Use, Conservation, Parks, and Open Space Elements
goals and policies, the visual environment and character of Metropolitan Bakersfield
would obtain the high level of quality desired by the City and County. Therefore, with the
goals policies in the General Plan Update listed below, along with project-specific
environmental and design review by the City and/or County, visual quality impacts are
considered to be at a less than significant level.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Land Use and Open Space
Elements contain the following applicable goals and policies: LU-G-3, LU-G-5, LU-G-6,
LU-G-7, CON/MR-G-4, OS-G-l, OS-G-2, OS-G-3, OS-G-4, OS-GS, OS-G-6, PAR-G-5,
LU-P-24, LU-P-25, LU-P-26, LU-P-27, LU-P-28, LU-P-32, LU-P-34, LU-P-35, LU-P-42,
LU-P-43, LU-P-47, LU-P-61, LU-P-63, LU-P-67, LU-P-68, LU-P-69, LU-P-70, LU-P-71,
LU-P-72, LU-P-74, LU-P-79, LU-P-84, LU-P-85, LU-P-88, LU-P-89, OS-P-l, OS-P-2,
OS-P-3, OS-P-4, OS-P-5, and OS-P-6.
LIGHT AND GLARE RESULTING FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH
THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT SENSITIVE
RECEPTORS SUCH AS RESIDENTIAL USES AND WILDLIFE.
Impact Analysis: During evening hours, street lights, security lighting, recreational
lighting and lighting from multi-story structures, if not adequately focused or screened,
may cause spill-over lighting and glare that may present a nuisance to residential uses
or act as a deterrent to wildlife in sensitive habitat areas. During daylight hours, glare
from materials used in new buildings may also present a nuisance or a potential safety
hazard by distracting motorists. Development associated with the General Plan Update
would convert agricultural and/or vacant land to urbanized uses. The new urbanized
uses would create additional sources of light and glare.
The General Plan Update provides goals and policies that would serve to reduce the
severity of aesthetic impacts associated with light and glare resulting from buildout of
Metropolitan Bakersfield. The General Plan Update also provides programs that serve
to implement the goals and policies that address light and glare in Metropolitan
Bakersfield. Implementation programs include adoption of community wide standards
for street lighting and requiring that development projects undergo environmental and
design review on a site-specific basis to ensure that fight and glare impacts would not
substantially impact adjacent uses. Therefore, with the goals and policies in the General
Plan Update listed below, along with project-specific environmental and design review by
the City and/or County, impacts resulting from lighting and glare are considered to be at
a less than significant level.
J N 10-101248 12 September 2002:
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Land Use Element contains the
following applicable goals and policies: PSF/SL-G-1, PSF/SL-G-2, PSF/SL-G-5, LU-
P28, LU-P-29, LU-P-36, PSF/SL-P-I, PSF/SL-P-4, and PAR-P-46.
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
BUILDOUT OF METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE COULD RESULT IN AN INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR
ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION AND ENHANCED USE OF ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION.
Impact Analysis: Over time, as future development occurs and the population and
employment of Metropolitan Bakersfield increases, there is expected to be an increase
in demand for alternative transportation, including public transit, bikeway facilities, air
travel and pedestrian facilities. Transit service is viewed as a supplement to
automobile transportation in Metropolitan Bakersfield and is expected to become an
increasingly important alternative mode of transportation as the City continues to grow.
Currently, Golden Empire Transit (GET) bus ridership is approximately 23,000
passengers per day. GET operations consist of 65 buses, 18 routes and two transit
centers. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Investment Strategy,
in 2015, GET operations would consist of 114 buses, 21 routes and several additional
transit centers? Bus ridership is projected to increase to approximately 35,000-
40,000 per day in 2015.
Generally, the existing bikeway system serves most areas of the City. Additionally,
with completion of the Bikeways Master Plan, the bikeway system would further link
schools, community civic centers, service areas, parks, employment centers and
regional bike paths. The bikeway system would provide an additional access to
recreation and open space resources, including the Kern River areas, within
Metropolitan Bakersfield.
The two existing airports within Metropolitan Bakersfield, Meadows Field and
Bakersfield Municipal Airpark, would continue their current functions under the General
Plan Update. Both airports have adopted master plans which call for runway
expansion and improvements. In addition, Meadows Field plans to construct a new
passenger terminal northwest of its existing location. Furthermore, the airport master
plans would be required to maintain conformance with the Kern County Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan.
Pedestrian travel accounts for approximately eighty percent of the total alternate
transportation modes travel in the metro area. Some older neighborhoods lack
sidewalks, causing pedestrians to walk in the streets. However, both the city and
county require installation of sidewalks in conjunction with future development.
It is clear the future development would increase the demand for alternative
transportation within Metropolitan Bakersfield. However, with implementation of
adopted city and county plans, the supply of alternative transportation sources would
grow proportionately with population growth. Additionally, the following goals and
policies in the General Plan Update would not only enhance the support for alternative
2 Source: Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation investment Strategy, prepared by Barton Aschman
Associates. 1997.
JN I O-I 01248 13 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
transportation, but would reduce any potentially significant impacts to less than
significant levels.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Circulation/Transit and Parks
Elements contain the following goals and policies: CIR/ST-G-1, CIR/ST-G-2, CIR/ST-G-
7, CIR/ST-P-4, CIR/ST-P-12, CIR/ST-P-15, CIR/ST-P-32, CIR/ST-P-33, ClR/ST-P-34,
CIR/ST-P-35, CIR/ST-P-36, CIR/ST-P-37, CIR/ST-P-38, CIR/ST-P-39, CIR/ST-P-41,
CIR/TR-G-1, CIR/TR-G-2, CIR/-I'R-G-3, CIR/'I-R-G-4, CIR/TR-G-5, CIR/TR-P-1, CIR/-I'R-
P-2, CIR/TR-P-3, CIR/TR-P-4, CIR/TR-P-5, CIR/TR-P-6, CIR/TR-P-7, CIR/-r'R-P-8,
CIR/TR-P-9, CIR/TR-P-10, CIR/-I'R-P-11, CIR/'1-R-P-12, CIR/BW-G-1, CIR/BW-G-2,
CIR/BW-G-3, CIR/BW-G-4, CIR/BW-P-1, CIR/BW-P-2, CIR/BW-P-3, CIR/BW-P-4,
CIR/BW-P-5, CIR/BW-P-6, CIR/BW-P-7, CIR/BW-P-8, CIR/BW-P-9, ClR/BW-P-10,
CIR/BW-P-11, CIR/BW-P-12, CIR/BW-P-13, CIR/P-P-11, CIR/AP-G-1, CIR/AP-G-2,
CIR/AP-P-1, CIR/AP-P-2, CIR/AP-P-3, CIR/AP-P-4, CIR/PW-G-1, CIR/PW-G-2,
CIR/PW-G-3, CIR/PW-P-1, CIR/PW-P-2, CIR/PW-P-3, CIR/PW-P-4, CIR/PW-P-5, and
PAR-P-27.
NOISE
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE WOULD INVOLVE CONSTRUCTION-RELATED NOISE.
Impact Analysis: Typical activities associated with construction are a highly noticeable
temporary noise source. Noise from construction activities are generated by two primary
sources during construction phases: 1) the transport of workers and equipment to
construction sites; and 2) the noise related to the construction itself. As currently
underutilized or vacant parcels are developed in accordance with the General Plan
Update, construction-related activities would generate noise from construction
equipment, grading operations, and stationary equipment. These noise sources can be
a nuisance to local residents and businesses. However, construction noise impacts are
short-term and cease upon completion of each project. Furthermore, the City of
Bakersfield Noise Ordinance regulates the time of day when construction is permitted to
occur. The unincorporated portion of the Metropolitan area is not subject to a noise
ordinance, although discretionary land use projects may include noise mitigation to
conform with the Noise Element. Implementation of the Noise Ordinance would serve to
reduce short-term construction noise impacts to less than significant levels.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Noise Element contains the
following goals and policies: NOi-G-1, NOI-G-2, NOI-P-2, NOI-P-3, NOI-P-4, and NOI-
P-6.
GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS
BUILDOUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE/STRUCTURES EXPOSED TO ADVERSE
EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH RUPTURE OF A KNOWN EARTHQUAKE FAULT.
Impact Analysis: Active or potentially active faults are located within the Plan area.
The south end of the San Joaquin Valley is bordered by four major fault systems, all of
which are considered to be active: San Andreas, Breckenridge-Kern Canyon, Garlock
and White Wolf faults. It is probable that these faults will move in the future. As a result,
it is anticipated that buildout of the General Plan Update would expose an increased
JN 10-101248 14 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
number of people/structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with
rupture of a known earthquake fault.
AIquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones have been designated for portions of the Plan area
to indicate the presence of faults which showed surface breakage during the 1952 White
Wolf earthquake. These Zones mark the areas where faults are considered to have
been recently active (during the last 10,000 years) and to have a relatively high potential
for surface rupture. Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone maps are on file with the City of
Bakersfield and the County of Kern.
Structures constructed over these active faults would be unable to withstand the direct
impact of surface rupture and even small surface cracks can cause severe structural
damage to them. In compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and
in order to reduce the level of significance of this potential impact, any development
proposals within Special Studies Zones would be subject to special geologic
investigation requirements.
The Safety Element has identified various implementation programs with respect to fault
rupture. These programs specify various requirements including: detailed geologic
investigations are to be conducted, in conformance with guidelines of the California
Division of Mines and Geology, for all construction designed for human occupancy in an
Alquist-Priolo Fault Study Zone; construction of buildings for human occupancy within 50
feet of the trace of an active fault is prohibited; plans and permits for installation of major
lifeline components such as for highways, utilities and petroleum or chemical pipelines
are to incorporate design features to accommodate potential fault movement in areas of
active faults without prolonged disruption of an essential service or threat to health and
safety; and field information is to be developed as part of any CEQA investigations and
geologic reports by the city/county geologists should be kept current and accessible for
use in report preparation, geologic reviews and policy development.
It should be noted that active faults may potentially exist outside of the Special Studies
Zones. As a result, development of critical and important facilities proposed outside of
these zones would require additional fault investigation. The Safety Element has
specified a policy which requires that the development of critical facilities be supported
by documentation of thorough hazard investigation.
Further, the Safety Element has identified various implementation programs to be
carried out by the City and County affecting seismic safety of critical facilities. These
programs include: detailed site studies for fault rupture potential are to be conducted as
background to the design process for critical facilities under city and county discretionary
approval; existing critical facilities are to be reviewed for any significant siting, design or
construction problems that would make them vulnerable in an earthquake. The findings
shall be incorporated into emergency operations plans as well as addressed in longer-
term programs of facilities upgrading or relocation; and construction of Critical Facilities
is prohibited within 300 feet of the trace of an active fault.
Numerous controls would be imposed on development proposals through the permitting
process. In general, the development would be regulated (and potential geologic
impacts reduced) under the requirements of the California Building Code, the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, City/County land use policies and zoning, and
Plan-specific mitigation measures. Future development would be subject to compliance
with Title 15 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, Building and Construction, including but
not limited to Chapter 15.12, Uniform Building Code, which states that the Uniform
JN 10-101248 15 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
Building Code and the 1998 Edition of the California Building Standards Code are the
building code of the City for the purpose of regulating buildings and construction.
Although a relatively high potential for surface rupture exists in certain portions of the
Plan area, implementation of the General Plan Update would not result in any impacts
related to fault rupture beyond those that may presently exist within the Plan area.
Further, the Safety Element identifies seismicity as a key safety issue and contains
specific goals, policies, and implementation programs to reduce seismic hazards within
the City. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan Update would result in less than
significant impacts in this regard.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety Element contains the
following goals and policies: SAF/SEI-G-6, SAF/SEI-P-10, SAF/SEI-P-11, SAF/SEI-P-
12, SAF/SEI-P-15, and SAF/SEI-P-17.
BUILDOUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY EXPOSE
A GREATER NUMBER OF PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO STRONG SEISMIC
GROUND SHAKING DURING A SEISMIC EVENT.
Impact Analysis: Given the highly seismic character of the Plan area, moderate to
severe groundshaking associated with ear[hquakes on the nearby faults can be
expected within all of the Plan area. This has the potential to result in substantial
damage to some buildings within the Plan area even though the epicenters may be
many miles away. Several buildings, especially those constructed prior to the City's first
seismic codes, could suffer severe damage or collapse in the event of any earthquake
that produces moderate to strong ground motion in the Plan area. Some structures,
including tilt-ups, unreinforced masonry buildings, older buildings, buildings over four
stories, and mobile homes would be particularly susceptible to earthquake damage.
Senate Bill 547 (enacted in 1986) required local jurisdictions to inventory existing
unreinforced masonry buildings and develop structural hazards reduction programs for
such buildings by January 1, 1990. In response to this requirement, the City conducted
a complete inventory of unreinforced masonry buildings and an aggressive seismic
retrofit construction program. This program for unreinforced masonry buildings was
proven very successful. Of those buildings identified as "unreinforced masonry
structures", 85 percent are presently up to 1993 seismic construction standards. The
County has performed a similar inventory and notified owners of the status of their
buildings.
Plan implementation would increase the Plan area's population, thus, exposing a greater
number of people to ground shaking hazards. Therefore, impacts associated with
seismically induced ground shaking would be considered significant unless mitigated.
Specific goals, policies, and implementation measures have been included in the Safety
Element to minimize potential seismic hazards in the City. Additionally, it should be
noted that as a part of the City's discretionary review process, detailed site-specific
studies regarding ground shaking characteristics (and other geologic hazards) are
required for critical facilities, as opposed to all future development. Therefore, mitigation
has been specified which requires that the database of geologic hazards be continuously
improved by means of site-specific studies conducted for all future development.
JN 10-101248 16 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
Adherence to/compliance with the Safety Element, as well as compliance with the City
and County Development Codes and the California Building Code, would reduce
impacts associated with ground shaking to a less than significant level. It should be
noted that the Uniform Building Code was revised in 1998 to:
· Upgrade the level of ground motion used in the seismic design of buildings;
· Add site amplification factors based on local soils conditions; and
· Improve the way ground motion is applied in detailed design.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety Element contains the
following goals and policies: SAF/SEI-G-1, SAF/SEI-G-2, SAF/SEI-G-3, SAF/SEI-G-4
SAF/SEI-G-6, SAF/SEI-P-1, SAF/SEI-P-2, SAF/SEI-P-3, SAF/SEI-P-4, SAF/SEI-P-5
SAF/SEI-P-6, SAF/SEI-P-7, SAF/SEI-P-8, SAF/SEI-P-9, SAF/SEI-P-15, SAF/SEI-P-16
SAF/SEI-P-17, SAF/SEI-P-22, SAF/SEI-P-23, SAF/SEI-P-24, and SAF/SEI-P-25.
BUILDOUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY EXPOSE
PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO POTENTIAL SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS
ASSOCIATED WITH LIQUEFACTION.
Impact Analysis: The area of high ground water which exists in the southeastern
portion of the Plan area (refer to Figure VIII-2 of the 1990 General Plan) may be subject
to liquefaction in an earthquake, with attendant ground rupture and potential sinking or
tilting of large buildings. According to the General Plan Land Use Map, this area is
designated primarily for public and agricultural land uses.
Areas of high groundwater are rare elsewhere in the Plan area and not all soil types are
susceptible to liquefaction. However, additional information is necessary to determine
the geographic extent of high groundwater. The Safety Element has identified various
implementation programs to be carried out by the City and County with respect to
potential liquefaction. These programs specify various requirements including detailed
site studies which are to be conducted for liquefaction potential as background to the
design process for critical facilities under city and county discretionary approval.
Liquefaction investigations also are to be conducted in all areas of high groundwater
potential. Appropriate foundation designs are to be identified to mitigate potential
damage to buildings on sites with liquefaction potential.
Specific goals, policies, and implementation programs have been included in the Safety
Element to minimize potential liquefaction hazards in the Planning area. These would
serve to mitigate potential liquefaction problems for future uses. With implementation of
the goals and policies outlined below, impacts to future uses associated with liquefaction
would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety Element contains the
following goals and policies: SAF/SEI-G-5, SAF/SEI-G-6, SAF/SEI-P-5, SAF/SEI-P-13,
and SAF/SEI-P-14.
BUILDOUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY EXPOSE
PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO POTENTIAL SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS
ASSOCIATED WITH SEISMICALLY INDUCED LANDSLIDES.
Impact Analysis: As previously noted, a strong earthquake could trigger landslides or
slope failures on steeper slopes in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon and
floodplain. As illustrated on the General Plan Land Use Map, these areas are
JN 10-101248 17 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
designated primarily for agriculture and open space use. Therefore, it is not anticipated
that significant development would occur in these areas as a result of Plan
implementation and people or structures would not be significantly exposed to
substantial adverse effects involving seismically-induced landslides. The Safety
Element has identified the goal of providing a continuously improving database and
reference source for evaluation of seismic and geologic hazards, which would include
areas with the potential for seismically-induced landslides. In addition, the Safety
Element has identified implementation-programs with respect to seismically-induced
landslides. Implementation programs require that maps be compiled showing the
location of all geologic hazards, including earthquake-induced landslides.
Specific goals, policies and implementation programs have been included in the Safety
Element to minimize potential landslide hazards in the Planning area. With
implementation of the goals and policies outlined below, impacts to future uses
associated with landslides would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety Element contains the
following goals and policies: SAF/SEI-G-6, SAF/SEI-P-15, SAF/SEI~P-16, and SAF/SEI-
P-17.
BUILDOUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY EXPOSE
PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO POTENTIAL SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS
ASSOCIATED WITH LANDSLIDES.
Impact Analysis: Slopes subject to failure within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are
predominantly found along the river terraces, bluffs and foothills to the northeast and
east of the City. Investigations to date have documented two landslides in the foothills
northeast of the City. The approximate locations and directions of movement of these
landslides are illustrated in Figure VIII-2 of the 1990 General Plan. It is not anticipated
that significant development would occur in these areas as a result of Plan
implementation and people or structures would not be significantly exposed to
substantial adverse effects involving landslides. Additionally, this impact would be
further reduced after compliance with the Safety Element's goal of providing a
continuously improving database and reference source for evaluation of seismic and
geologic hazards, including areas with the potential for landslides.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety Element contains the
following goals and policies: SAF/SEI-G-6, SAF/SEI-P-15, SAF/SEI-P-16, and SAF/SEI-
P-17.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and
implementation measures identified in the General Plan Update are proposed.
Level of Significance After Policies/Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.
BUILDOUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY EXPOSE
PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO A SIGNIFICANT RISK RESULTING FROM A
SEISMICALLY-INDUCED FAILURE OF ISABELLA DAM.
Impact Analysis: As illustrated in Figure VIII-2 of the 1990 General Plan, a break in
Isabella Dam caused by an earthquake would result in flooding 60 square miles of the
Metropolitan Bakersfield area. According to the Land Use Map, a growth in population
and additional development resulting from Plan implementation would occur throughout
J N 10-101248 18 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
this area. Therefore, an increased number of people and structures would be exposed
to this potential risk. This would in turn require the evacuation of a substantial portion of
the Plan area. If communications are intact, the City and County may have from two to
six hours to complete the evacuation.
The Safety Element has identified policies including a response plan for dam failure as
well as the maintenance of disaster response plans, development of discretionary
approval procedures for critical facilities, and the review of zoning designations, street
widths, and circulation patterns for compatibility with evacuation plans. These policies
and review procedures are necessary to mitigate this potential hazard to a less than
significant level.
With implementation of the following goals and policies, impacts regarding dam
inundation hazards would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety Element contains the
following goal and policies: SAF/SEI-G-7, SAF/SEI-P-1, SAF/SEI-P-2, SAF/SEI-P-3,
SAF/SEI-P-4, SAF/SEI-P-5, SAF/SEI-P-18, SAF/SEI-P-19, SAF/SEI-P-20, and SAF/SEI-
P-21.
PORTIONS OF THE PLAN AREA ARE LOCATED ON GEOLOGIC UNITS THAT ARE
CONSIDERED UNSTABLE AND COULD POTENTIALLY RESULT IN SUBSIDENCE.
Impact Analysis: As previously noted, gradual subsidence (up to four feet in certain
areas) has been identified in the southern portion of the Plan area. As illustrated on the
General Plan Land Use Map, the southern area is designated primarily for agriculture
use. Therefore, it is not anticipated that significant development would occur in these
areas as a result of Plan implementation and people or structures would not be
significantly exposed to substantial adverse effects involving subsidence. Nonetheless,
although subsidence is not a significant hazard, damage to wells, foundations and
underground utilities could occur. This potential impact would be considered a less than
significant with the site-specific studies conducted as a part of the discretionary review
process. These studies would document the presence/absence of this potential hazard
and identify the necessary mitigation.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety Element contains the
following policies: SAF/SEI-P-15, SAF/SEI-P-16, and SAF/SEI-P-17.
SOILS AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY RESULT IN
SUBSTANTIAL SOIL EROSION OR THE LOSS OF TOPSOIL.
Impact Analysis: As previously noted, four highly erodible soil types are present in the
Planning area. Soil erosion is a continuing long term problem which can occur naturally
or can be accelerated through the activities of human beings, such as with agricultural
activities. One such example of an agricultural activity which accelerates erosion is soil
tillage. This process, which involves cutting loose, granulating, and turning over the soil,
greatly reduces the soil's overall resistance to detachment, through destruction of the
soil structure and organic matter (particularly live and dead roots which bind the soil
particles together. When fertile soil is removed, along with it go the nutrients and
organic matter which are significant to the growth of plants and crops. Without this soil,
JN 10-101248 19 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
plants and crops will not survive. Thus, it's easy to see that a reduction in this protective
cover will only expose more soil to the detrimental effects of wind and water erosion.
The long-term effects of wind and water erosion which occur in the vacant and
agriculturally active portions of the Planning area would be inversely related to the area's
forecasted growth. More specifically, if the vacant and agriculturally active portions of
the Planning area remain in their current condition and are not improved, it is assumed
that erosion would continue as under the current conditions. Conversely, the erosion of
soils in the Planning area is anticipated to decrease as the development of vacant and
agricultural lands increases in response to the residential, commercial, and industrial
land uses projected in the General Plan Update. This is considered a beneficial impact
of Project implementation.
Goals and policies have been identified in the General Plan Update which promote soil
conservation and which are intended to mitigate the long term effects of wind and water
erosion. Additionally, the Conservation Element (Soils and Agriculture) has identified
implementation programs with respect to soil erosion. These programs require the
periodic review/update of grading ordinances that take into account the potential for soil
erosion and that the City and County coordinate with the Soil Conservation Service to
provide technical assistance on improving or preserving soil conditions. With
implementation of this program and the goals and policies outlined below, impacts with
respect to soil erosion would be reduced to a less than significant level.
It should be noted that during the construction phase of future development, short-term
wind and water erosion impacts are anticipated to occur. This impact would be
considered significant unless mitigated. According to City of Bakersfield Municipal Code
Section 16.16.100 and similar provisions in the County's Code of Building Regulations,
an Erosion Control Plan would be required, prior to any grading activity, to ensure that
erosion controls are implemented. Additionally, the General Plan Update has identified
goals and policies intended to prevent soil erosion during and immediately after
completion of the construction phase of future developments. Compliance with the
General Plan and Municipal Code would reduce impacts in regards to short-term soil
erosion to a less than significant level.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Conservation Element contains
the following goals and policies: CON/SA-G-2, CON/SA-G-3, CON/SA-P-6, CON/SA-P-
7, CON/SA-P-8, CON/SA-P-11, and CON/SA-P-12.
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COULD RESULT IN INCREASED SOIL AND WATER
SALINITY.
Salinity issue due to agricultural practices is beyond the scope of the City and County of
Kern's authority. Farming and water agencies affect agricultural practices.
LAND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COULD
BE LOCATED ON EXPANSIVE SOIL CREATING SUBSTANTIAL RISKS TO LIFE OR
PROPERTY.
Impact Analysis: The Planning area is not known to be comprised of soils with a high
potential for soil expansion. Compliance with the policies of the General Plan Update,
the City and County Development Code and the California Building Code would reduc~
potential site-specific impacts to less than significant levels. Additionally, the potential
impact is further reduced through adherence to standard engineering practices and
JN 10-101248 20 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
design criteria. Therefore, Plan implementation is not anticipated to create a substantial
risk to life or property as a result of development on expansive soils.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: No goals, policies and
implementation within the General Plan Update apply to potential impacts resulting from
expansive soils.
HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE
BUILDOUT OF METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY RESULT IN VIOLATION OF WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS.
Impact Analysis: The degree of water quality impacts from discharges associated with
the General Plan's forecasted growth is relative not only to the intensity and location of
the discharge source (i.e., future development) but also to the volume, quality, and uses
of the receiving waters.
Urbanization has the potential to result in a net increase in pollutant export over naturally
occurring conditions. The impact of the higher export can be on the adjacent streams
and also on the downstream receiving waters. However, it should be noted that an
important consideration in evaluating stormwater quality from any future development is
to assess whether or not it impairs the beneficial use of the receiving waters. Receiving
waters can assimilate a limited quantity of various constituent elements, however, there
are thresholds beyond which the measured amount becomes a pollutant and results in
an undesirable impact. A summary of the typical impacts to water quality from
urbanization is discussed below.
Storm Water Runoff. Impacts of storm water contaminants on surface and
groundwaters are an important concern. Storm water runoff from residential and
industrial areas can contribute to water quality degradation since it contains organics,
pesticides, oil, grease, and heavy metals. Because these pollutants accumulate during
the dry summer months, the first major storm after summer can flush a highly
concentrated Icad to receiving waters and catch basins. Combined storm and sanitary
systems may result in some runoff to wastewater treatment plants. In other cases, storm
water collection wells can produce direct discharges to groundwater.
Erosion. Erosion is one of the greatest problems in the watershed area. Erosion is a
natural occurrence, however, most activities of man accelerate the process. Erosion
causes discoloration of streams, and the suspended matter settles to form a smothering
blanket on the streambed. Erosion is accelerated by poor drainage and soil stabilization
associated with the following activities: road building, clearing land, leveling land,
construction, brush clearing, off-road vehicle use, agriculture, overgrazing, and fires.
It should be noted that there are various activities that presently occur throughout the
Planning area which are anticipated to continue, although to a lesser extent, with
buildout of the proposed General Plan Update. The following is a summary of the
anticipated water quality impacts associated with continuation of the existing activities:
Aqriculture. Agricultural drainage which is the excess water not used by crops runs off
or percolates. This drainage, depending on management and location, carries varying
amounts of salts, nutrients, pesticides, trace elements, sediments, and other by-products
JN 10-101248 21 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
to surface and groundwaters. Most critical, is the problem of the salts brought in with
irrigation water and leached out of soils. Evaporation and crop transpiration remove
water from soils, which can result in an accumulation of salts in the root zone of the soils
at levels that retard or inhibit plant growth. Additional amounts of water often are applied
to leach the salts below the root zone. The leached salts eventually enter ground or
surface water. Evaporation basins are sometimes used to concentrate drainage water
and contain salts. However, evaporation basins have varying potentials to impact
wildlife due to salinity.
Confined Animal Operations. Where not controlled, surface runoff from confined
animal (dairy and poultry) operations can impair both surface and groundwater beneficial
uses. Uncontrolled runoff can also cause nuisance conditions. Animal wastes may
produce significant bacteria, organic, nitrate, and other contamination. The greatest
potential for water quality problems has historically stemmed from the overloading of the
facilities' waste containment and treatment ponds during the rainy season and
inappropriate application of wastewater and manure. Overloading sometimes results in
discharge of manure waste to canals and drainageways. Most animal confinement
facilities have designated some land for wastewater and spreading manure. However,
the lands assimilative capacity is dependant upon area, crop, crop yield, soil, and
season of the year. When land and capacity is exceeded, the excessive salts and
nutrients are leached to the underlying groundwater.
Unconfined Animals. Grazing animals can contribute bacteria and pathogens to
surface waters. However, the greatest potential problem is erosion resulting from
overgrazing (refer to Erosion discussion above). Grazing impacts are generally
considered nonpoint source of pollution.
Overdraft. The elimination of overdraft is an important step in managing the rate of
salinity increase in the groundwater. Continued overdraft would deplete good quality
water supplies and introduce salts from poorer quality aquifers.
Salinity. Some of the salt load to groundwater resoumes is primarily the result of
natural processes within the Basin. This includes salt loads leached from the soils by
precipitation, valley floor runoff, and native surface waters. Salts that are not indigenous
to the Basin water resources are a product of man's activities. Salts come from imported
water, soil leached by irrigation, animal wastes, fertilizers and other soil amendments,
municipal use, industrial wastewaters, and oil field wastewaters. These salt sources, all
contributors to salinity increases, should be managed to the extent practicable to reduce
the rate of groundwater degradation.
Degradation of groundwater in the Basin by salts is unavoidable without a plan for
removing salts from the Basin. A valleywide drain to carry salts out of the valley is
considered the best technical solution to the water quality problems of the Tulare Lake
Basin.3 The drain would carry wastewater generated by municipal, industrial, and
agricultural activities, high in salt and unfit for reuse.
Mineral Exploration and Extraction. Drainage and runoff from mines and various
operations associated with mining can result in serious impacts to ground and surface
water beneficial uses, if not properly managed. Sedimentation caused by mining is
addressed by discharge requirements for existing mines, however, the Regional Water
Board does not have a specific program for controlling erosion from abandoned mines.
Ibid., Page I-2.
JN 10-101248 22 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
As discussed above, sudace runoff and erosion associated with the General Plan's
forecasted growth has the potential to contribute to water quality degradation. Further,
the continuation of certain activities also has the potential to degrade the quality of
water. Overall, Plan implementation has the potential to result in the addition of a variety
of pollutants which would be considered a significant impact unless mitigated. However,
future development's compliance with the legal/regulatory requirements, including but
not limited to the NPDES Permit Program, would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level. Further, the Conservation Element in the General Plan Update has
identified the goal of "continuing to identify cooperative planning and implementation of
programs and projects, which will resolve water resource deficiencies and water quality
problems." In addition, the Conservation Element (Water Resources) includes
implementation programs which require the maintenance of industrial waste discharge
regulation and monitoring programs which protect the planning area groundwater from
contaminants. The implementation program also includes support for water
conservation measures and programs of benefit. The goals and policies included in the
ConservationNVater Resources Element, and specified implementation programs would
help to maintain water quality in the Planning area as it approaches buildout. Therefore,
less than significant water quality impacts are anticipated to occur with implementation of
the General Plan Update.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Conservation Element contains
the following goals and policies: CONS/VVR-G-4, CON/WR-P-6, CONNVR-P-7,
CON/SA-P-7, and CON/SA-P-13.
BUILDOUT OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY CONTRIBUTE TO THE
DEPLETION OF GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES OR MAY INTERFERE WITH
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE.
Impact Analysis: Water demands are generally projected as a function of population
increases. As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Final EIR, the
Planning area's population is projected to increase to 458,000 persons by the year 2010,
an approximately 14 percent increase over the area's year 2001 population of 402,100
persons. Thus, it is assumed that the projected water demand would increase
proportionate to the projected population growth. Based on average annual water
supply, it is anticipated that the future water supply would be able to meet the Planning
area's future water demand without resulting in a substantial depletion of groundwater
supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge.
The physical supply of water to residents and businesses within Metropolitan Bakersfield
is provided by a series of water districts and private water supply companies. The Kern
County Water Agency Improvement District No. 4 (I.D.-4) sells water at wholesale prices
to various water purveyors within greater Metropolitan Bakersfield. The primary water
purveyors consist of the City of Bakersfield domestic water system known as Ashe,
Fairhaven, and Riverlakes Domestic Water Systems, the California Water Service
Company (CWSC), Vaughn Water Company (VWC), Oildale Mutual Water Company
(OMWC), North of the River Municipal Water District (NORMWD) and the East Niles
Community Service District (ENCSD).
The City of Bakersfield purchased both the Kern River water rights and the physical
water distribution systems for the Ashe Service Area from Tenneco West in 1977. The
City also subsequently added service areas in the Fairhaven and Riverlakes areas.
These are the only portions of the City that receives water service from the City of
J N 10-101248 23 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
Bakersfield. Water supply to the system is pumped from 47 groundwater wells.
Additional wells are continually in development. The California Water Service Company
operates the City's water system under contract from the City of Bakersfield. Aisc, the
CWSC supplies groundwater through 187 wells in combination with surface water.
According to the 2000 Bakersfield Water Balance Report, the year 2020 projected water
demand for the City of Bakersfield would be less than the average annual water supply
that has been available over the past 20 years. However, based on dry year conditions,
the projected water demand would be greater than the imported water supply.4 This dry
year condition has the potential to result in an increase in groundwater mining to meet
the additional water supply demands of the projected population growth. As previously
noted, increased groundwater extraction can eventually exceed the recharge capacity of
the aquifers resulting in "overdraft". In their planning, the City has identified certain
measures which may be implemented to address possible prolonged drought conditions
which may occur in the future. These may include water usage restrictions, distribution
of water conservation devices and stringent price controls. However, the primary
element of the City's "drought management" plan is it's "banked" groundwater. Because
the undergroundwater supply has been "banked", the underground reservoir can be
pumped during future dry years without causing a groundwater overdraft problem.
Further, data indicates that the current banked groundwater is over three times greater
than the collective shortfall which occurred between 1990 and 1992.5 Aisc, the
undergroundwater supply can continue to be built up during future wet years.
The Vaughn Water Company obtains all of its water from wells. The VWC owns and
operates 11 wells. Approximately 11,000 acre-feet of groundwater are extracted per
year by VWC. VVVC overlies the Kern River Fan and has excellent water supplies due to
ground water recharge programs operated by several entities, including the City of
Bakersfield and I.D.-4. Wells and other water facilities are created on an as-needed
basis. The VWC has indicated that it would have adequate groundwater supplies
available to serve the Planning area at buildout of the General Plan.6
The Oildale Mutual Water Company, over the past 25 years, has pumped an average of
250 acre-feet of groundwater per year. As a result of receiving treated water,
groundwater has been minimized and used for a backup supply and peaking supply.
Hydrogeologic analysis of the Oildale groundwater sub-basin indicates that subsurface
outflows currently exist even and would continue to exist even with increased
groundwater pumping to over 8,500 acre-feet per year.7 This would support the reliance
of groundwater as a supplemental water supply source for backup, as well as future
demands. Thus, groundwater quantities would be available and sufficient to meet future
demands associated with buildout of the General Plan.
The North of the River Municipal Water District obtains the majority of its water from the
Henry Garnett Water Treatment Plant operated by the Kern County Water Agency. The
remainder of the District's water supplies comes from a well. Depending on climatic
conditions, the amount of water obtained by the NORMWD over the past several years
has ranged from 8500 to 9700 acre-feet per year. The NORMWD has indicated that
4 Bakersfield 2000 Water Balance Report, Page 14.
5 Ibid., Page 15.
6 Written correspondence from Michael L. Huhn, General Manager, of the Vaughn Water Company.
October 9, 2001.
7 Written correspondence from Douglas R. Nennely, General Manager, of the Oildale Mutual Water
Company. November 15, 2001.
JN 10-101248 24 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
new or expanded facilities would likely need to be constructed to meet future needs
associated with buildout of the General Plan?
The East Niles Community Service District currently utilizes six well to obtain water, in
addition to water purchased from I.D.-4 and water obtained from the Diatomaceous
Earth Treatment Plant. In 2000, ENCSD extracted 1,202 million gallons of water via the
six wells. In order to meet future demand associated with buildout of the General Plan,
the ENCSD would need to increase water supplies, possibly by constructing new wells.9
With continuation of on-going recharge efforts, as well as continued compliance with the
Drought Management Plans and the goals and policies outlined below, it is not
anticipated that buildout of the General Plan Update would result in a significant impact
with respect to groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge.
Additionally, it should be noted that the net increase in future water demand caused by
population growth is expected to be decreased as a result of the conversion of
agricultural lands to urban uses. More specifically, future municipal water consumption
associated with the expansion of urban development pursuant to the proposed Land Use
Element would be offset by reduction of water consumption associated with the
conversion of farmland. Further, it should be noted that overall water use tends to
decrease over time as increased emphasis is placed on both conservation and
recycling?
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Conservation Element contains
the following goals and policies: CONS/WR-G-1, CONS/WR-G-2, CONS/WR-G-4,
CONS/WR-G-5, CONS/WR-G-6, CON/WR-P-1, CON/WR-P-2, CON/WR-P-3, CON/WR-
P-4, CON/WR-P-5, CONRVR-P-6, CON/WR-P-7, CON/WR-P-8, and CON/WR-P-9.
BUILDOUT OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD AREA IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY RESULT IN IMPACTS TO DRAINAGE
PATTERNS WHICH WOULD RESULT IN EROSION, SILTATION, OR FLOODING.
Impact Analysis: Implementation of the General Plan Update would modify the
hydrologic characteristics of the watershed by increasing the amount of impervious area,
modifying drainage patterns, increasing the hydraulic efficiency of the drainage
conveyance system and natural drainage courses to improved underground storm drain
systems, reducing the time to peak flow and increasing the peak discharge.
The General Plan Update has two goals regarding storm drainage; ensure the provision
of adequate storm drainage facilities to protect Planning area residents from flooding
resulting from storm water excess, and maintain a comprehensive storm drainage
system which serves all urban development within the Planning area. The proposed
policies are to undertake drainage programs which would serve all currently developed
portions of the Planning area that are not now served by adequate storm drainage
systems; and to pursue individual drainage plans where they are most needed.
Pursuant to Kern County requirements, new development would be required to provide
for their own on-site retention or show that existing facilities have sufficient capacity to
District.
8 Written correspondence from the North of the River Municipal Water District. November 12, 2001.
9 Wdtten correspondence from Kelly K. Ulrich, General Manager, of the East Niles Community Service
October 4, 2001.
~o Ibid., Page 14.
JN 10-101248 25 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
carry the additional runoff. Aisc, the City would accept on-site runoff from future
development into its system as long as adequate downstream facilities are in place. In
the absence of adequate downstream facilities, the City would require new development
to provide for their own on-site retention and would strategically locate sumps so that
they can be incorporated into future development.
Overall, buildout pursuant to the General Plan Update would have a significant impact
on storm drainage unless mitigated. Impacts on storm drainage would occur as a result
of grading and development of future projects, the addition of impervious surfaces (i.e.,
roadways, parking lots, and hardscape), and the introduction of landscaping irrigation
associated with future development. However, after compliance with legal/regulatory
requirements and the following goals/policies, drainage impacts would be reduced to a
less than significant level.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Public Services and Facilities
Element contains the following goals and policies: PSF/SD-G-1, PSF/SD-G-2, PSF/SD-
P-l, PSF/SD-P-2, PSF/SD-P-3, CON/SA-P-6, CON/SA-P-7, CON/SA-P-8, CON/SA-P-
12, and CON/SA-P-13.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY EXPOSE PEOPLE OR
STRUCTURES TO A SIGNIFICANT RISK RESULTING FROM FAILURE OF
ISABELLA DAM.
Impact Analysis: Seismically-induced failure of Isabella Dam is addressed in Section
4.6, Geologic and Seismic Hazards, of the Final EIR. However, it should be noted that
the Dam could fail as a result of some other unforeseen event. As illustrated in Figure
VIII-2 of the 1990 General Plan, failure of Isabella Dam would result in flooding 60
square miles of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. According to the Land Use Map, a
growth in population and additional development resulting from Project implementation
would occur throughout this area. Therefore, an increased number of people and
structures would be exposed to this potential risk. This would in turn require the
evacuation of a substantial portion of the Planning area. If communications are intact,
the City may have from two to six hours to complete the evacuation.
With implementation of the goals, policies and mitigation measures outlined in Section
4.6, Geologic and Seismic Hazards, of the Final EIR, and incorporation of the respective
evacuation plans for the sequential and orderly evacuation of the potential dam
inundation area, impacts regarding dam inundation hazards due to unforeseen events
would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety Element contains the
following goal and policies: SAF/SEI-G-7, SAF/SEI-P-1, SAF/SEI-P-2, SAF/SEI-P-3,
SAF/SEI-P-4, SAF/SEI-P-5, SAF/SEI-P-18, SAF/SEI-P-19, SAF/SEI-P-20, and SAF/SEI-
P-21.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY RESULT IN IMPACTS
TO SPECIES IDENTIFIED AS A CANDIDATE, SENSITIVE, OR SPECIAL STATUS
SPECIES, AS WELL AS RIPARIAN, WETLAND OR OTHER SENSITIVE NATURAL
COMMUNITIES.
Impact Analysis: The area designated for urban uses in the General Plan Update
JN 10-101248 26 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
encompasses approximately 75 square miles (47,600 acres) of undeveloped or open
land. Of this, approximately 23 square miles (14,200) is natural land which supports
populations of the species of concern, and approximately 52 square miles (33,400
acres) of other open lands, primarily intensive agriculture.~1 The rate of expansion would
vary with economic conditions and the actual impact would depend on whether the
growth occupies areas which are predominantly in intensive agriculture or areas
predominantly natural (native plant communities and grazing lands). Nonetheless,
according to the MBHCP, "one-third of urban growth would occur on natural lands".
Thus, a primary impact of growth in the Planning area is the loss of natural lands.
Implementation of the General Plan Update would extend urban development into
locations where sensitive plant and animal species are known and/or expected to occur.
This may result in the loss of habitat and individuals of species that are classified as
Threatened or Endangered. Species of Special Concern, as defined by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and/or by the California Department of Fish and Game with
documented occurrences within the Planning area, are as follows~2:
· San Joaquin Kit fox (State Threatened and Federal Endangered)
· Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (State Endangered and Federal Threatened)
· Tipton kangaroo rat (State and Federal Endangered)
· Giant kangaroo rat (State and Federal Endangered)
· San Joaquin antelope squirrel (State Threatened)
· Bakersfield cactus (State and Federal Endangered)
· San Joaquin wooly-threads (Federal Endangered)
· Hoovers wooly-star (Federal Threatened)
· Striped adobe lily (State Threatened)
Studies conducted or reviewed in conjunction with the development of MBHCP did not
confirm the presence of those species within the Planning area.
These species are Federal or State-listed as threatened or endangered. Both Federal
and State laws protect threatened and endangered species. Two laws that apply to
endangered species are the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973, as
amended, and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). FESA prohibits acts of
disturbance, which result in the "take" of threatened or endangered species. CESA also
prohibits the taking of any endangered, threatened or rare plant and/or animal species in
the state. "Take is defined as the killing, harming, or harassment of a listed species that
is incidental to, but not the primary purpose of an otherwise lawful activity. "Harm" is
further defined to include the killing or harming of wildlife due to significant obstruction of
essential behavior patterns (i.e., breeding, feeding, or sheltering) through significant
habitat modification or degradation. The loss of the aforementioned species would be a
potentially significant impact due to their status as threatened or endangered as listed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or by the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG).
California Species of Special Concern are species that have no special legal status; thus
there are no provisions for protection, such as are provided for threatened and
endangered species listed by the FESA and CESA. However, these species are taxa
whose breeding population in California have declined severely or are otherwise so Iow
~ Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, August 1994, Page vii.
~2 California Natural Diversity Databases. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened and Rare
Plants of California and State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animal of California. July 2001.
JN 10-101248 27 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
that extinction may occur. CDFG recommends that these species be given special
consideration whenever possible such that the costs of future recovery efforts may be
prevented or reduced. California Species of Special Concern that may occur in the
Planning area are as follows:
· Short-nosed kangaroo rat
· San Joaquin pocket mouse
· Bakersfield saltbush, recurved larkspur
· Slough thistle
Studies conducted or reviewed in conjunction with the development of the MBHCP
confirmed only the presence of the recurved larkspur within the Planning area. The loss
of the aforementioned species would be a potentially significant impact due to their
status as Species of Special Concern as listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and/or by the California Department of Fish and Game.
Buildout in accordance with the General Plan Update, when considering urban and
public facilities designated land uses, would primarily affect the San Joaquin kit fox and
the Bakersfield cactus. Land currently suppoding kit fox and Bakersfield cactus may be
converted to urban development. In addition, there would be a potential loss of habitat
supporting the Hoover's wooly-star and the Tipton kangaroo rat. The habitat loss would
be reduced to the degree to which the lands can be acquired for preserves. The
classification of areas containing Bakersfield cactus, as protected or excluded under the
HCP, reduces loss of cactus habitat.
Previous study data did not indicate the presence of the blunt-nosed leopard lizard,
California jewelflower, San Joaquin wooly-thread, recurved larkspur giant kangaroo rat,
or the San Joaquin antelope squirrel in areas subject to future urban development.
However, since the studies were not exhaustive enough to confirm total absence there is
potential for some of these lands to support the species. Thus, future urban
development could result in the take of these species as well.
Many of the Planning area's sensitive plants are located in the rural northeast, but at
least a portion of several plant ranges could be affected by urban development permitted
under the General Plan Update. Bakersfield Cactus could be displaced by Iow-density
residential uses southwest of the Kern Canyon Road/Highway 178 intersection, by
resource-mineral petroleum and residential development in the vicinity of the Alfred
Harrell Highway. A large area of Bakersfield Cactus habitat north of the Meadows Field
Airport is designated for resource-mineral petroleum and agricultural uses.
Species which inhabit the Southwest and Northeast Focus Areas, would be impacted by
implementation of the General Plan Update. However, these species are explicitly
addressed in the MBHCP. In 1994, the City and County received permits under Section
10(a)(1)(B) of the United States Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the
California Endangered Species Act for incidental take of protected species in connection
with development projects.
Existing conflicts between species of concern and urban development have prompted
the City and the County to pursue a Habitat Conservation Plan and incidental take
permits: a permit under Section 10(a) (1)(B) hereafter referred to as 10(a) Permit of the
United States Endangered Species Act and a permit under Section 2081 of the
California Endangered Species Act. The MBHCP is designed to offset impacts resulting
from loss of habitat incurred through the authorization of an otherwise lawful activity.
J N 10-101248 28 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
The goal of the MBHCP is to acquire, preserve and enhance native habitats which
support endangered and sensitive species, while allowing urban development to
proceed as set forth in the General Plan Update.
MBHCP and implementing agreements and ordinances provide a method of collecting
funds for the acquisition and enhancement of habitat land for purposes of creating
preserves. Development projects within the Metropolitan area pay mitigation fees which
are used to buy habitat lands. These lands are managed by wildlife agencies or entities
they approve. Take avoidance measures are also listed in the MBHCP. Additionally,
the amount of habitat preserved must always be ahead of what is being developed.
Impacts to the aforementioned habitat would be mitigated on a project-by-project basis
and in accordance with the Metro's HCP program; therefore, reducing impacts to a less
than significant level.
It should be noted that the provision of relatively large areas of land as habitat preserves
as envisioned in the MBHCP is expected to provide habitat for additional species whose
"taking" is not subject to requirements as stringent as those applied to Federally
threatened species. Thus, the MBHCP would have a positive effect on the survival of
other species in addition to Federally threatened species.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Conservation/Biological
Resources, Land Use, Open Space and Parks Elements contains the following goals
and policies: CON/BR-G-1, CON/BR-G-2, CON/BR-P-1, CON/BR-P-2, CON/BR-P-3,
CON/BR-P-4, CON/BR-P-5, CON/BR-P-6, LU-P-47, CONRVR-P-8, OS-P-20, and PAR-
P-8.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE COULD INTERFERE WITH THE MOVEMENT OF WILDLIFE SPECIES OR
WITH MIGRATORY WILDLIFE CORRIDORS.
Impact Analysis: Major areas of remaining natural lands are found in the Kern River
Corridor and in the southwest portion of the Planning area. Some of the Kern River
corridor is subject to development under the Kern River Parkway Plan. However, of the
1,400 acres comprising the parkway Plan area, about two-thirds are reserved for natural
open space which will act as a dispersal corridor for kit fox.~3 Protection of the Kern
River as a dispersal corridor is an important part of any preserve system. For this
reason, the Section 10(a) permit will not allow City or County to permit incidental take in
the primary floodplain of the Kern River. Although the river corridor floods occasionally,
it is generally available for long range dispersal and can be effective in maintaining
genetic exchange and in allowing natural recolonization of smaller habitat areas. Project
implementation is not anticipated to significantly impact or interfere with the movement of
Kit Fox.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Conservation/Biological
Resources Element, Land Use Element and the Open Space Element contain the
following goals and policies: LU-G-6, LU-P-47, CON/BR-P-1, CON/BR-P-2, CON/BR-P-
3, CON/BR-P-4, CON/BR-P-6, and OS-P-20.
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Consen/ation Plan and Final EIR, August 1994, Page 69.
J N 10-101248 29 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COULD CONFLICT WITH A
POLICY/ORDINANCE (I.E., THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN) PROTECTING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Impact Analysis: According to the Conservation/Biological Resources Element of the
General Plan, the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern determined that the appropriate
approach to conservation of protected biological resources in the Metropolitan
Bakersfield area is through the habitat conservation planning process (i.e., the MBHCP).
In 1994, the City and County received permits under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the United
States Endangered Species Act for incidental take of protected species in connection
with development projects. "To conserve and enhance habitat areas for designated
sensitive animal and plant species" is an established goal of the Conservation/Biological
Resources Element. Through the ongoing discretionary review process, the City
preserves habitat and avoids take of protected species in compliance with the MBHCP.
The General Plan Update would not be in conflict with the MBHCP.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Conservation and Open Space
Elements contain the following policies: CON/BR-P-6 and OS-P-20.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
BUILDOUT OF METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY RESULT IN THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FIRE
FACILITIES OR PERSONNEL.
Impact Analysis: The City of Bakersfield Fire Department and the Kern County Fire
Department indicate that there would be an additional demand for fire services
associated with buildout of the General Plan Update. Currently, the City of Bakersfield
Fire Department's average response time for all emergency response calls is six
minutes. The City of Bakersfield Fire Department's goal is an on scene time of six
minutes or less. However, the City of Bakersfield Fire Department does not meet that
response time in all areas of the City. Fire stations operated by the Kern County Fire
Department within Metropolitan Bakersfield have been situated to meet an average
response time of seven minutes or less. According to the Kern County Fire Department,
the current level of fire protection, in general, is considered adequate in terms of service.
In order to obtain and/or exceed response time goals, the Fire Departments have
recognized the need for three additional fire stations located in west, nodheast and
northwest Bakersfield. The addition of the three stations would minimize travel times to
response areas as compared to existing fire stations. The stations would also provide
fire protection for residents and businesses by the year 2010.
In general, the Kern County Fire Department and City of Bakersfield Fire Department
have indicated that they have the capacity to protect life and property within Metropolitan
Bakersfield. With currently adopted procedures and policies, there are no conflicts
between City and County fire service responsibilities within Metropolitan Bakersfield.
As previously stated, a significant impact would occur if buildout of the General Plan
would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which would cause
significant environmental effects. Should buildout of Metropolitan Bakersfield occur at
optimum levels, additional fire and paramedic resources would be required to meet
future call volume and service demand. However, increased demand on fire services
J N 10-101248 30 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
could not be incorporated into existing facilities as many facilities are operating at or
near full utilization.
The General Plan Update includes goals and policies that serve to mitigate the impacts
to fire protection services as a result of buildout of Metropolitan Bakersfield. General
Plan implementation programs include that future city funding of fire protection
operations and maintenance costs would be provided through City General Fund Tax
Revenues. Additionally, bond issues, development fees, land dedications and/or
assessment districts would facilitate fire protection services. Furthermore, fire agencies
would mutually prepare and recommend area-specific ordinances to achieve efficiency
and effectiveness of emergency medical services.
In summary, the goals and policies, as stated below, would reduce potentially significant
impacts to fire protection services to less than significant levels.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Land Use and Safety Element
incrude the following goals and policies: LU-G-6, SAF/PS-G-1, SA/PS-G-2, SAF/PS-G-
3, SAF/PS-G-4, PSF/GU-G-1, PSF/GU-G-2, PSF/GU-G-4, LU-P-50, LU-P-79, SAF/PS-
P-l, SAF/PS-P-2, SAF/PS-P-3, SAF/PS-P-4, SAF/PS-P-5, SAF/PS-P-6, SAF/PS-P-7,
SAF/PS-P-8, SAF/PS-P-9, and SAF/PS-P-11.
BUILDOUT OF METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY RESULT IN THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL POLICE
FACILITIES OR PERSONNEL.
Impact Analysis: The City of Bakersfield Police Department has 1.3 officers per one
thousand residents. The Bakersfield Police Department would like to have this ratio at
1.5 because other cities of comparable size have this ratio. The Kern County Sheriff's
Department has 0.68 officers per one thousand residents within Metropolitan
Bakersfield. Similarly, the staffing ratio for the Lamont substation response area is 0.65
officers per one thousand residents. The Sheriff's Department would like their staffing
ration to be at 1.0 officer per one thousand residents.
Personnel needs for the City of Bakersfield Police Department and the Kern County
Sheriff's Department vary based on types and intensity of land use, the age of
development and a number of other factors. Thus, the number of personnel the Police
Departments deploy to a specific geographic area cannot be precisely calculated based
on population size. Currently, both City and County police facilities provide the minimum
space necessary to house both sworn and support staff. In the planning horizon year of
2020, there would be an increase of both population and development, which would
result in the increase need for additional facility space, jail space, personnel, programs
and equipment. Thus, implementation of the General Plan Update would result in
potentially significant impacts to the City of Bakersfield Police Department and the Kern
County Sheriff's Department.
The General Plan Update includes goals and policies that serve to mitigate the impacts
to police protection services as a result of buildout of Metropolitan Bakersfield. General
Plan implementation programs include that future city funding of police protection
operations and maintenance costs which would be provided through City General Fund
Tax Revenues. Additionally, bond issues, development fees, land dedications and/or
assessment districts would facilitate police protection services. Furthermore, police
agencies periodically review and update information system technology to increase
JN 10-101248 31 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
effectiveness of police operations and programs, such as the Neighborhood Watch
Program.
In summary, the goals and policies, as stated below, would reduce potentially significant
impacts to police protection services to less than significant levels.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Land Use and Safety Elements
include the following goals and policies: SAF/PS-G-1, SAF/PS-G-2, SAF/PS-G-3, LU-P-
50, LU-P-79, SAF/PS-P-1, SAF/PS-P-2, SAF/PS-P-3, SAF/PS-P-4, and SAF/PS-P-10.
BUILDOUT OF METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY RESULT IN ADVERSE PHYSICAL IMPACTS TO
SCHOOL FACILITIES.
Impact Analysis: Utilizing the average City of Bakersfield's student generation rates
(SGRs), buildout of Metropolitan Bakersfield would result in an increase of approximately
10,000 high school students, 6,560 middle school/junior high students and 17,460
elementary students? Average SGRs per single family detached household (maximum
scenario) in the City of Bakersfield are .253 ((.253 + .253)/2)) for high schools, .442
((.476 + .408)/2)) for elementary schools and .166 ((.132 + .200/2)) for junior
high/middle schools.
With many schools operating at, near and even above capacity, it is clear that existing
school facilities do not have the sufficient capacity to serve the additional students
generated from buildout of the General Plan Update. Thus, new facilities would need to
be constructed at the elementary, middle school/junior high and high school levels.
Development projects in Metropolitan Bakersfield would be subject to the payment of
development fees levied in accordance with Education Code Section 17620 and
Government Code Sections 65995, 65995.5 and 65995.7. School districts would also
collect alternative school fees on residential developments, in accordance with the
provisions of Senate Bill ("SB") 50. The payment of these fees would help to alleviate
the impacts imposed on school districts as a result of new development within
Metropolitan Bakersfield. In addition, the following goals and polices would reduce
impacts to school facilities to less than significant levels.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Land Use and Safety Elements
include the following goals and policies: LU-G-2, LU-P-50, LU-P-51, and LU-P-54.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY RESULT IN AN
INCREASED DEMAND FOR WATER AND REQUIRE THE EXPANSION OF EXISTING
FACILITIES WITHIN METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD.
Impact Analysis: Based upon a water consumption factor of 325 gallons/day/capita,
future growth could result in an increased consumption of approximately 38,480,000
gallons per day.~5 The net increase in future water demand caused by population
growth Js expected to be reduced as a result of the conversion of agricultural lands to
urban uses. Not all areas of Metropolitan Bakersfield would involve agricultural water
converted to developed land usage.
Assuming 39,500 dwelling units at General Plan Update Buildout.
Assuming 39,500 additional dwelling units at General Plan Update Buildout.
JN 10-101248 32 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
Expansion of development to the northeast would convert vacant and/or undeveloped
land to urban uses which clearly are not presently in agricultural production (the area
between the boundaries of Irrigation District 4 and the Olcese Water District). Currently,
a new water treatment plant is under construction.
The conservation of water supply through the City's long term program for banking
excess water through the 2800 Acres Recharge Facility is a key in maintaining the water
balance. On the average, there is an excess supply of 95 thousand acre-feet per year.
The 2800 Acre program allows the City to retain a portion of that water for future system
reliability. Further, overall water use tends to decrease over time as increased emphasis
is placed on both conservation and on recycling.16
Additionally, the City of Bakersfield has indicated that sufficient water supplies exist to
serve Metropolitan Bakersfield and it is anticipated that supplies would be adequate to
serve the projected growth indicated in the General Plan Update. Existing engineering
studies, which address the ability of Metropolitan Bakersfield's water supplies to serve
growth, provide data that indicates existing major water sources and water systems can
meet future growth potential in Metropolitan Bakersfield, with the possible exception of
the northeast non-district area. The groundwater recharge programs currently in place
and being considered are key components of the overall programs which wouJd assure
such adequacy.~7 In summary, the General Plan Update goals and policies would
reduce potentially significant impacts to water resources to less than significant levels.
Water Distribution
Approximately 43,000 acres of the land designated for these uses within Metropolitan
Bakersfield Plan are undeveloped; as such, an extension of the existing water system
would be required to provide water service to these areas.
Currently, there are no water distribution or water service areas east of the East Niles
and California Water service areas until the westerly boundary of Olcese Water District
is reached. However, this would change upon completion of a water facility in northeast
Bakersfield, scheduled to be constructed by 2003.
The water purveyors that serve the Metropolitan Bakersfield Planning area, including the
City of Bakersfield Ashe, Fairhaven, and Riverlakes Domestic Water Systems, California
Water Service Company, Vaughn Water Company, North of the River Municipal Water
District, Oildale Mutual Water Company and East Niles Community Service District, have
indicated that their respective water systems are currently reliable and that no significant
deficiencies exist in their facilities and services. Despite the fact that various
communities throughout Metropolitan Bakersfield are older and their associated
distribution systems would eventually need upsizing and/or replacement, existing service
to these areas is adequate. As Metropolitan Bakersfield grows, new facilities such as
water wells, booster facilities, water storage facilities, water transmission mains, etc.
would be required to keep up with demand. Existing facilities may also be required to be
upgraded or enlarged as needed.
The General Plan Update contains a number of goals and policies that are necessary to
ensure adequate water distribution service and/or facilities for the uses in Metropolitan
~6 Telephone Conversation with Gabrielle Kidwell, Engineering Technician Ill, Kern County Waste
Management Depar[ment. January 2 2002.
~7 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update, Public Services and Facilities Element. March 2001.
~8 Metropolitan General Plan Update, Public Services and Facilities Element. March 2001.
JN 10-101248 33 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
Bakersfield, and are intended to offset associated impacts. The General Plan Update's
goal regarding water distribution facilities is to ensure the provision of adequate water
service to all developed and developing portions of the Planning area. Policies state that
the intent is to reach agreement regarding mutually beneficial improvements in domestic
water service and distribution facilities as required to improve overall metropolitan
service capabilities. The objectives of the other relevant policies is to continue to
provide domestic water facilities which are contributed directly by developers; and
require that all new development proposals have and adequate water supply available.
Thus, the General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts associated
with water distribution and/or distribution facilities.
Goals and Policies Proposed in the General Plan Update: The Conservation, Public
Services and Facilities, and the Land Use Elements include the following goals and
policies: CONS/WR-G-1, CONS/WR-G-2, CONS/WR-G-3, CONS/WR-G-4, CONS/WR-
G-5, CONS/WR-G-6, CON/WR-P-1, CON/WR-P-2, CON/WR~P-3, CON/WR~P-4,
CON/WR-P-5, CONRVR-P-6, CON/VVR-P-7, CONRVR-P-8, CON/WR-P-9, CON/MR-G-
4, PSF/WD-G-1, PSFRVD-P-1, PSF/VVD-P-2, PSFAND-P-3, and LU-P-92.
BUILDOUT OF METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COULD RESULT IN INCREASED DEMAND FOR SOLID
WASTE SERVICES.
Impact Analysis: Implementation of the General Plan Update would not result in
additional impacts related to solid waste within Metropolitan Bakersfield. Furthermore,
due to the mandates set forth in AB 939, the California Integrated Waste Management
Act, the amount of solid waste anticipated as a result of development has been reduced
to lower levels.
Kern County's Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (ClWMP) contains
future solid waste disposal demand based on the City and County population projections
previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The Integrated Waste Management
Department (IWMD) database shows that the Kern County landfill system that serves
Metropolitan Bakersfield has capacity in excess of 30 years. This is well above the 15-
year threshold established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the State of California has required that by the start
of 2000, each city and county demonstrate a reduction of at least 50 percent in the
amount of waste from that jurisdiction which previously was routed into landfills in 1990.
The State requires that this level of reduction be sustained in perpetuity. As a direct
result of the California requirements, the City of Bakersfield and Unincorporated Kern
County have adopted Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (gRRE), which
implement measures to increase recycling within the City and Unincorporated portions of
Metropolitan Bakersfield. In 2000, the City of Bakersfield managed to divert 44 49
percent of its waste stream from landfills. According to the City of Bakersfield Public
Works Department, the City will achieve the 50 percent reduction mandate by 2003. On
the other hand, Unincorporated Kern County diverted 52 percent of its waste stream in
2000. Thus, achieving the 50 percent reduction mandate.
Implementation of the following General Plan Update goals and policies would reduce
any potentially significant solid waste impacts to less than significant levels
JN 10-101248 34 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Land Use and Public Services
and Facilities Elements include the following goals and policies: PSF/SW-G-1, PSF/SW-
G-2, PSF/SW-P-1, and PSF/SW-P-2.
PARKS AND RECREATION
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE WOULD RESULT IN INCREASED USE OF EXISTING RECREATIONAL
AND PARK FACILITIES, POTENTIALLY CAUSING PHYSICAL DETERIORATION OF
EACH FACILITY.
Impact Analysis: Future development would result in both direct and indirect impacts
upon existing park and recreational resources. Direct impacts to existing recreational
facilities could occur as a result of the anticipated residential development and the
corresponding increases in population. The projected population increase could
substantially increase the usage of existing recreational facilities such that their quality
would degrade and/or physical deterioration would occur or be accelerated. Further, a
population increase would aggravate the already existing deficiency of parkland in the
Planning area.
Indirect impacts to existing recreational and park resources would occur as a result of
the anticipated commercial and industrial development. Although it is uncertain to what
degree, the potential exists that employees of future commercial/industrial development
may increase the usage of existing park and recreational resources. The increased
usage of existing recreational facilities by future employees could potentially degrade
their quality and/or cause physical deterioration of each. Increased usage of
recreational facilities from future employees, coupled with the increased usage from
future residents, would aggravate the already existing deficiency of parkland in the
Planning area.
Funding from the General Fund in both the City and the County provides maintenance of
park sites within the Planning area, and through the creation of maintenance districts,
whereby residents benefiting from parks would pay all maintenance costs. The Parks
Element has identified implementation programs that would accomplish the following:
Establishment and implementation of an official park acquisition program to meet
current and future needs. The program would allow the use of "general funds for
park acquisition, development and maintenance" under certain conditions.
Establishment of a program of design and improvement review, landscape
development, and maintenance of parks, recreational buildings, and community
facilities.
Establishment of an interjurisdictional body whose function is to coordination of
development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities with other
public services.
Additionally, the Parks and Open Space Elements have included goals and policies
intended to address the maintenance of parks and recreational resources (outlined
below). Continued use of general funds, implementation of the specified programs, and
compliance with the goals and policies would reduce potential impacts to existing
recreation and parks resources fo a less than significant level. In addition, comp[iance
with Municipal Code requirements for new development relative to parkland
J N 10-101248 35 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
dedication/payment of fees would further minimize impacts to existing facilities through
the development of new facilities (refer to the Future Park and Recreation Resources
discussion below).
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Parks and Open Space
Elements contain the following goals and policies: PAR-G-6, PAR-P-12, PAR-P-22,
PAR-P-31, PAR*P-35, PAR-P-41, and OS-P-1.
THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD CREATE A DEMAND FOR ADDITIONAL
PARK AND RECREATION RESOURCES WITHIN THE t, IETROPOLITAN
BAKERSFIELD AREA.
Impact Analysis: Residential development and resultant population increase projected
with the General Plan Update would create a demand for additional parkland. As
indicated in Table 4.12-3, Estimated Parkland Demand, of the Final EIR, the anticipated
residential development and corresponding population increases would create a total
demand for approximately 890 acres of parkland based on National Standards and 840
acres of parkland based on policies contained in the Parks Element. Additionally, the
Recreation and Parks Master Plan has identified the future recreational needs of the
Planning area based on existing resources/programs, historic growth and use patterns,
resident input, and national standards.
In addition, the Recreation and Parks Master Plan has identified several policies
regarding future recreation programs including implementation of a policy making the
Department of Recreation and Parks the primary provider of public offered recreation
programs. The Open Space land use category, which encompasses a total of
approximately 18,000 acres or approximately seven percent of the Planning area. As is
evident, sufficient area exists for development of the parkland needed to meet the
demand for recreational and park resources (between 840 and 890 acres) created by
the General Plan Update.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66477 (Quimby Act), the legislative
body of a city er county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a
requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or
recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative map or parcel map.
Pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 15.80, and in compliance with the
Quimby Act, project applicants would be required to either dedicate land, or pay in lieu
fees, for development of park land. Developers of new residential uses are required to
provide 2.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. The anticipated population
increases would create a total demand for approximately 140 acres of parkland based
on the Municipal Code standard. The estimated demand for parkland pursuant to the
Municipal Code is less than the estimated demand based on National Standards.
However, developers would also be required to pay park development fees of $670 per
each new single-family residential building permit.
Pursuant to Chapter 18.96 of the Kern County Land Division Ordinance, Park Land
Dedication, North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District, as a condition of approval of
a tentative subdivision map or residential parcel map within the jurisdiction of the North
Bakersfield Recreation and Park District, the subdivider is required to dedicate land, pay
a fee in lieu thereof, or both, as set forth in this chapter, for park or recreational
purposes. This Chapter requires the dedication of 2.5 acres of land per 1,000 persons
and/or the payment of fees in lieu of land dedication.
J N 10-101248 36 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
Implementation of the General Plan Update would create a demand for additional
recreational and park resources. However, the Parks Element has identified various
programs for meeting this future demand. Implementation of these programs, in addition
to the goals and policies from the Parks, Open Space and Land Use Elements listed
below, would meet the future demand on a project-by-project basis. It is not anticipated
that the future demand would further aggravate the Planning area's existing parkland
deficiency. Impacts in this regard would be considered less than significant.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Parks, Land Use, and Open
Space Elements contain the following goals and policies: PAR-G-l, PAR-G-2, PAR-G-3
PAR-G-4, PAR-G-5, PAR-G-6, PAR-G-7, PAR-G-9, PAR-P-l, PAR-P-2, PAR-P-3
PAR-P-4, PAR-P-5, PAR-P-6, PAR-P-7, PAR-P-8, PAR-P-9, PAR-P*10, PAR-P-11
PAR-P-12, PAR-P-13, PAR-P-14, PAR-P-15, PAR-P-16, PAR-P-17, PAR-P-18
PAR-P-19, PAR-P-20, PAR-P-21, PAR-P-22, PAR-P-23, PAR-P-24, PAR-P~25
PAR-P-26, PAR-P-27, PAR-P-28, PAR-P-29, PAR-P-30, PAR-P-31, PAR-P-32
PAR-P-33, PAR-P-34, PAR-P-35, PAR-P-36, PAR-P-37, PAR-P-38, PAR-P-39
PAR-P-40, PAR-P-41, PAR-P-42, PAR-P-43, PAR-P-44, PAR-P-45, PAR-P-48
PAR-P-52, PAR-P-53, PAR-P-54, PAR-P-55, PAR-P-56, PAR-P-57, LU-P-50, OS-P-1
OS-P-7, and OS-P-8.
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
BUILDOUT OF METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY RESULT IN HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS
ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE TO RADON EMISSIONS.
Impact Analysis: In 1993, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the
United States Geological Survey released the California Chapter of the Radon Potential
Map of the United States (EPA's Map of Radon Zones, California, September, 1993).
This report identified the radon potential for each county in California. Radon potential is
classified into one of three designations or zones.
Counties in which potential radon levels are predicted to exceed indoor screening levels
of 4 pico curies per liter (pCi/L) are considered to be in Zone 1. The recommended level
at which corrective action to minimize exposure should be initiated to reduce radon in
structures is 4 pCi/L. Counties with predicted indoor radon screening levels between 2
and 4 pCi/L are in Zone 2, while those with predicted indoor screening levels below 2
pCi/L are in Zone 3. Kern County is categorized in Zone 2 which is below the level
recommended for corrective action. The radon potential map provides a generalized
indication of radon levels in California. Determining actual radon levels in buildings
requires detailed testing.
The General Plan Update does not specifically address environmental risks to human
health associated with exposure to radon emissions. Because of the aforementioned
EPA Study, the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department does not
believe there to be a serious radon exposure problem within the Metropolitan Bakersfield
area.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety Element includes the
following goal: SAF/PS-G-1.
JN 10-101248 37 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
BUILDOUT OF METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY RESULT IN INCREASED RISK OF UPSET
ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROUTINE USE, GENERATION, AND TRANSPORTATION
OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, WHICH MAY POTENTIALLY POSE A HEALTH OR
SAFETY HAZARD.
Impact Analysis: New non-residential development within Metropolitan Bakersfield may
result in an increase in commemial and industrial land uses involving the use of
hazardous materials or generation of hazardous waste. The types and quantities of
hazardous materials utilized by the various types of businesses that could locate in
Metropolitan Bakersfield would vary tremendously and, as a result, the nature of
potential hazards would also be varied. Such substances can range from common
automobile oil and household pesticides to chlorine, dry-cleaning solutions, ammonia, or
substances used in commercial and industrial operations. Since the General Plan
Update does not include any specific development projects, no specific type of hazard
associated with these materials can be identified and the likelihood of a hazard
presenting a serious health or safety to the public cannot be determined at this time.
However, it can be generally concluded that any additional non-residential development
within Metropolitan Bakersfield would result in an increase in the use and transport of
hazardous materials and an increase in generation of hazardous waste. The
consequence of this increased presence of hazardous materials in Metropolitan
Bakersfield is an increase in the potential for human exposure to these substances, with
possible public health and safety consequences.
Development based on the General Plan Update should have very little effect on the
amount of wastes associated with oil production since oil production is dependent upon
worldwide and not regional demand. Development in accordance with the General Plan
Update would slightly reduce the amount of wastes associated with agricultural
pesticides because development would reduce agricultural lands within Metropolitan
Bakersfield. Assuming that present hazardous waste generation rates remain the same,
implementation of the General Plan Update could increase industrial waste and
household hazardous waste. However, the County's Hazardous Waste Management
Plan (HWMP) includes waste reduction methods that would serve to reduce the amount
of waste generated.
New development that locates near residential areas or within N-mile from a school
could expose these sensitive land uses to greater risk of exposure to hazardous
materials, wastes or emissions. In most instances, a buffer in the form of a major street,
channel, or intervening land use separates residential areas from industrial areas. Also,
the General Plan Update Land Use Element has located industrial areas near State
and/or Federally maintained roads to avoid transport of hazardous wastes through
residential or other highly populated areas.
The Kern County and Incorporated Cities Hazardous Waste Management Plan (HWMP)
lists goals and policies regarding the transport of hazardous wastes. The HWMP
recognizes that transportation of hazardous waste on roads poses a short-term threat to
public health; of prime concern is the safety of the transportation system for hazardous
waste, especially extremely hazardous waste, in and through Kern County. The HWMP
seeks to establish State and Federally maintained roads as candidate Commercial
Hazardous Waste Shipping Routes in and through the County (except those necessary
to collect locally generated hazardous wastes). Aisc, implementation of the HWMP
would potentially allow the County to further restrict hazardous waste shipping on routes
JN 10-101248 38 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
which pose a threat to surface water bodies or aqueducts, or on roads which are
generally unsafe as determined by specified hazardous waste facility applicants'
transportation risk assessments and by guidelines afforded by the State of California
Depadment of Health Services and Vehicle Code Section 31304, and CCR Title 26
Division 6 provisions.
While the risk of exposure to hazardous materials cannot be eliminated, measures can
be implemented to maintain risks to acceptable levels. As described in the Settings
section, there are several federal, state and local regulatory agencies that oversee
hazardous materials handling and management. Oversight by the appropriate agencies
and compliance with applicable regulations are considered adequate to offset the
negative effects related to the use and transport of hazardous materials in Metropolitan
Bakersfield.
In addition, the following General Plan Update goals and policies would further reduce
hazardous materials impacts to a less than significant level.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety and Land Use Elements
include the following goals and policies: SAF/PS-G-1, SAF/PS-G-4, SAF/PS-P-7,
SAF/PS-P-8, LU-P-14, and LU-P-38.
ACCIDENTAL RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USES, STORED, OR
TRANSPORTED IN METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD MAY RESULT IN A PUBLIC
HEALTH RISK.
Impact Analysis: The increased use and transport of hazardous materials in
Metropolitan Bakersfield increases the potential for accidental releases of hazardous
materials. Typical incidents that could result in accidental release of hazardous
materials including leaking underground storage tanks, accidents during transport
causing a "spill" of a hazardous material, and/or natural disasters causing the
unauthorized release of a substance. These and other types of incidents could cause
contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to any toxic fumes that
might be generated. If not cleaned up immediately and completely, the same hazardous
substances could migrate into the soil or enter a local stream channel causing
contamination of soil and water. Contamination of the local groundwater table could also
occur. Depending on the nature and extent of the contamination, groundwater supplies
could become unsuitable for use as a domestic water source. Human exposure to
contaminated soil or water could have potential health effects depending on a variety of
factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure.
Accidental releases would most likely occur in the commercial and industrial areas and
along transport routes leading to and from these areas. Commercial and industrial areas
are distributed through Metropolitan Bakersfield, including concentrations of businesses
located in the Oildale, East Bakersfield, Urban Northwest, Urban Southeast and Urban
Southwest areas. Transportation routes include freeways and main surface streets.
The use and storage of hazardous substances is regulated by CalEPA, the State Water
Resources Control Board, Bakersfield Fire Department, Kern County Fire Department
and the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department. The California
Highway Patrol and the California Department of Transportation enforce hazardous
substance transportation regulations. The Bakersfield and Kern County Fire
Departments provide emergency response to accidental release of hazardous
substances. The Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of
JN 10-101248 39 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
1985 (or the Business Plan Act) requires that a business that uses, handles, or stores
hazardous materials above a certain quantity prepare a plan which must include an
inventory of hazardous substances on the premises. A Risk Management and
Prevention Plan (RMPP) may be required for businesses that use acutely hazardous
substances and are located in proximity to sensitive land uses. As part of the RMPP,
businesses that handle acutely hazardous materials must include a hazard and
operability study (HAZOP) which analyze potential hazards to sensitive populations in
the vicinity. The Bakersfield and Kern County Fire Departments oversee the submittal of
Business Emergency Plans, which are intended to mitigate potential releases of
hazardous substances and minimize potential harm or damage. Oversight by the
appropriate agencies and compliance with applicable regulations are considered
adequate to offset the negative effects related to the accidental release of hazardous
materials in Metropolitan Bakersfield. In addition, the following General Plan Update
goals and policies would further reduce hazardous materials impacts to a less than
significant level.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety Element and Land Use
Element include the forlowing goals and policies: SAF/PS-G-1, SAF/PS-G-4, SAF/PS-P-
7, SAF/PS-P-8, LU-P-14, and LU-P-38.
BUILDOUT OF METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF AIR TOXIC
EMISSIONS, POTENTIALLY INCREASING EXPOSURE OF RESIDENTS AND
EMPLOYEES TO AIR TOXICS.
Impact Analysis: As a result of buildout of the General Plan Update, new commercial
and industrial uses developed in Metropolitan Bakersfield would increase the potential
sources of air toxic emissions. Additional sources of air toxic emissions in Metropolitan
Bakersfield would contribute to risk of human exposure to toxic substances. Human
exposure to toxic air emissions could have potential health effects depending on a
variety of factors, including the nature and concentration of the toxic substance and the
degree of exposure. As with other toxic substances, people who face the greatest
potential for exposure to toxic air emissions are those who reside or work in close
proximity to emission sources. Toxic air emissions differ from other hazardous
substances in that air currents can easily transport them. While this allows these
emissions to be quickly carried over relatively large distances when released into the
open air (depending on atmosphere conditions), it can also cause the emissions to be
readily dispersed into lower concentrations.
The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (APCD) works with the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) and is responsible for developing and
implementing rules and regulations regarding air toxics on a local level. The APCD
establishes permitting requirements, inspects emission sources (commercial and
industrial facilities), and enforces measures through educational programs and/or fines.
Existing regulations, permitting requirements, and facility inspections by the APCD are
considered adequate to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. In addition,
the following General Plan Update goals and policies would further reduce impacts to a
less than significant level.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety Element and
Conservation Element include the following goals and policies: SAF/PS-G-1, CON/AQ-
G-l, CON/AQ-G-2, CON/AQ-G-3, CON/AQ-G~4, SAF/PS-G-4, CON/AQ-P-1, CON/AQ-
JN 10-101248 40 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
P-2, CON/AQ-P-5, CON/AQ-P-6, CON/AQ-P-7, CON/AQ-P-8, CON/AQ-P-9, SAF/PS-P-
7, and SAF/PS-P-8.
THE ACCIDENT POTENTIAL FROM AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHTS MAY IMPACT
STRUCTURES AND INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE FLIGHT PA'I-rERN OF MEADOWS
FIELD AIRPORT AND BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK.
Impact Analysis: As a result of buildout of the General Plan Update, structures and
individuals within the vicinity of the Meadows Field Airport and the Bakersfield Airpark
could be subjected to the potential of off-airport accidents. The Kern County Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) has established Runway Protection (Zone A),
Approach/Departure (Zone B1), Extended Approach/Departure (Zone B2), Common
Traffic Pattern (Zone C) and Other Airport Environs (Zone C) Zones for the Meadows
Field Airport and Bakersfield Airpark. These zone designations are identified by various
levels of risk depending on proximity to runways and specify maximum land use
densities and required amounts of open land. According to the ALUCP, Zones B1 and
B2 present "substantial" and "significant" levels of risk, respectively. Within Zone C, land
uses are subject to a "limited" level of risk. Additionally, a "negligible" level of risk is
associated within Zone D. At both airports, residential and commercial/industrial uses
occur within Zones B1, B2, C and D.
Development within each of the zones at these airports is regulated to ensure that land
uses are not people intensive, as demonstrated by the City's and County's commitment
to prohibiting new residential development in noise impact areas and avoiding
excessively tall buildings or large concentrations of people in areas detrimental to the
airport. The land use restrictions in the various zones provide the necessary limitations
to reduce the potential impacts of off-airport accidents to persons and property on the
ground. Specific land use regulations regarding FAA notification imaginary surfaces,
aircraft noise and building heights have been implemented according to the ALUCP to
reduce impacts due to aircraft overflight to a less than significant level.
The goals and policies, as stated below, would further reduce potentially significant
impacts to public health and safety from aircraft overflight to less than significant levels.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety and Circulation Elements
include the following goals and policies: SAF/PS-G-1, CIR/AP-P-1, CIR/AP-P-2,
CIR/AP-P-3, and CIR/AP-P-4.
BUILDOUT OF METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY RESULT IN AN INCREASE HAZARD ASSOCIATED
WITH TRAIN OPERATIONS.
Impact Analysis: There are a number of safety issues that would typically face the
general public and rail operators from daily rail operations. These issues include the
potential for accidents between vehicles and trains at grade crossings and accidents
involving pedestrians and trains. The established railroad right-of-way provides
separation from the rail lines to existing and future land uses, thereby reducing the
potential impact of a train derailment. Future structures constructed according to land
uses designations would provide additional physical separation from rail lines.
Adherence with applicable Federal, State and local regulations related to carrier
operation procedures would reduce the significance of potential impacts associated with
rail operations. The goals and policies, as stated below, would further reduce
J N 10-101248 41 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
potentially significant impacts to public health and safety from a derailment to less than
significant levels.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety Element and Circulation
Element include the following goals and policies: SAF/PS-G-1, SAF/PS-G-4, CIR/TR-P-
10, and CIR/TR-P-11.
MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT MAY RESULT IN THE LOSS OF AVAILABILITY OF
PETROLEUM, NATURAL GAS, SAND, AND/OR GRAVEL RESOURCES THAT
WOULD BE OF VALUE TO THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD AREA AND
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS.
Impact Analysis: The General Plan Land Use Map designates a total of 24,168 acres
within the Planning area as Mineral Petroleum (R-MP). Areas within this land use
designation are minimum five-acre parcels that contain producing, or potentially
productive, petroleum fields and mineral deposits. Aisc, this land use designation may
be used in combination with other designations.TM
The majority of the land within the R-MP category is located on the periphery of the
developed areas. However, a comparative analysis of Figure V-3 of the 1990 General
Plan and the Land Use Map indicates that other land use designations have been
extended into previously established oil fields including industrial in the nodhern portion
of the Planning area (i.e., Fruitvale Oil Field), and residential in the western portion of the
Planning area (i.e., Rosedale, Bellevue and Canfield Ranch Oil Fields).
Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update is anticipated to result in both
direct and indirect impacts upon continued resource recovery operations throughout the
Planning area. A mineral resource of local and/or statewide value located in areas of
current and potential resource extraction may be lost due to direct removal for
development. The construction of buildings and infrastructure would permanently
commit these sites to urbanization and potentially result in the creation of incompatible
development on the property and ultimately the loss of access to oil/gas fields and
sand/gravel extraction areas. As previously noted, the Planning area is a contributor to
Kern County's ranking as the nation's leading petroleum- producing county. The
Planning area also contributes to Kern County's status as the state's leading natural
gas-producing county and the state's second largest sand/gravel producing county.
Therefore, future development associated with Project implementation has the potential
to result in the loss of valuable mineral resources possessing local and statewide
importance.
The General Plan Update provides goals and policies that serve to mitigate the potential
impacts to mineral resources as a result of buildout of Metropolitan Bakersfield. The
General Plan also provides programs that serve to implement the goals and policies
affecting mineral resources. These programs include: resource maps within and
adjacent to the Planning Area which are to be utilized in the review of discretionary
permits; mineral resource zoning areas are to be designated, acceptable interim land
uses be determined and compatible land uses be planned around mineral extraction
areas; and local zoning ordinances amended to accommodate mineral extraction uses
outside of mineral resource zones be reviewed and updated periodically.
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update, Land Use Element, page 11-17.
JN 10-101248 42 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
The Goals and Policies, as stated below, would reduce potentially significant mineral
resources impacts to less than significant levels.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Conservation Element contains
the following goals and policies: CON/MR-G-I, CON/MR-G-2, CON/MR-G-3, CON/MR-
G-4, CON/MR-P-I, CON/MR-P-2, CON/MR-P-3, CON/MR-P-4, CON/MR-P-5, CON/MR-
P-6, CON/MR-P-7, CON/MR-P-8, CON/MR-P-9, CON/MR-P-10, CON/MR-P-II,
CON/MR-P-12, CON/MR-P-13, CON/MR-P-14, CON/MR-P-15, and CON/MR-P-16.
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED
TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS
The City and County of Kern having reviewed and considered the information contained of the
Final EIR, the Technical Appendices and the administrative record, finds, pursuant to California
Public Resources Code 21081 (a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines 15091 (a)(1) that changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which would
mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen to below a level of significance the following potentially
significant environmental effects identified of the Final EIR in the following categories:
Aesthetics, Soils and Agricultural Resources, Hydrology and Drainage, Cultural Resources,
Public Services and Facilities, and Public Health and Safety.
The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated are listed below.
The City and County of Kern finds that these potentially significant adverse impacts can be
mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of mitigation
measures identified of the Final EIR.
AESTHETICS
CONSTRUCTION
GENERAL PLAN
IMPACTS.
ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
UPDATE MAY RESULT IN AESTHETICNISUAL QUALITY
Impact Analysis: Construction associated with implementation of the General Plan
Update may affect views in the vicinity of a construction site. Graded surfaces,
construction debris, construction equipment and truck traffic may be visible. These
impacts would be short-term and would cease upon project completion. All new
development projects would be subject to environmental and design review on a site-
specific, project-by-project basis to ensure visual aesthetic affects are limited to the
extent possible. In addition, construction activities would be required to be consistent
with municipal code requirements and conditions of approval. Therefore, since
construction activities would be short-term and subject to site-specific requirements set
forth by the City and/or County, aesthetic/visual impacts resulting from construction
activities would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: There are no applicable goals or
policies regarding construction activities.
JN 10-101248 43 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
SOILS
Mitigation Measure:
4.2-1
Construction effects shall be evaluated by the City of Bakersfield and/or County of
Kern on a site-specific, project-by-project basis and subject to City and/or County
standards and conditions of approval.
AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY
RESULTIN CHANGES TO THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT WHICH, DUE TO THE
LOCATION OR NATURE, COULD RESULTIN AFFECTS AND/OR CONVERSION OF
FARMLAND.
Impact Analysis: The Planning area's forecasted growth is anticipated to result in the
direct removal of a substantial amount of prime agricultural land from production. This
direct conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses is anticipated to result in
secondary impacts upon agricultural operations located at the proposed urban-
agricultural land use interface. Consequently, the secondary impacts are contributing
factors in creating pressures for agricultural lands to convert to urban uses.
It is at the urban-agricultural land use interface locations where land use conflicts would
have the potential to arise. The degree of conflict is relevant to the sensitivity of the
proposed land use: the development of residential uses has the potential to result in
greater land use compatibility issues than would the development of non-residential uses
(i.e., industrial or commercial).
Existing farming operations may be adversely impacted by residential land uses. The
development of new residential uses introduces people, animals, and vehicies into areas
generally void of their presence. Consequently, adverse effects upon farming operations
are introduced including citizen complaints, pests, disease and weeds, increased
flooding and siltation, as well as increased traffic, vandalism/ trespassing, and theft.
More specifically, farming operations may experience an increase in complaints
regarding the adverse effects associated with noise and air quality from on-going
agricultural operations. Residential landscaping and ornamental trees may harbor pests
and diseases and function as vectors for pest and disease outbreaks potentially resulting
in widespread crop damage. Farmlands located adjacent to heavily traveled roadways
may experience trespassing, crop pilferage and damage to irrigation equipment.
Additionally, high-value crops and farm equipment may become prime targets for theft
by the encroaching urban population.
Conversely, the new residential land uses may experience adverse effects associated
with noise and air quality from ongoing agricultural operations. More specifically, the
new residents would experience noise from spraying, cultivating and harvesting
equipment and the diesel engines associated with irrigation and typical tractor use. Dust
generated by harvesting and other farming operations may pose a health hazard to
adjacent residents since dust particles can cause various respiratory ailments. Also, the
application of pesticides may extend beyond the target (i.e, farmland) contaminating
adjacent residential areas.
Unlike the residential uses, industrial and commercial uses have the ability to operate in
proximity to agricultural operations. Non-residential uses are not likely to experience
adverse effects experienced by residential uses (i.e., noise and air quality from ongoing
agricultural operations). However, existing farming operations may experience adverse
affects from industrial or commercial uses similar to those created by residential uses
JN 10-101248 44 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
including increased traffic, vandalism/trespassing, and theft due to the introduction of
people and vehicles into the area.
Because much agricultural land within the Planning area is found at the urban fringe,
there exists a potential for conflicts between urban and agricultural uses as development
at the urban fringe occurs. These potential conflicts may be especially troubling in the
Planning area because the General Plan would not require new urban uses to be
contiguous with other urban uses. The possibility clearly exists that small islands of
urban development may arise, surrounded essentially be a sea of agricultural uses.
Although the economic incentives for converting agricultural land will increase as the
availability of necessary urban infrastructure increases, temporary and potentially long-
term hazards and nuisances may result from urban areas being interspersed with
agricultural uses.
Overall, the greater the activity occurring at the urban fringe, the greater the pressures
for the urbanization of farmlands. Thus, forecasted growth may result in changes to the
environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use.
This potential impact would be most significant at locations where a considerable
amount of new development is proposed at the urban fringe. This potential impact
would be considered significant unless mitigated. The General Plan Update has
identified goals and policies for the avoidance of conflicts between agricultural and non-
agricultural uses. The goals and policies, along with the specified mitigation, would
reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Land Use and Conservation
Elements contain the following goals and policies: LU-P-80, CON/SA-G-3, CON/SA-P-I,
CON/SA-P-2, CON/SA-P-3, CON/SA-P-4, CON/SA-P-9, and CON/SA-P-10.
Mitigation Measures:
4.7-3 Future development which involves in-fill of the urban area as opposed to
development on the urban fringes shall be encouraged.
4.7-4
Sensitive subdivision design of lands near or adjacent to agricultural areas shall
be conducted with consideration given to the impacts of non-agricultural uses on
agricultural uses.
4.7-5
To reduce the potential for conflicts between agricultural and non-agricultural
uses. Sensitive subdivision design of lands near or adjacent to agricultural areas
shall be conducted including provisions for buffer zones (i.e., a road, canal, wall,
easement, or setback).
HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE
BUILDOUT OF THE PLANNING AREA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE MAY RESULT IN POTENTIAL FLOODING IMPACTS.
Impact Analysis: Some future development areas proposed for development may be
situated within the 100-year floodplain, thus, possibly exposing people or structures to a
significant risk involving flooding. Flood hazards are discussed in both the Safety and
Land Use Elements of the proposed General Plan Update. The City of Bakersfield and
County of Kern have identified flooding as a Key Safety Issue in the proposed Safety
Element.
J N 10-101248 45 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
There are three basic areas of concern regarding flood control in the Planning area
including the following: the development of evacuation procedures to reduce impacts in
the event of a flood, maintenance of the Isabella Dam and Kern River levees, and
development of flood control/retention basin facilities.
An important issue regarding flood control is the development of evacuation procedures
in the event of a flood. Although there is a one percent chance that the 100-year
floodplain will be exceeded in any given year, thus requiring evacuation procedures,
these procedures are necessary to reduce impacts of flooding in the Planning area.
Refer to Section 4.6, Geologic and Seismic Hazards, of the Finat EIR, for a discussion of
evacuation procedures.
The Kern River extends through the primary areas of development in the Planning area.
As a result, the maintenance of adequate flood control facilities is a high priority. With
the exception of the Lamont area (see discussion below), the Land Use Element does
not propose development within the Kern River's 100-year floodplain. However,
development is proposed directly adjacent to the floodplains boundary. Therefore, the
maintenance of the channel's capacity through the Planning area is imperative to protect
the safety of the residents. Overall, with the construction of Isabella Dam, hazards from
a 100-year flood have been substantially reduced for the Oildale/Bakersfield
Metropolitan area.2° Nevertheless, new development within the 100-year floodplain
would be required to be flood protected. The Plan's policies regarding the maintenance
of the Kern River adequately protect the areas adjacent to the channel from the risk of
flooding.
The greatest risk of flooding in the Planning area occurs south of Bakersfield in the
Lamont/Arvin area. Factors attributed to this risk include the lack of flood control
facilities along the Caliente Creek Channel such as dams and levees, and development
within the existing floodplain. Whereas the Plan's Land Use Element does not allow for
development along the Kern River floodplain, it does allow for development within the
Caliente Creek floodplain including industrial, estate residential, single-family residential,
and multi-family residential uses. The Caliente Creek floodplain is anticipated to
continue to experience flooding until localized programs and facilities can be
implemented.2~ The Plan recognizes this potential risk and recommends that measures
be implemented to minimize flooding effects on Caliente Creek. In an effort to mitigate
these potential flood hazards in the Lamont area, goals and policies have been identified
in the Safety Element to regulate flood flow on Caliente Creek. More specifically,
policies address the need for funding, planning, construction, and design of flood control
measures on Caliente Creek. This policy adequately addresses the problem in the long-
term, however, not in the short-term. As a result, mitigation has been specified below
which addresses flood control/retention basin mitigation.
Specific goals and policies have been included in the General Plan Update to decrease
potential flood hazards. Therefore, with implementation of the following policies and
mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety Erement contains the
following goals and policies: SAF/FL-G-1, SAF/FL-G-2, SAF/FL-G-3, SAF/FL-G-4,
2o General Plan Update, Safety Element, Flooding, December 2001.
2~ Ibid.
JN 10-101248 46 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
PSF/GU-G-1, SAF/FL-P-1, SAF/FL-P-2, SAF/FL-P-3, SAF/FL-P-4, SAF/FL-P-5,
CON/BR-P-2, and CON/WR-P-8.
Mitigation Measures:
4.8-1 Construct flood control retention basins to minimize flooding along Caliente
Creek.
4.8-2 The County's Flood Prevention Program shall be implemented for new
development in areas of flooding potential.
CULTURALRESOURCES
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY RESULT IN THE
DEGRADATION OR LOSS OF HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Impact Analysis: The urban area is projected to expand upon buildout of the General
Plan. The actual impact resulting from this expansion would depend on whether the
proposed development occurs in areas of high, moderate or Iow archaeological
sensitivities. Thus, potential impacts would be site-specific and an evaluation would be
conducted on a project-by-project basis. It is anticipated, however, that a greater
potential for impact would exist for development occurring in areas considered to have a
high sensitivity (i.e., high probability) for resources. Conversely, development occurring
in areas with Iow probability for archaeological resources would have a lesser potential
for impacts.
A way of determining impacts to paleontological resources is to estimate the potential for
discovery as a measure of likelihood that fossils would be discovered during excavations
into a given rock unit. This potential is based on the past discovery of fossils from that
rock unit. Paleontological potential does not measure the significance of individual
fossils present within the Project area since it is impossible to accurately predict what
individual fossils will be discovered. The possibility exists that older fossiliferous
alluvium may be present six feet below the surface since the remains of Pleistocene (ice
age) land animals have been collected from older alluvial deposits in Kern County. If
excavations penetrate below six (6) feet, there is a "low to moderate potential" for the
discovery of fossils. A "low to moderate potential" indicates that grading operations may
expose fossils during development. These activities could destroy any fossils present.
The destruction of such fossils could adversely impact the region's paleontological
resources.
It should be noted that for each incremental development, site importance must be
determined. Further, each incremental development would be required to comply with
all applicable State and Federal regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or
handling of cultural resources. It should be noted that the existing General Plan does not
contain policies pertaining to cultural resources. However, in consideration of the State
and Federal regulations, the policies specified in the Land Use Element, and the
specified mitigation, potential impacts upon cultural resources would not be considered
significant.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Land Use Element contains the
following goals and policies: LU-P-5, LU-P-7, LU-P-27, and LU-P-73.
JN 10-101248 47 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
Mitigation Measures:
4.10-1
AS part of the environmental review procedure, an evaluation of the significance
of paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources and the impact of
proposed development on those resources shall be conducted and appropriate
mitigation and monitoring included for development projects.
4.10-2
Development on land containing known archaeological resources (i.e., high
sensitivity areas) shall utilize methodology set forth, as described necessary by a
qualified archaeologist, to locate proposed structures, paving, landscaping, and
fill dirt in such a way as to preserve these resources undamaged for future
generations when it is the recommendation of a qualified archaeologist that said
resources be preserved in situ.
4.10-3
The preservation of significant historical resources as identified on Table 4.10-1
shall be encouraged by developing and implementing incentives such as building
and planning application permit fee waivers, Mills Act contracts, grants and
loans, implementing the State Historic Building Code and other incentives as
identified in the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance.
4.10-4
The preservation of significant historical resources shall be promoted and other
public agencies or private organizations shall be encouraged to assist in the
purchase and/or relocation of sites, buildings, and structures deemed to be of
historical significance.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY RESULT IN
INCREASED DEMAND FOR THE SEWER SYSTEMS THAT SERVICE
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD.
Impact Analysis: As stated in the 1990 General Plan, daily sewer flows are as follows:
100 gallons per capita (residential); 0.010 cubic feet per second per gross acre.
(commercial); and 0.105 cubic feet per second per gross acre. Additional major trunk
sewers would be required to serve the projected amount of urban growth associated with
the General Plan. It may be desirable, depending upon the timing with which growth
actually occurs within Metropolitan Bakersfield, to consider the siting and construction of
a new city treatment plant at a site west of Plant 3. The most desirable location of such
a site, if required, can onry be determined after actual growth patterns relative to trunk
sewer system and Plant 3 become evident.
Urban growth in the nodhern, industrializing areas of Oildale is dependent upon NORSD
plant expansion. Community growth to the southwest and south would not be
constrained by sewage disposal assuming continued, appropriately timed, expansion of
city wastewater treatment facilities. Currently, the City of Bakersfield anticipates that
Plant No. 3 would be expanded in approximately 2008. Continued urban growth to the
northeast would be dependent upon solutions to provide sewers either directly to Plant
No. 2 or through the East Niles system.
As stated in the existing conditions and referenced above, although current treatment
facilities are operating below capacity, existing facilities would need to be expanded to
accommodate the additional amount of wastewater generated by future development.
J N 10-101248 48 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
The General Plan Update includes goals and policies that serve to mitigate the impacts
to sewer services as a result of buildout of Metropolitan Bakersfield. General Plan
implementation programs state that future urban development would be required to be
serviced by centralized wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities, with the
exception of residential development on one-acre parcels or larger. Periodic revisions of
overall wastewater collection, treatment and disposal needs for the planning area, in
accordance with growth projections and trends, would assure capacities at treatment
facilities.
Of additional note, the Rosedale Specific Plan and Metropolitan Bakersfield General
Plan have recently been amended to address specifications for County Service Area No.
71. All proposed development at a density greater than one dwelling unit per three
gross acres, as well as all commercial and industrial developments, are required to be
served by a regional sewage collection and treatment system, subject certain provisions.
In summary, the goals and policies, as stated below, would serve to reduce the
significance of impacts to sewer services.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Land Use, Conservation, and
Public Services and Facilities Elements include the following goals and policies: LU-G-
4, PSF/SS-G-1, PSF/SS-G-2, PSF/SS-G-3, LU-P-52, LU-P-53, LU-P-54, LU-P 79, LU-P-
81, LU-P-92, PSF/SS-P-1, PSF/SS-P-2, PSF/SS-P-3, and CONS/SA-P-14.
Mitigation Measures: In addition to the goals, policies and implementation identified in
the General Plan Update, the following mitigation measure has been identified to reduce
potential impacts to less than significant levels.
4.11-1 Pursue the feasibility of the Kern County Environmental Health Services
Department, Kern County Waste Management Department and/or City of
Bakersfield Public Works Department creating a Wastewater Transport and
Treatment Facilities Master Plan.
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
BUILDOUT OF METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY RESULT IN HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS
ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE TO AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS.
Impact Analysis: The General Plan Update does not specifically address the
environmental risks to human health associated with exposure to agricultural chemicals.
However, certain geographic areas anticipated for development by the General Plan
Update are currently in agricultural use and as a result have the potential to contain
concentrations of agricultural chemicals due to the long-term application of pesticides.
General Plan land use categories which are currently in agricultural production areas
include residential, commercial, as well as industrial uses.
Human health impacts may be caused by pesticide overspray, pesticide drift, inadvertent
cropdusting of homes, and inhalation of pesticides by agricultural workers. However,
according to the Kern County Health Department, it is unlikely that development in
accordance with the General Plan Update would expose future residents to the affects of
agricultural chemicals because of the short half-lives of currently used pesticides, and
the fact that future developments would be hooked up to a central water supply which is
monitored for contaminants. Nonetheless, potential risks may exist for development
J N 10-101248 49 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
adjacent to agricultural land and estate residential uses that may use existing
contaminated wells. Also, potential risks to construction workers may exist as a result of
the inhalation of dust generated by grading activities.
The potential impact of the continued use of agricultural chemicals within development
areas would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the
following established standards: 1) agricultural chemicals are required to be used and
stored in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and local regulations and
guidelines; and 2) the use of buffers and barriers between agricultural and urban uses
would provide a separation during pesticide application operations. These buffers or
barriers can take the form of open space, roadways, utility corridors, canals, easements,
masonry or landscape setbacks. Pursuant to Section 17.08.150(a) of the Bakersfield
Municipal Code, residential structures are required to be setback a minimum of 50 feet
from all agricultural zones.
Implementation of the General Plan Update may result in human health impacts as a
result of exposure to agriculture chemicals. However, all new development projects
would be subject to environmental and design review on a site-specific, project-by-
project basis and would include a soils review to ensure human health affects are limited
to the extent possible. Therefore, impacts would be reduced to less than significant
levels with implementation of the specified mitigation.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety Element includes the
following goal: SAF/PS-G-1.
Mitigation Measures: In addition to the goals, policies and implementation measures
identified in the General Plan Update, the following mitigation measures have been
identified to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.
4.13-1
Where recommended by appropriate local, State or Federal agencies for
discretionary projects, soils shall be tested for concentrations of agricultural
chemicals prior to grading permit approval, whenever feasible. Contaminated
soils shall be excavated and disposed of at a certified hazardous waste disposal
facility whenever necessary.
4.13-2
Fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled through applicable requirements
(Regulation VIII) set forth by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District, including but not limited to; irrigation, paving of construction roads, and
limiting grading activities during periods of high wind. These practices would
reduce potential adverse health effects resulting from the development of
agricultural property.
4.13-3
Establish buffer zones adjacent to urban development proposals located
adjacent to agricultural areas, as recommended by the Kern County Agricultural
Commission,
BUILDOUT OF METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY RESULT IN HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS
ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE TO FUNGUS SPORES WHICH CAUSE VALLEY
FEVER.
Impact Analysis: The General Plan Update does not specifically address the
environmental risks to human health associated with exposure to fungus spores which
JN 10-101248 50 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
cause Coccidioimycosis, commonly referred to as Valley Fever. Development in
accordance with the General Plan Update could potentially expose the population to
Valley Fever. Grading activities associated with development have the potential to
release the fungus into the air, increasing the risk of infection to the surrounding
population. Much of the population generated by increased development would likely be
from areas outside the San Joaquin Valley and would be at greater risk of contracting
the disease than current Metropolitan Bakersfield residents due to a relatively lower
immunity.
Measures to reduce exposure to the fungus have had only limited success, due to the
vastness of the area in which the fungus inhabits. However, paving roads, planting
grass, and other measures that reduce dust where people live, work, or engage in
recreation, have been shown to reduce the incidence of infection. Sufficient wetting of
the soil prior to grading activities can also reduce exposure to airborne spores of the
fungus.
Development in accordance with the General Plan Update could put future residents at a
greater risk of exposure to Valley Fever; however, because fungus spores need to
become airborne in order to enter the respiratory tract of humans, and landscaping,
building pads, and streets associated with development would eliminate most fugitive
dust, the threat is more serious for construction workers than for residents. New
residents to the area are by nature at higher risk of being exposed to the disease for the
reasons listed previously. As a result, measures should be taken to reduce the potential
for exposure of the disease to future residents and construction workers. These include
measures to control dust through irrigation, landscaping, and use of concrete, and
prevention through public education.
Thus, implementation of the General Plan Update may result in human health impacts
due to exposure to fungus spores which cause Valley Fever. However, impacts would
be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the specified mitigation.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety Element includes the
following goal: SAF/PS-G-I.
Mitigation Measures: In addition to the goals and policies identified in the General Plan
Update, the following mitigation measure have been identified to reduce potential
impacts to less than significant levels.
4.13-4 Fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled through applicable requirements set
forth by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (Regulation
VIII), including but not limited to; irrigation, paving of construction roads, and
limiting grading activities during periods of high wind. These practices would
reduce potential adverse health effects as a result of exposure to
Coccidioidomycosis.
DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED UNDER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE MAY EXPOSE PEOPLE TO EXISTING AREAS OF HAZARDOUS
CONTAMINATION DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, DEPENDING ON THE
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT SITE.
Impact Analysis: There are numerous sites within Metropolitan Bakersfield that are
identified on one or more hazardous materials records list. Some of these sites may
have contained or currently contain hazardous materials sources, such as leaking
JN 10-101248 51 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
underground storage tanks. Hazardous materials releases from some of these sites
may have affected soils and groundwater in Metropolitan Bakersfield. Releases that
affect groundwater have the potential to migrate off each individual contamination site
and onto adjacent properties and/or public right-of-way. Construction activities
associated with development under the General Plan Update may adversely disturb soils
or ground water containing hazardous concentrations of contaminates.
For those buildings to be removed as a result of the General Plan Update
redevelopment which were constructed prior to 1978, the potential for asbestos
containing material (ACM) and/or lead based paint to be-found on-site is likely.
Demolition of these structures may produce solid waste containing asbestos and/or
lead-based paint. Improper handling and disposal of asbestos and/or lead-based paint
associated with demolition waste may pose a potential health risk to people.
Future projects resulting from development of the of the General Plan Update shall be
required to comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations and policies
regarding hazardous materials. Required hazardous materials review may include
additional analysis of hazardous materials records and/or preparation of an
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to identify and document potential health risks as
a result of the presence of hazardous materials in the vicinity of the site, in accordance
with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice E 1527-
94. In addition, the following General Plan Update goals, policies and mitigation
measures would further reduce hazardous materials impacts to a less than significant
level.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Safety and Conservation
Elements include the following goals and policies: SAF/PS-G-1, SAF/PS-G-4, SAF/PS-
P-7, and SAF/PS-P-8.
Mitigation Measures: In addition to the goals and policies identified in the General Plan
Update, the following mitigation measure has been identified to reduce potential impacts
to less than significant levels.
4.13-4 All new discretionary development projects shall be subject to environmental and
design review on a site-specific, project-by-project basis, including but not limited
to, an assessment to determine whether hazardous materials present potential
health affects to human health as required by the Department of Environmental
Services.
VII. FINDINGS REGARDING INFEASIBILITY OF MITIGATION
MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained of the Final EIR, Technical
Appendices and the administrative record, finds, pursuant to California Public Resources Code
21081 (a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines 15091 (a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures identified of the
Final EIR and, therefore, the Project will cause significant unavoidable impacts in the categories
of Traffic/Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, and Soils and Agricultural Resources.
JN 10-101248 52 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD RESULT IN AN
INCREASE IN TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR THE PLANNING HORIZON YEAR OF 2020,
WHICH IN TURN WOULD IMPACT THE LEVELS OF SERVICE OF ROADWAYS
WITHIN METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD.
Impact Analysis: Buildout in accordance with the General Plan would add significantly
to Metropolitan Bakersfield's population and employment base. Developed areas of
Metropolitan Bakersfield are anticipated to increase in land use intensity, and to a larger
extent, geographic expansion of the city would occur. Major expansion areas include
the southwest, northwest and northeast portions of Metropolitan Bakersfield. This would
lead to an accompanying increase in travel. These increases would cause traffic volume
to more than double in some areas. Daily vehicle trips would increase by 1.6 million to a
total of 2.6 million.
Circulation Plan
A Circulation Plan has been devised to avoid the congestion that would result from
buildout of the General Plan. Upgrades and extensions are planned for the freeway and
arterial systems as described below. Exhibit 4.3-8, Metropolitan Bakersfield General
Plan Circulation Element, shows the ultimate street system for Metropolitan Bakersfield.
Right-of-way should be reserved whenever possible for the ultimate freeway system.
Seven new freeways are planned: the Crosstown Freeway, the Westside Parkway, the
West Beltway, the South Beltway, the East Beltway, as well as a new alignment for SR-
58. These future freeway corridors are shown conceptually in Exhibit 4.3-8. Specific
Plan Lines must be adopted for the corridors which have not been adopted, to assist in
right-of-way preservation. If permanent structures could be avoided within these
corridors, future freeway construction would be simpler and less expensive.
The Crosstown Freeway (also called the Centennial Corridor) would extend from SR-178
near Baker Street, around the south side of downtown Bakersfield, to SR-99. The SR-
178 Corridor Study, prepared jointly by KERN COG, the City of Bakersfield, and
Caltrans, recommended this freeway alignment. This alignment was also recommended
in the Bakersfield Systems Study conducted jointly by KERN COG, the City of
Bakersfield, Kern County, and Caltrans.
The Westside Parkway is a continuation of the Crosstown Freeway extending westerly
across SR-99 along the north side of the Kern River to I-5. The first phase of this
freeway would only extend westerly to Stockdale Highway, west of Renfro Road. A
Specific Plan Line has been adopted by City of Bakersfield and Kern County for this first
phase. The remaining section to I-5 would be constructed in a later phase. The
alignment of the Westside Parkway was recommended in the Bakersfield System Study.
The Crosstown Freeway and Westside Parkway would provide necessary capacity for
east-west travel and relive congestion on SR-178 (24th Street corridor), SR-58 (Rosedale
Highway), California Avenue, and other existing east-west routes.
The West Beltway would link SR-99 from north of Bakersfield with I-5 at the South
Beltway, passing through the western portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield. The County
has adopted portions of the alignment for the West Beltway as a Specific Plan Line.
This freeway would provide a bypass and thus relief to SR-99 and provide an important
link across the Kern River from southwest Bakersfield to the Westside Parkway.
J N 10-101248 53 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
The South Beltway extends from SR-58 around southeast Bakersfield to I-5 near SR-
119 (Taft Highway). This corridor would aid local circulation as well as provide a bypass
of SR-58 through the City for regional and interstate trips. A recommended corridor has
been adopted by the City of Bakersfield and is shown in Exhibit 4.3-8. The County of
Kern is studying this corridor as well as alternatives at this time. The alignment shown in
Exhibit 4.3-8 is an alternative under consideration by the County.
The East Beltway is shown in Exhibit 4.3~8 in the area of Comanche Drive and
connecting SR-178 to SR-58 (connecting to the South Beltway). This corridor has not
been studied and may need to be lengthened to extend to an alternate south Beltway.
A new alignment of SR-58 has been recommended in the Bakersfield Systems Study
and is shown in Exhibit 4.3-8. This corridor would extend nodherly from existing SR-58
near Washington Avenue to the Union Pacific Railroad tracks then northwesterly to SR-
99. It would then parallel SR-99 to north of Seventh Standard Road, then turn westerly
to I-5. This corridor would provide congestion relief to SR-99 in central Bakersfield as
well as provide a continuous SR-58 freeway corridor to I-5. Caltrans has not adopted
this corridor at this time.
A new alignment for SR-178 is proposed from near future Vineland Road northeasterly
to Rancheria Road. This corridor would provide a new route to the Lake Isabella area
which would be more direct and wider than the existing road through the Kern River
Canyon.
Upgrading existing freeways would also be necessary. This would include the widening
of SR-178 from Fair'fax Road to Alfred Harrell Highway and widening the existing road
through the Kern River Canyon.
Upgrading existing freeways would also be necessary. This would include the widening
of SR-178 from Fairfax Road to Alfred Harrell Highway and widening the existing SR-58
from SR-99 to Cottonwood Road. These improvements would eliminate areas of spot
congestion.
Currently, plans are underway for several new arterials and arterial extensions.
Generally, the plans call for widening of existing substandard arterials to the full 110 feet
where possible with six travel lanes (four in unincorporated areas) and the extension of
the arterial system into the new growth areas. In some areas, the newly-extended
arterials would not need to have all four or six travel lanes constructed. The full
right-of-way width should be reserved, however, to allow for future expansion. New
arterial crossings of the Kern River are called for at Allen Road, Oak Street, Mohawk
Road and Fairfax Road (to China Grade Loop). Arterials are generally spaced at
one-mile intervals throughout the developed area except where topography or other
unique features warrant a different pattern.
In accordance with the existing street patterns in Metropolitan Bakersfield, the
Circulation Plan calls for collector streets (four travel lanes within 90 feet of right-of-way)
in a grid pattern on mid-section lines. This pattern is deviated from where physical
constraints are present, where collectors are not needed, or where existing development
precludes the grid pattern of collector streets. The objective of the planned street
system is to accommodate planned land development without traffic congestion. All new
streets and freeways, with exceptions of the Downtown area, should operate at Level of
Service C or better. For streets where the existing level of service is below "C", new
JN 10-101248 54 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
development projects on the affected streets must provide for appropriate mitigation so
as to not further degrade the level of service.
2020 Traffic Model
In order to estimate the effect of future traffic on the roadway system, the Kern Council
of Governments updated its traffic model to include the most recent data for long-range
regional transportation patterns (2020) (refer to Exhibit 4.3-9, Future 2020 Roadway
System, of the Final EIR). The traffic generated by a certain type of land use is
estimated by applying a representative trip generation rate to the amount of that land
use in the area under consideration. The traffic model uses a set of such trip generation
rates to calculate Average Daily Trips (ADT) trips by land use. The roadway system
used in the 2020 traffic model is shown in Exhibit 4.3-8. For traffic modeling purposes,
the traffic analysis study area is divided into traffic analysis zones (TAZs), and the
application of the trip generation rates to the land uses in each zone results in ADT for
roadway segments. Note the traffic model does not assume the ultimate number of
lanes for every roadway segment. The model assumes the number of lanes that would
be constructed in accordance with the finances that are projected to be available up to
2020. The ADT results of the traffic model are displayed in Table 4.3-7, 2020 Volumes
and Capacities - Freeways, Table 4.3-8, 2020 Volumes and Capacities - Expressways,
Table 4.3-9, 2020 Volumes and Capacities - Arterial Streets, and Table 4.3-10, 2020
Volumes and Capacities - Collector Streets, of the Final EIR. Additionally, traffic
volumes are displayed in Exhibit 4.3-10, 2020 Daily Traffic Volumes, of the Final EIR.
Roadway Capacities
ADT and volume-to-capacity ratios (V/C) for the General Plan Update traffic on all
arterials and collectors in Metropolitan Bakersfield circulation system are provided in
Table 4.3-9 and Table 4.3-10. As stated previously, all road segments with a V/C ratio
greater than one contain traffic volumes that exceed the capacity of the roadway. As
shown in Table 4.4-5, 2020 ADT Volumes and Capacity Analysis, numerous roadway
segments contain 2020 traffic volumes that exceed the roadway capacity.
Levels of Service
As shown on Table 4.3-8, Table 4.3-9, and Table 4.3-10, several roadway segments are
operating at a LOS "D" or worse (V/C ratio > .80). Exhibit 4.3-11, 2020 Volume/Capacity
Ratio, shows the level of service for all expressways, arterial streets and collector streets
in Metropolitan Bakersfield. The 2020 roadway system appears to have an outward
growth pattern, with infill of urbanized areas. Generally, the roadway system can be
broken down into for quadrants: northwest, northeast, southwest and southeast.
The northwest quadrant consists of the area that is north of SR-58 (Rosedale Highway)
and west of SR-99. Growth of the circulation system in this quadrant is anticipated to
occur outward from the City, and would include further infill of urbanized areas. Various
segments are anticipated to be below performance criteria standards and/or exceed the
roadway capacity. Examples of roadways that would contain deficiencies in the
northwest quadrant are Santa Fe Highway (Olive Drive to SR-58) and Calloway Road
(Brimhall Road to Stockdale Highway).
The northeast quadrant consists of the area north of SR-58 and east of SR-99, and
includes the City Center and downtown area. Deficiencies would be found within the
quadrant, including segments along the China Grade Loop (Round Mountain Road to
JN 10-101248 55 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
Alfred Harrell Highway), Golden State Avenue (Chester Avenue to SR-178), Columbus
Street (west of River Blvd.), California Avenue (Mohawk Street to Oak Street), Airport
Drive (Norris Road to Olive Drive), and the merge areas extending from SR-99 to the
downtown area.
The southwest quadrant consists of the area south of Rosedale Highway (SR-58) and
west of SR-99. The southwest quadrant is anticipated to be a very high growth area in
the near future. Roadways that would exhibit deficiencies in this quadrant would include
Panama Lane (Old River Road to Gosford Road) and Gosford Road (Stockdale Highway
to Ming Avenue).
The southeast quadrant consists of the area south of SR-58 and east of SR-99. The
southeast quadrant would mostly maintain Levels of Service of "C" or better, with
deficiencies of small segments in close proximity to the downtown area. Roadways that
would have deficiencies include Cottonwood Avenue (Brundage Lane to Casa Loma
Drive) and Panama Lane (Union Avenue to Cottonwood Road).
The downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Area and small infill projects are exempt
based on the Level of Service Ordinance in order to facilitate infill projects and
redevelopment. Furthermore, it is recognized that higher traffic levels are inherent to a
vital central core.
In summary, the KERN COG traffic model for the year 2020 identifies numerous
roadway segments that would exceed the level of service performance criteria
established by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Additionally, several roadway
segments would have average daily traffic volumes that would exceed the roadway
capacity. Although policies in the General Plan Update are intended to prevent streets
and intersections from degrading below Level of Service "C" based upon future 2020
modeling, and standards, impacts are significant and unavoidable and no additional
mitigation has been identified. Although this level of significance has been concluded, it
is important to note that the General Plan Update to traffic and circulation achieves the
City's objective which is to identify potential future potential future roadway deficiencies,
in order to establish necessary capital improvement programming and traffic impact fee
provisions to achieve the Level of Service standard.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Circulation/Transit, Land Use
and Conservation Elements contain the following goals and policies: CIR/ST-G-1,
CIR/ST-G-2, CIR/ST-G-3, CIR/ST-G-4, CIR/ST-G-5, CIR/ST-G-6, CIR/ST-G-7, CIR/ST-
P-3, CIR/ST-P-4, CIR/ST-P-5, CIR/ST-P-6, CIR/ST-P-7, CIR/ST-P-8, CIR/ST-P-9,
CIR/ST-P-10, CIR/ST-P-11, CIR/ST-P-12, CIR/ST-P-13, CIR/ST-P-14, CIR/ST-P-15,
CIR/ST-P-16, CIR/ST-P-17, CIR/ST-P-18, CIR/ST-P-20, CIR/ST-P-23, CIR/ST-P-24,
CIR/ST-P-25, CIR/ST-P-26, CIR/ST-P-27, CIR/ST-P-28, CIR/ST-P-29, CIR/ST-P-30,
CIR/ST-P-31, CIR/ST-P-32, CIR/ST-P-33, CIR/ST-P-34, CIR/ST-P-35, CIR/ST-P-36,
CIR/ST-P-37, CIR/ST-P-38, CIR/ST-P-39, CIR/ST-P-40, CIR/ST-P-41, LU-P-54, LU-P-
56, CON/AQ-P-10, CON/AQ-P-11, CON/AQ-P-12, CON/AQ-P-14, CON/AQ-P-15,
CON/AQ-P-16, and CON/AQ-P-18.
AIR QUALITY
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
GENERAL PLAN WOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS,
AND WOULD VIOLATE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS.
JN 10-101248 56 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
Impact Analysis: Short-term air quality impacts would occur during the grading and
construction activities related to buildout of the General Plan. Development associated
with buildout includes new development, redevelopment and construction of
infrastructure improvements. Temporary short-term impacts would include:
· Particulate (fugitive dust) emissions from demolition, clearing and grading
activities;
Off-site air pollutant emissions at the power plant serving the individual
construction site, while temporary power lines are needed to operate construction
equipment and provide lighting;
Exhaust emissions and potential odors from construction equipment used on the
construction site as well as the vehicles used to transport materials to and from
the site;
· Exhaust emissions from the motor vehicles of the construction crew; and
· Potential release of asbestos from building demolition.
Fuqitive Dust. Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust (PM10) emissions
that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive
dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the vicinity of the individual
construction site. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground
excavation, cut and fill operations, and truck travel on unpaved roadways. Dust
emissions also vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the
specific operations, and weather conditions.
Fugitive dust from grading and construction activities at individual construction sites is
expected to be short-term and cease upon completion of the individual project.
Additionally, most of the emitted material is inert silicates, rather than the complex
organic particulates released from combustion sources, which are more harmful to
health. Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes
more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Of a particular health concern is
the amount of PM10 (particulate matter smaller than 10 microns) generated as a part of
fugitive dust emissions. As previously discussed, PM10 poses a serious health hazard
alone or in combination with other pollutants. Control measures required and enforced
by the APCD under Regulation VIII would help to minimize these short-term emissions to
a less than significant level it a limited number of acres is disturbed at any one time
(limited disturbed acre should be coordinated with the APCD for each individual
construction site). The following three APCD Rules would apply to projects within the
General Plan area:
Rule 8010: Fugitive dust administration requirement for control of PM 10;
Rule 8020: Fugitive dust requirement for control of PMIO from construction,
demolition, excavation and extraction activities;
Rule 8070:
Fugitive dust requirements for control of PM10 from vehicle and/or
equipment parking, shipping, receiving, transfer, fueling, and serve
areas one acre or larger.
JN 10-101248 57 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
In addition, individual construction projects within the Metropolitan Bakersfield would be
subject to the following local zoning regulations:
· Water sprays or chemical suppressants must be used in all unpaved areas to
control fugitive dust; and
· All access roads and parking areas must be covered with asphalt-concrete
paving.
Compliance with San Joaquin Valley APCD Regulation VIII, the zoning ordinances, and
General Plan goals and policies would typically reduce PM10 fugitive dust emissions for
individual construction projects to a less than significant level. Larger or high intensity
construction projects near sensitive receptors may require mitigation beyond Regulation
VIII.
Vehicle Exhaust Emissions. Exhaust emissions from construction include emissions
associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from individual
construction sites, emissions produced at the respective site as the equipment is used,
and emissions from trucks transporting excavated materials from the site(s) and fill soils
to the site(s). Emitted pollutants would include CO, ROG, NOX, SOX, and PM10.
The APCD separates construction emissions from operational emissions when
determining significance. Construction projects that would emit more than the
thresholds listed in Table 4.4-2 would normally be considered significant. Each
construction project resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update would be
required to implement control measures during construction activities in order to reduce
the amount of emissions to below the significance thresholds, when possible. As
previously stated, on typical projects, compliance with APCD Regulation VIII would
mitigate fugitive dust emissions to less than significant levels; although large or high
intensity construction projects near sensitive receptors may require mitigation beyond
Regulation VIII (see GAMAQI Table 6-3).
The General Plan Update includes a Land Use Element. The intent of the Land Use
Element is to establish policy direction for land use decisions within the Plan area for
such issues as land use compatibility. Relevant goals and policies within this element
addresses such construction-related impacts as regulatory compliance with appropriate
air agencies and odor/dust control.
As previously stated, the Metropolitan Bakersfield portion of the Air Basin is designated
as non-attainment for 03 (State and Federal standards) and PM10 (State and Federal
standards). Any increase in these pollutants would create a significant and unavoidable
impact. Thus, buildout in accordance with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan
would incrementally contribute pollutants to the basin, resulting in a significant and
unavoidable impact that cannot be mitigated.
Goals and Policies in Proposed General Plan Update: The Air Quality Policies
include the following: CON/AQ-P-3.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures beyond the policies identified in the
General Plan Update, San Joaquin Valley APCD regulations, and the City of Bakersfield
and County of Kern development regulations are available to reduce this impact to a less
than significant level.
J N 10-101248 58 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
BUILDOUT OF THE GENERAL PLAN WOULD RESULT IN AN OVERALL INCREASE
IN MOBILE AND STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS WITHIN THE PLAN AREA
WHICH WOULD EXCEED SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR DISTRICT AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS.
Impact Analysis: The projected population increases in the Plan area would result in a
corresponding increase in the number of automobiles and vehicular pollutants. The
primary method of reducing pollutants that result either directly or indirectly from vehicular
exhaust (including ozone), is to reduce both the number of vehicular trips and the miles
traveled each day by local workers and residents. A large fraction of the remaining
stationary area source pollutants (from electricity and gas consumption) can be reduced
through energy conservation. In order to minimize the number of vehicle miles traveled
(VMT), land uses could encourage the location of jobs, housing, and shopping areas in
such a way as to minimize extra automobile trips. Reductions in vehicular trips as well as
vehicular miles can be accomplished over time through the application of wise, long-range
planning of land uses that provide comprehensive support for residents and workers, such
as shopping and employment.
Mobile Sources. Table 4.4-3 Mobile Source Emissions, of the Final EIR, cites the amount
of mobile source emissions expected at buildout under the General Plan. Mobile source
emissions are the major source of air pollution in the Planning Area. At the source level (a
single vehicle), mobile source emissions are expected to decrease during the next 20 years
due to technological improvements to engine emission systems, alternative fuels and
propulsion systems such as electric. Additionally, transportation demand management
would play an increasingly important role. However, with implementation of appropriate
policies and technological improvements during the next 20 years, mobile source emissions
are still anticipated to increase, mainly due to the increase in population and vehicular
activity.
Area Sources. Table 4.4-4, Area Source Emissions, of the Final EIR, cites the amount of
stationary source emissions that are anticipated to result from buildout of the General Plan.
Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for electrical
energy, which is generated from power plants utilizing fossil fuels. Area soumes are
sources that individually emit small quantities of air pollutants, but which cumulatively may
represent significant quantities of emissions. Water heaters, fireplaces, wood heaters, lawn
maintenance equipment and application of paints and lacquers are examples of area
source emissions. Electric power generating plants are distributed throughout the Air
Basin, and their emissions contribute to the total regional pollutant burden. The primary
use of natural gas by the land uses throughout the Planning Area would be for combustion
to produce space heating, water heating and other miscellaneous heating or air
conditioning.
Air quality impacts would be regional and not confined to the Planning Area limits. The
destination of motor vehicles, which are the primary contributors to air pollution, vary widely
and cross many jurisdictional boundaries. Future site-specific development proposals
would be evaluated for potential air emissions once development details have been
designed and are available. Individual projects may not result in significant air quality
emissions, although area-wide buildout under the General Plan would result in a
significant air quality impact as explained below.
Air pollution impacts from implementation of the General Plan are considered significant
because they would generate emissions of 03 (made up by ROC and NOX) and PM10
within an area designated as non-attainment for these pollutants. Goals and policies in the
JN 10-101248 59 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
General Plan Update would reduce the significance of such impacts; however, the impacts
would remain significant even after mitigation.
The Conservation/Air Quality, Circulation, and Safety Elements include goals and policies
intended to minimize mobile and stationary source impacts. Goals and policies within the
Conservation/Air Quality Element encourage pedestrian traffic, alternate forms of
transportation, incentive programs and regulatory compliance. The Element also includes
goals and policies that are aimed at reducing the amount of vehicular traffic and ensuring
the compatible placement of land uses. The Circulation Element includes goals and
policies to reduce trip time requirements and establish alternative transportation methods
and systems thereby reducing traffic congestion and ensuring the provision of adequate
transportation facilities. 22
Local CO Concentrations: A primary mobile soume pollutant of local concern is CO.
Carbon monoxide is a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, traffic flow conditions.
Carbon monoxide transport is extremely limited and it disperses rapidly with distance from
the source, under normal meteorological conditions. Under certain extreme meteorological
conditions, CO concentrations close to a congested roadway or intersection may reach
unhealthful levels, affecting local sensitive receptors (residents, school children, hospital
patients, the elder[y, etc.). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with
roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of services (LOS). In areas with
high ambient background CO concentrations, modeling of CO concentrations is
recommended in determining an individual project's effect on local CO levels.
Existing CO concentrations in the Plan Area are Iow to moderate with the highest recorded
eight-hour concentration of 7.67 ppm occurring in 1996 (State standard is 9 ppm),
according to published data at the Bakersfield-Chester Street and California Avenue
Monitoring Stations. Actual background CO concentrations in areas further from the
urbanized Bakersfield area would likely be lower than those measured at the monitoring
station.
Due to the fact that increased CO concentrations are usually associated with roadways that
are congested and with heavy traffic volumes, the APCD has stated that preliminary
screening can be used to determine with fair certainty whether a project would cause a
potential CO hotspot. Therefore, the APCD has established that if neither of the following
criteria are met at intersections affected by a developmental project, the project can be
determined to have no potential to create a violation of the CO standard:
· A traffic study for a project indicates that the LOS on one or more streets or at one
or more intersections in a project vicinity would be reduced to LOS E or F; or
· A traffic study indicates that a project would substantially worsen an already existing
LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in a project vicinity.
either of the above criteria can be associated with any intersection affected by a project,
CO Protocol Analysis would be required to determine significance.
As previously stated, the General Plan Update would not change land use or related trip
generation/distribution patterns beyond those anticipated in the current General Plan and
az The APCD's Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, revised January 10, 2002,
recommends mitigation measures by project type. Table 6-1 of this Guide lists those measures and is included in
Appendix 15.4, Air Quality Data, of this EIR.
JN 10-101248 60 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
associated environmental documentation. As such, the General Plan Update would not
further reduce intersection LOS or substantially worsen an existing LOS on streets or
intersections beyond the levels currently anticipated. As such, significant impacts related to
CO concentrations would not occur as a result of the General Plan Update.
Goals and Policies in General Plan Update: The Air Quality, Circulation, and Safety
Elements include the following goals and policies: CON/AQ-G-1, CON/AQ-G-2,
CON/AQ-G-3, CON/AQ-G-4, CIR/TR-G-4, CON/MR-G-4, CON/AQ-P-1, CON/AQ-P-2,
CON/AQ-P-4, CON/AQ-P-5, CON/AQ-P-6, CON/AQ-P-7, CON/AQ-P-8, CON/AQ-P-9,
CON/AQ-P-10, CON/AQ-P-11, CON/AQ-P-12, CON/AQ-P-13, CON/AQ-P-14, CON/AQ-
P-15, CON/AQ-P-16, CON/AQ-P-17, CON/AQ-P-18, CON/AQ-P-19, CON/AQ-P-20,
CON/AQ-P-21, CON/AQ-P-22, CON/AQ-P-23, CON/AQ-P-24, CON/AQ-P-25, CON/AQ-
P-26, CON/AQ-P-27, CON/AQ-P-28, CON/AQ-P-29, CON/AQ-P-30, CON/AQ-P-31, and
SAF/PS-P-7.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and
implementation identified in the General Plan Update and San Joaquin Valley APCD
regulations are available to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
BUILDOUT OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY CONFLICT OR OBSTRUCT
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY APCD AIR QUAILTY
ATrAINMENT PLAN.
Impact Analysis: The CCAA requires non-attainment districts with severe air quality
problems to provide for a five percent reduction in non-attainment emissions per year
(refer to discussion under Existing Conditions). The San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD
prepared an AQAP for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin in compliance with the
requirements of the CCAA. The Plan requires best available retrofit technology on
specific types of stationary sources to reduce emissions. The CCAA and the AQAP also
identify TCMs as methods of reducing emissions from mobile sources. The CCAA
defines TCMs as, "any strategy to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles
traveled, vehicle idling or traffic congestion for the purpose of reducing motor vehicle
emission." The AQAP for the Air Basin identifies the provision to accommodate the use
of bicycles, public transportation and traffic flow improvements as TCMs.
As indicated in the goals and policies included in the General Plan Update, the City is
actively pursuing and implementing programs that reduce air pollutant emissions. However,
the General Plan Update is considered growth inducing, both directly and indirectty,
although not to a greater extent than the 1990 General Plan. Since the General Plan
Update is considered growth inducing and as buildout of the General Plan would
generate significant and unavoidable emissions of O3 and PM~o (the Basin is designated
as non-attainment for both of these pollutants), the General Plan Update can be
considered inconsistent with the APCD's AQAP.
Goals and policies within the Air Quality Element encourage cooperation with the San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. The Circulation Element encourages
cooperation with County and regional agencies through participation in various
transportation programs. Based on the fact that air quality is closely related to
transportation, implementation of these policies would set the foundation for emission
reduction although not reduce emissions to less than significant levels.
Goals and Policies in General Plan Update: The Air Quality and Circulation Elements
include the following goals and policies: CON/AQ-G-1, CON/AQ-G-2, CIR/TR-G-4,
JN 10-101248 61 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
CON/AQ-P-1, CON/AQ-P-2, CON/AQ-P-4, CON/AQ-P-7, CON/AQ-P-10, CON/AQ-P-11,
CON/AQ-P-12, CON/AQ-P-13, CON/AQ-P-14, CON/AQ-P-15, CON/AQ-P-16, CON/AQ-
P-20, CON/AQ-P-21, CON/AQ-P-22, CON/AQ-P-23, CON/AQ-P-24, CON/AQ-P*27,
CON/AQ-P-28, CON/AQ-P-29, CON/AQ-P-30, and CON/AQ-P-31.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and
implementation identified in the General Plan Update and San Joaquin Valley APCD
regulations are available to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
NOISE
FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO AN EXCEEDANCE OF NOISE
STANDARDS RESULTING IN POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE
RECEPTORS.
Impact Analysis: Noise levels adjacent to SR-99, SR-58, SR-178, highways/
expressways and surface street links were modeled for the year 2020 to determine the
location and extent of existing and future vehicular generated noise conditions. Table
15.5-1 (Appendix), Exterior Noise Exposure Adjacent to Nearby Roadways, 2020,
(Freeways), of the Final EIR, indicates SR-99 and SR-178 would generate noise levels
at a distance of 100 feet from centerline that would exceed the 75 CNEL. All of the
identified roadways on Table 15.5-1, including SR-99, Westside Parkway, Crosstown
Freeway, SR-58, Highway 178 and Golden State Avenue, would generate noise levels
between 70 and 75 CNEL.
Table 4.5-11, Noise Impact Locations (Existing Roadways), of the Final EIR, shows
existing roadways that would be impacted by noise from future (2020) traffic volumes.
As indicated on Table 4.5-11, freeway noise would increase by approximately one to
four dBA, with the exception of SR-178 (Oswell to Fairfax Road), which would incur a
noise increase of approximately 6.52 dBA. Alfred Harrell Expressway would experience
a noise increase of approximately 5 to 12 dBA. Numerous arterial streets (120 roadway
segments) would also incur increases in noise levels. The arterial streets that would
have the largest increases in noise levels include: SR-58, Pacheco Road, Coffee Road,
Fairfax Road, Buena Vista Road, Allen Road and Q Street. Each of these roadways
would have roadway segments that would experience an increase in noise levels greater
than 8 dBA. The greatest amount of noise increase would occur on Pacheco Road,
between Old River Road and Gosford Road.
Table 4.5-12, Noise Impact Locations (Future Roadways), of the Final EIR, cites the
impact location, existing noise level and anticipated level of increase for these areas. As
indicated on Table 4.5-12, the Westside Parkway and Crosstown Freeway would both
have noise levels that would exceed 65 dBA. Also shown are numerous arterial streets
that would exceed the 65 dBA. However, no future collector streets would exceed 65
dBA.
Based on Table 4.5-11 and 4.5-12, existing sensitive land uses, primarily residential
areas, may be exposed to increased noise levels due to traffic increases. Due to the
fact that development between years 2000 and 2020 would exacerbate a current
exceedence of CNEL noise standards along several roadways modeled adjacent to
sensitive land uses, significant noise impacts would occur. The General Plan Update
provides goals and policies that are intended to reduce the severity of noise levels
associated with vehicular traffic as a result of buildout of Metropolitan Bakersfield. The
JN 10-101248 62 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
General Plan Update includes implementation measures which address traffic noise in
Metropolitan Bakersfield. Implementation programs include review of proposed
development plans to ensure compliance with City and County noise control standards.
However, it is concluded that goals, policies and associated implementation cited in the
General Plan Update would not reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. No
feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the significance of impacts.
Thus, significant and unavoidable noise impacts are concluded to occur with buildout in
accordance with the General Plan.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Noise, Land Use and Circulation
Elements include the following goals and policies: NOI-G-1, NOI-G-2, NOI-P-1, NOI-P-
2, NOI-P-3, NOI-P-4, NOI-P-5, NOi-P-6, NOI-P-7, LU-P-54, LU-P-55, LU~P-56, and
CIR/ST-G-3.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and
implementation measures identified in the General Plan Update are available to reduce this
impact to a less than significant level.
FUTURE OPERATION OF RAILWAYS WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT NOISE SOURCE
TO LAND USES LOCATED IN METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD.
Impact Analysis: As previously stated, Metropolitan Bakersfield is traversed by two
freight train lines: Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railway (BNSE) and Southern Pacific
Transportation Company (SPTCo). In addition to the freight train lines, Amtrak provides
rail service to and from Bakersfield and the Central Valley cities to the north. Railroad
noise contours are on file at the City of Bakersfield Planning Department. Railroad noise
contours should be considered as estimates of worst-case exposure since no
adjustments have been made for shielding provided by intervening topography or
buildings. Train traffic on rail lines is considered to contribute to a relatively minor
source of noise within the community due to the Iow frequency of operation. Although
noise levels from individual train movements on railways produce short term noise
impacts when they occur, such impacts do not occur frequently enough to produce a
significant noise exposure as defined by CNEL. In summary, implementation of the
General Plan Update goals and policies, as stated below, would ensure that noise
impacts associated with the operation of railways would remain less than significant
under future conditions.
Goals and policies in the General Plan Update: The Noise Element includes the
following goals and polices: NOI-G-1, NOI-G-2, NOI-P-1, NOI-P-2, NOI-P-3, NOI-P-4,
NOI-P-5, NOI-P-6, and NOI-P-7.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures beyond the goals, policies and
implementation measures identified in the General Plan Update are proposed.
FUTURE OPERATION OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AND
MEADOWS FIELD AIRPORT COULD BE A SIGNIFICANT NOISE SOURCE TO LAND
USES LOCATED IN METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD.
Impact Analysis: As indicated in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for
Kern County, the land uses within the 65 CNEL noise contour line for the Bakersfield
Municipal Airport are designated for public facility and/or commercial/industrial uses.
Land use designations within the 60 CNEL noise contour line primarily include public
facility uses and commercial/industrial uses. A very small portion of land, on the
JN 10-101248 63 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
southeast corner of E. Pacheco Road and Sparks Street, is designated for medium
density residential uses and is located within the 60 CNEL noise contour. Similarly, in
accordance with the AELUP, the land uses within the 65 CNEL noise contour line for the
Meadows Field Airport are designated for public facility uses and/or
commercial/industrial uses. A small portion of land on the east side of the intersection of
Airport Drive and Norris Road, is designated for residential uses and is located within the
60 CNEL noise contour.
While aircraft activity at both airports, Meadows Field and Bakersfield Municipal Airport,
are anticipated to increase, future aircraft operations would be required to comply with
the provisions set forth in the AELUP. Additionally, master plans for each airport have
been developed that will guide future development and operations at the airport sites.
The master plans would account for noise impacts created by expansion of facilities and
increased activity at the airports. Implementation of goals and policies in the General
Plan Update, as stated below, would ensure that noise impacts associated with
Meadows Field and Bakersfield Municipal Airport operations would remain less than
significant under future conditions.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Noise and Circulation Elements
include the following goals and policies: NOI-G-1, NOI-G-2, NOI-P-1, NOI-P-2, NOI*P-3,
NOI-P-4, NOI-P-5, NOI-P-6, NOI*P-7, and CIR/AP-P-4.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures beyond the goats, policies and policies and
implementation measures identified in the General Plan Update have been proposed.
STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES WITHIN METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD MAY
IMPACT ADJACENT LAND USES.
Impact Analysis: A variety of stationary noise sources are located throughout
Metropolitan Bakersfield, primarily consisting of commercial and industrial mechanical
equipment, air conditioning units, compressors and similar equipment. This equipment
is typically fitted with noise muffling devices. In addition, as part of the City/County
approval for any land use involving such stationary noise sources, the City/County
requires an acoustic study to demonstrate that the stationary noise source would not
exceed Noise Ordinance limits at the adjacent property line. The General Plan Update
includes implementation which address stationary source noise in Metropolitan
Bakersfield. Implementation programs include review of proposed development plans
to ensure compliance with City and County noise control standards. Thus,
implementation of goals, policies and implementation in the General Plan Update would
serve to ensure that stationary noise impacts are reduced to less than significant levels.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Noise, Land Use and Circulation
Elements include the following goals and policies: NOI-G-1, NOI-G-2, NOI-P-1, NOI-P-
2, NOI-P-3, NOI-P-4, NOI-P-5, NOI-P-6, NOI-P-7, LU-P-54, and CIR/ST-P-16.
SOILS AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION MAY RESULT IN THE CONVERSION OF PRIME
FARMLAND TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USE.
Impact Analysis: Historically, land use patterns of Iow density growth have contributed
to the conversion of prime farmlands in Bakersfield. A total of 2,523 acres of prime
JN 10-101248 64 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
farmland were converted to non-agricultural uses (urban/built-up land and other land)
between 1996 and 1998. This resulted in a net total of 534,509 acres of remaining
prime farmland in 1998.
Overall, a total of 4,153 acres of agricultural lands, including Prime Farmland, Farmland
of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing
Land, were committed to nonagricultural use between 1996 and 1998.23
As is evidenced by the data outlined above, a significant amount of Kern County "prime
farmland" has been taken out of cultivation in the recent past. Further, according to
Table 6, County Conversion Ranking, of the California Farmland Conversion Report
1996-1998, Kern County ranked third in top ten urbanizing counties (Riverside and
Orange Counties ranked first and second, respectively). This trend is anticipated to
continue as a result of the subdivision of lands associated with the Planning area's
forecasted growth. Project implementation has the potential to result in the removal of a
substantial amount of prime agricultural land from production. This is deemed an almost
"unavoidable" effect of future development since a vast amount of land in the
Metropolitan Bakersfield area is defined as "prime agricultural land". In effect, given the
extent of prime agricultural land in the Planning area, the impact of the conversion of
prime farmland to non-agricultural use is directly related to the designation of land uses
(i.e., the General Plan's Land Use Map). More specifically, a significant amount of land
defined as prime agricultural land could potentially be converted to other proposed land
uses. Land subdivision, the construction of buildings, and the installation of
infrastructure would permanently commit these lands to urbanization. This conversion of
prime agricultural land to urban uses would be considered a significant and unavoidable
impact since the proposed conversion would represent a substantial irretrievable
commitment of a limited agricultural resource.
In addition, the conversion of prime agricultural soils in the Planning area could result in
the conversion of marginal farmland to active farming in order to compensate for lost
prime farmlands. The benefits to be obtained from the development of prime farmland
may not be worth the risks that must be assumed. The destruction of prime farmland is
almost entirely irrevocable, and the production of crops on non-prime farmland generally
requires much more fertilizer, energy, and irrigation inputs compared with production on
prime farmlands.
Beyond land development pressures, water availability (and its cost) is also a factor
which contributes to determining the agricultural suitability of an area. A significant
podion of the land located in the northeastern portion of the Planning area experiences
deficient groundwater conditions and inadequate surface water transmission facilities.
Due to these conditions, the land in the northeastern portion of the Planning area is not
suitable for intensive agricultural production.
The General Plan Update has identified goals and policies which are intended to provide
for the planned management, conservation, and wise utilization of agricultural land in the
Planning area. While these goals and policies are successful in reducing the
significance of the impact of converting prime farmland to non-agricultural use, the
degree of impact continues to be considered significant.
23 Table A-45 of the California Farmland Conversion Report 1996-1998, Kern County-Important Farmland
Area (1996-1998 Land Use Conversion).
J N 10-101248 65 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
Mitigation has been outlined below with respect to buffers and right-to-farm ordinances.
Implementation of the General Plan Update's goals and policies, as well as the
specified mitigation measures, are anticipated to decrease the rate of the conversion of
agricultural land to non-agricultural uses and encourage the conservation of agricultural
resources. However, based on the Planning area's trend toward farmland conversion
and the General Plan Update's forecasted growth, this impact would not be entirely
eliminated. Therefore, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: The Land Use and Conservation
Elements contain the following goals and policies: LU-P-77, LU-P-80, CON/SA-G-I,
CON/SA-G-2, CON/SA-G-3, CON/SA-P-I, CON/SA-P-2, CON/SA-P-3, CON/SA-P-4,
CON/SA-P-5, CON/SA-P-9, CON/SA-P-10, and CONS/SA-P-14.
Mitigation Measures:
4.7-1 Buffers such as setbacks, berms, greenbelts, and open space areas shall be
established to separate farmland from incompatible urban uses.
4.7-2 Right-to-farm ordinances shall be implemented.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MAY CONFLICT WITH
EXISTING ZONING FOR AGRICULTURAL USE OR A WILLIAMSON ACT
CONTRACT.
Impact Analysis: The majority of the lands under LCA contracts are situated in the rural
areas in the northwest, southwest, south, and southeast. As a result, it is anticipated
that the majority of the land under LCA contracts would not be impacted by the growth
forecasted in the General Plan Update. However, by overlaying Exhibit 4.7-3 with the
proposed Land Use Map, it is evident that some of the lands under LCA contracts would
be lost to future development. Examples of LCA lands designated for uses other than
agriculture include Rosedale Ranch situated in the northwest portion of the Planning
area, and McAIlister Ranch situated in the southwest portion. Removal of LCA contract
protection lifts the restrictions specifically aimed at avoiding the conversion of agricultural
lands to other uses. With this barrier to development removed, the pressure to develop
placed upon neighboring LCA contract lands is further increased. Additionally,
landowners would no longer have the benefit of reduced property tax assessments. This
lost benefit would create an incentive for the landowner to utilize their property for a
more intensive land use such as urban development.
The Conservation Element (Soils and Agriculture) has identified an implementation
program with respect to LCA Contracts. More specifically, this program requires that
use of Land Conservation Act contracts be encouraged in areas designated for
agricultural land uses. Additionally, goals and policies have been established in the
General Plan Update which encourage the use of LCA contracts. Although goals,
policies and implementation programs are successful in reducing the significance of this
impact, this impact is anticipated to remain significant even after compliance with the
goals/policies. Therefore, the conflict with LCA contract lands resulting from Project
implementation is considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
Goals and Policies in the General Plan Update: Refer to the goals and policies
outlined in the Conversion of Prime Farmland section above.
Mitigation Measures: No feasible mitigation measures have been identified.
JN 10-101248 66 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
VIII. FINDING REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The City and County, having reviewed and considered the information contained of the Final
EIR, appendices to the Final EIR and the administrative record, finds, pursuant to Public
Resources Code 21081 (a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines 15091 (a)(3) that (i) the Final EIR
considers a reasonable range of project alternatives and mitigation measures and (ii) specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives as follows:
NO PROJEC~NO DEVELOPMENT
Implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that no additional
development would occur; thus, the Metropolitan Bakersfield area would maintain the status quo
of existing land use conditions and levels of development in the City of Bakersfield/Planning
area. Any development that would occur as part of buildout of the General Plan Update would
not occur under this Alternative. By definition, this Alternative prohibits the issuance of any
further building permits. This situation would void the implementation of any current or future
General Plan for Metropolitan Bakersfield, and would therefore be in direct conflict with
California statutes requiring General Plans.
It should be recognized that this alternative is not feasible. Implementation of the General Plan
Update is necessary in order to update of the City's land use database, delete redundant/
completed policies, goals and programs, and update maps, figures, text, charts and tables in the
existing General Plan to reflect current data/information.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
As required by Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, Existing General Plan Alternative
describes buildout of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area in accordance with existing zoning and
general plan land use designations under the policies and implementing strategies of the current
General Plan, adopted in 1990.
Implementation of this Alternative assumes that ultimate buildout of the existing General Plan
(1990) would occur. The current General Plan encompassed the same geographic area as that
in the General Plan Update. The anticipated growth identified in the current General Plan
involved the following projections:
· A net increase of 153,856 dwelling units
· Potential increase in commercial floor area of 46 million square feet
· Potential increase in industrial development of 50 million square feet
· A population increase of approximately 385,000 persons
No land use designations or their associated density standards or floor area ratios, were
modified in the General Plan Update. Further, no new land use designations (categories) were
added in the General Plan Update. It should be noted that while the General Plan Update
identified a demand for an additional 39,500 housing units in response to projected population
growth, these units were anticipated in the current General Plan. The General Plan Update
proposes the following revisions to the current General Plan:
· Deletion of redundant and/or completed policies, goals and programs.
· Revision to maps, figures, text, charts and tables to reflect updated data/information.
· Update of the City's land use database.
J N 10-101248 67 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
· Update of the Kern Council of Governments (COG) traffic model information.
· Revision to General Plan noise and air quality data based on the new traffic model.
None of the aforementioned revisions to the current General Plan would be made with this
Alternative.
J N 10-101248 68 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, decision-makers are required to balance
the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to
approve a project. In the event the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable". The CEQA
Guidelines require that, when a public agency allows for the occurrence of significant effects
which are identified in the Final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall
state in writing the specific reasons the action was supported. Any statement of overriding
considerations should be included in the record of project approval and should be mentioned in
the Notice of Determination.
To the extent the significant effects of the project are not avoided or substantially lessened to a
level of insignificance, the City and County of Kern, having reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project, and having
reviewed and considered the information contained in the public record, and having balanced
the benefits of the project against the unavoidable effects which remain, finds that such
unmitigated effects to be acceptable in consideration of the following overriding considerations
discussion.
The City and County finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen
project impacts to less than significant, and furthermore, that alternatives to the project are
infeasible because they have greater environmental impacts, do not provide the benefits of the
project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the project
findings.
The environmental analysis undertaken for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update
indicated the project would result in contributions to traffic (2020 traffic volumes), air
(construction emissions, vehicles miles traveled and consistency with air quality plan), noise
(traffic noise, railway noise, aircraft noise and stationary noise sources), and agricultural
resources (conversion of prime farmland and conflict with Williamson Act) impacts that would
represent a significant adverse environmental effect on a project basis.
The City of Bakersfield and County of Kern as Lead Agency and decision-maker for the project,
has reviewed and considered the information contained in both the Draft and Final EIRs
prepared for Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update and the public record. The project
benefits include the following:
· Deletion of redundant and/or completed policies, goals and programs.
· Revision to maps, figures, text, charts and tables to reflect updated data/information.
· Update of the City's land use database.
· Update of the Kern Council of Governments (KernCOG) traffic model information.
· Revision to General Plan noise and air quality data based on the new traffic model.
The Lead Agency makes the following finding, pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines, with regard to the Statement of Overriding Considerations for Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan Update:
California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 15093(a) states: "If the benefits
of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,
JN 10-101248 69 September 2002
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR
the adverse environmental effects may be considered 'acceptable'." Based on
the above discussion and on the evidence presented, the City of Bakersfield and
County of Kern therefore finds that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh
the adverse traffic (2020 traffic volumes), air (construction emissions, vehicles
miles traveled and consistency with air quality plan), noise (traffic noise, railway
noise, aircraft noise and stationary noise sources), and agricultural resources
(conversion of prime farmland and conflict with Williamson Act) impacts
associated with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Project, which can
not be eliminated or reduced to a level less than significant.
J N 10-101248 70 September 2002
m