Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 52-00RESOLUTION NO, 5 2 ' 0 0 A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. P98-0760 AND THE SOUTH BELTWAY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PROJECT SPECIFIC PLAN LINE (SCH # 97121010); AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield in accordance with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held public hearings on MONDAY, September 31, 1998, THURSDAY, October 1, 1998, Monday, December 14, 1998, Thursday, December 17, 1998, Monday, January 4, 1999 and Thursday, January 7, 1999 for adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and on Monday, December 13, 1999 and Thursday, December 16, 1999, for a recommendation to the City Council to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for General Plan Amendment No. P98-0760 Circulation Element Amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and the South Beltway Transportation Corridor project/Specific Plan Line, notice of the time and place of hearing having been given in accordance with City Ordinance (Title 17) provisions and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, such Environmental Impact Report is for General Plan Amendment No. P98-0760, an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, and preservation of a 300 foot wide freeway right-of-way corridor/specific plan line for the proposed South Beltway Transportation Corridor project generally defined as follows: General Plan Amendment No. P98-0760 Amendment to the Circulation Element adopting a new freeway alignment/specific plan line for the proposed freeway connecting State Route-58 and Interstate-5 and where the proposed alignment will be approximately 26 miles in length and 300 feet wide and will accommodate a six lane freeway and where the existing freeway alignment will be deleted as shown on the current Circulation Element being located between Panama Lane on the north, between Hosking Road/McCutcheon Road to the South, between Interstate-5 to the west and Vineland Road to the east, and along Vineland Road between Panama Lane to the South and State Route-178 to the north: South Beltway Transportation Corridor Proiect Specific Plan Line The South Beltway Transportation Corridor specific plan line is a 300 foot right-of~way, approximately 26 miles in length, east-west in orientation and extends from State Route- 58 in the east to Interstate-5 in the west crossing through central Kern County and the southern portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield; and WHEREAS, there are eight alignments under consideration for General Plan Amendment P98-0760 and the South Beltway Transportation Corridor/Specific Plan Line, and such alignments are as follows: ORIGINAL Planning Commission Recommended Alignment Beginning at I-5 then easterly along Taft Highway/State Route 119 to approximately one-half (1/2) mile west of the Taft Highway/State Route 119- Buena Vista Road intersection, then southeasterly approximately two miles to Progress Road, approximately throe-fourth (%) mile south of the Taft Highway/State Route 119-Progress Road intersection, then easterly approximately two and one-half miles to Stine Road, then southeasterly approximately throe-fourth (%) mile to Engle Road approximately one-fourth (1/4) mile west of the Engle Road-Wible Road intersection, then easterly approximately one and one-half (1 ½ ) miles along the Engle Road/DiGiorgio Road alignment to approximately one-quarter (¼) mile east of South "H" Stroet, then northeasterly approximately one (1) mile to approximately one-quarter (¼) mile south of Curnow Road, then easterly approximately one and one-half (1 ½ ) miles to the Adobe Road alignment (extended), then northeasterly approximately one (1) mile to the Panama Road-Oswell Street Alignment (extended) intersection, then northerly approximately two and one-half (2 ½ ) miles along the Oswell Street Alignment (extended) to approximately one-half (½) mile south of the Oswell Street Alignment (extended)-Hermosa Road alignment (extended) intersection, then northeasterly approximately four (4) miles to approximately one-quarter (1/4) mile west of the Muller Road-South Edison Road intersection, then easterly along Muller Road approximately two (2) miles to Comanche Drive, then nodherly approximately one (1) mile along Comanche Drive to State Route- 58. New Preferred Alignment {Rejected by the Planning Commission) Beginning at I-5 then easterly along Taft Highway/State Route 119 to approximately the Taft Highway/State Route 119-Buena Vista Road intersection, then southeasterly approximately one (1) mile to Old River Road, approximately one-fourth (¼) mile south of the Taft Highway/State Route 119-Old River Road intersection, then easterly approximately three (3) miles to Stine Road, then southeasterly approximately one and one-half (1½) miles to approximately one- half (½) mile east of the Engle Road-Wible Road intersection, then easterly approximately three and one-half (3½) miles along the Engle Road/DiGiorgio Road alignment to the DiGiorgio Road-Adobe Road intersection, then northeasterly approximately one and three-fourth (1%) miles to the Panama Road-Oswell Street alignment (extended) intersection then northerly approximately three (3) miles along the Oswell Street Alignment (extended) to approximately the Osweil Street Alignment (extended)-Hermosa Road alignment (extended) intersection, then northeasterly approximately one-half (½) mile to the East White Lane alignment (extended)-Fairfax Road intersection, then easterly approximately four (4) miles along the East White Lane alignment (extended) to the Malaga Road-East White Lane alignment (extended) intersection, then northeasterly approximately one (1) mile to Comanche Drive, then northerly approximately one-half (½) mile along Comanche Drive to State Route-58. OFIlGINAL Previous Preferred Alignment (Rejected by the Planning Commission) Beginning at I-5 then easterly along Taft Highway/State Route 119 to approximately three-fourth (%) mile west of Buena Vista Road, then southeasterly to approximately one-fourth (%) mile west of the Old River Road-Engle Road alignment (alignment extended), then easterly along the Engle Road alignment to approximately one-fourth (%) mile east of the Cottonwood Road -Engle Road alignment (alignment extended)/DiGiorgio Road intersection, then northeasterly to Hosking Road, then northerly along the Oswell Street alignment (extended) to approximately one-fourth (%) mile north of Hermosa Road, then northeasterly to Muller Road, then easterly along Muller Road to approximately one-fourth (4¼) mile west of Comanche Drive, then northeasterly to Comanche Drive then northerly along Comanche Drive to State Route-58. Old Preferred Alignment/Staff Aliqnment/Hosking Road Alignment (Rejected by the Plannin,q Commission) Beginning at I-5 then easterly along Taft Highway/State Route 119 to approximately one-half (½) mile west of Buena Vista Road, then northeasterly to the intersection of Old River Road and McCutchen Road, then easterly along McCutchen Road to approximately one-quarter (¼) mile west of the intersection of McCutchen Road and Ashe Road, then northeasterly approximately one-half (½) mile, then easterly approximately one (1) mile, then southeasterly approximately two and one-half (2 ½) miles to the Monitor Street alignment (extended)-Astor Avenue intersection, then easterly along Astor Avenue alignment (extended) to Cottonwood Road, then northeasterly approximately four (4) miles to White Lane, then easterly along the White Lane alignment approximately nine (9) miles to State Route (58). North of McCutcheon Alternative (Rejected by the Planning Commission) The North of McCutcheon Alternative is identical with the Old Preferred Alignment except for a minor variation and is generally located as follows: Beginning along the Old Preferred Alignment at a distance of approximately one- quarter (¼) mile south of the McCutcheon Road-Green Road intersection, then northeasterly approximately one-half (½) mile to approximately one-quarter (¼) mile north of McCutchen Road, then easterly approxima[ely two (2) miles where it connects to the Old Preferred Alignment approximately one-quarter (¼) mile east of Ashe Road. Taft Highway Alternative (Rejected by the Planning Commission) The Taft Highway/State Route 119/Panama Road Alternative shares much of the alignment of the Old Preferred Alignment and is generally located as follows: Beginning at I-5, then easterly along Taft Highway/SR-119 to the 3 ORIGINAL Panama Road-Union Avenue intersection then northeasterly to approximately one-quarter (¼) mile south of the Hosking Avenue-Cottonwood Road intersection, then northeasterly approximately four (4) miles to White Lane, then easterly along the White Lane alignment approximately nine (9) miles to State Route (58). Engle Road Alternative (Rejected by the Planning Commission) The Engle Road Alternative shares much of the alignments of the Old Preferred Alignment and the New Preferred Alignment and is generally located as follows: Beginning at I-5 this alternative alignment extends eastward along Engle Road, where between Old River Road and approximately one-half (½) mile west of South Union Avenue the alignment is the same as the New Preferred Alternative, then northeasterly to approximately one-quarter mile (¼) south of the Hosking Avenue-Cottonwood Road intersection, then northeasterly approximately four (4) miles to White Lane, then easterly along the White Lane alignment approximately nine (9) miles to State Route (58), where between the Hosking Avenue-Cottonwood Road intersection and State Route-58 the alignment is the same as the Old Preferred Alignment. Bear Mountain Alternative (Reiected by the Planning Commission) Beginning at t-5 this alignment extends along Bear Mountain Boulevard eastward to Malaga Road then north along Malaga Road to SR-58 and then northwesterly to where it connects to Kern Canyon Road/State Route-184. WHEREAS, for the above-described eight alignments under consideration for General Plan Amendment P98-0760 and South Beltway Transportation CorridodSpecific Plan Line an initial study was conducted and it was determined that the proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield is the Lead Agency for the project and the County of Kern is the Co-Lead Agency; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was filed with the State Clearinghouse on December 2, 1997, and sent to all agencies having any involvement in this project per Section 15086 of the California Code of Regulations; and WHEREAS, on January 15, 1998, the Planning Commission held a scoping session during a public hearing to receive comments regarding the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation; and WHEREAS, a Draft EIR (DEIR) was prepared and circulated to the State Clearinghouse and to interested parties and agencies on August 28, 1998 in accordance with CEQA for a 45 day review period ending on October 28, 1998; and ORiGiI~AL WHEREAS, the DEIR considered impacts which may result from General Plan Amendment P98-0760 (South Beltway Transportation Corridor six lane freeway and Specific Plan Line). WHEREAS, the Notice of Completion for said Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 97121010) on September 4, 1998 to start said 45 day review period ending on Qctober 19, 1998; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures, as revised May 6, 1998, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 1, 1998, during the public review period, focusing on the objectivity and adequacy of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, current oil and gas exploration and production, and the potential for future oil and gas exploration and production, exists within and adjacent to the future corridor of the South Beltway; and WHEREAS, Section 17.55.030 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code imposes certain construction restrictions within any adopted specific plan line, specifically including wells and other improvements; and WHEREAS, Section 17.55.020 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code allows adoption of a resolution accompanying a specific plan line to act as an amendment of Chapter 17.55 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to adopt an ordinance amending Section 17.55.030 of Chapter 17.55 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to assure that permitted uses are not inadvertently prohibited in the South Beltway Specific Plan Line, and specifically to exempt oil and gas related used from the restrictions contained in Section 17.55.030 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Notwithstanding Chapter 17.55 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, (a) oil and gas related uses, both surface and subsurface, that are permitted as a matter of right shall be allowed to be established, to continue and to be enlarged even though they may be located within the designated corridor of the South Beltway, (b) if an oil and gas related use is currently allowed by zoning within portions of the designated corridor of the South Beltway, the use(s) shall continue to be permitted after adoption of the South Beltway Specific Plan Line, and (c) this resolution is intended to act as recommended amendment of Chapter 17.55 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, specifically to exempt oil and gas related uses from the restrictions contained in Section 17.55.030 (A) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, as set forth in the EIR and findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted and incorporated herein make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR; and WHEREAS, Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as found in the FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE SOUTH BELTWAY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS and incorporated herein as though set forth in full; and WHEREAS, those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency (i.e., the County of Kern and the State of California) and have been, or can and should be adopted by that other agency: and WHEREAS, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the certain mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, on December 14 and 17, 1998, January4 and 7, 1999, and December 13 and 16, 1999, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the Draft EIR, General Plan Amendment P98-0760 (Circulation Element) and the South Beltway Transportation Corridor Specific Plan Line; and WHEREAS, on January 7, 1999, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an additional environmental evaluation for an additional alternative alignment located south of Taft Highway; and WHEREAS, in order to provide greater public participation, property owners within one-half mile of each alternative alignment, were noticed individually of the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and the public hearings conducted on December 14 and 17, 1998, January4 and 7, 1999, and December 13 and 16, 1999; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 1999, by Resolution No. 213-99, the Planning Commission adopted findings and recommended certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for General Plan Amendment P98-0760 and the South Beltway Transportation Corridor/Specific Plan Line, subject to mitigation measures shown on the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Exhibit "C") and this Council has fully considered the findings made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and WHEREAS, the environmental record prepared in conjunction with the project includes the following: 1. The Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report; 2. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, letters, minutes of meetings, and other documents prepared by the consultants relating to the project; 3. All testimony, documents, and evidence presented by the City and consultants working with the City relating to the project; 4. The proceedings before the Planning Commission relating to the project ORIGINAL and DEIR, including testimony and documenting evidence introduced at the public hearings; and 5. Matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission which it considers, including but not limited to, the following: a. The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan; b. City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance; c. City of Bakersfield Municipal Code; and d. Other adopted policies and ordinances of the City. WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 the Final EIR consists of the following: 1. The Draft EIR; 2. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; 3. A list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; 4. The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR for General Plan Amendment P98-0760 and the South Beltway Transportation Corridor Specific Plan Line was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, the City Council considered the following direction regarding "standards for adequacy of an EIR": CEQA Guidelines Section 15151: An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at fuel disclosure; and ORIGINAL WHEREAS, the Findings of Facts in Support of the Findings for Significant Environmental Effects of General Plan Amendment P98-0760 and the South Beltway Transportation Corridor project is attached as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Section 15092, the City Council finds that except for loss of prime agricultural lands and growth inducing impacts, all other impacts on the environment identified as significant in the EIR have been eliminated or the affects have been substantially lessened, where feasible, subsequent to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 the City Council has determined that the remaining significant impacts to loss of prime agricultural lands and growth inducing impacts are acceptable due to Overriding concerns as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, and as shown on Exhibit "B"; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 the City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Consideration with supporting reasons related to loss of agricultural land and growth inducement as shown on Exhibit "B"; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Mitigation Monitoring Plan containing mitigation measures and the monitoring program for implementing the adopted mitigation measures is attached as Exhibit "C"; and WHEREAS, mitigation measures will be implemented by the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern and the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern would have limited mitigation implementation authority, and the State of California would be primarily responsible for implementing mitigation measures; 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, May 24, 2000, on the above described proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of 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 circulation; and WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Environmental Impact Reports as set forth in CEQA and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures, have been duly followed by City staff and the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings: 1. The above recitals and findings, together with the Findings of Facts, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, are true and correct and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this matter. 2. The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and ali reports ORIGINAL and papers relevant thereto, has been transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning Commission to the City Council. 3. Potentially Significant Impacts that have been mitigated: Exhibit "C", the Mitigation Monitoring Plan describes those impacts identified by the EIR as significant. As to each of said impacts, the Planning Commission hereby finds that mitigation incorporated into the project avoids impacts or mitigates such impacts to less than a significant level. Each of the impacts and the facts substantiating this finding are as set forth in Exhibit "A". 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Exhibit "C") contains the mitigation measures and the monitoring responsibilities, and the Planning Commission recommends approval of this plan as implementation of mitigation measures for the South Beltway Transportation Corridor project. 5. The City Council has considered environmental impacts associated with the "Planning Commission recommended" alignment and the other "alternative" alignments. 6. The proposed project will have significant effects which cannot be reduced to a level below significance based on proposed mitigation. Significant effects which cannot be reduced are as follows: a. Loss of prime agricultural land; and b. Growth inducing impacts. 7. The Final EIR is incorporated herein by reference. 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 by reference, are true and correct and constitute the findings in this matter. 2. The City Council hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Repod for General Plan Amendment P98-0760 of the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and South Beltway Transportation Corridor Specific Plan Line, and where the alignments considered by this Council are shown on the map marked Exhibit "D" attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth, subject to mitigation measures shown on the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Exhibit "C"). 3. The Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Exhibit "B" is hereby adopted as fully set forth herein. 4. The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports ORIGINAL and papers relevant thereto, transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning Commission to the City Council, is hereby received, accepted and approved. 5. The Planning 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 the State CEQA Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto. ......... 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 M&Y 9,4 2000 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, ROWLES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMSER CITY CLERK and Ex Officio C~rk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED MAY ?-,A 2000 APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN City Attorney By: S:\Dole\SBW\SBW CC FEIR Certification.wpd ]0 ORiGiNAL EXHIBIT A FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE SOUTH BELTWAY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS INTRODUCTION The California environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provide 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: 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 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." Five alternative alignments were evaluated and documented in a 1998 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the South Beltway Transportation Corridor. At the request of the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission, an additional alignment, referred to as the "previous preferred alignment," was defined and evaluated in a separate report titled "Additional Environmental Evaluation" dated November 17, 1999. These documents identified significant effects that may occur as a result of the project. On December 16, 1999, the Commission directed staff to meet with the Planning Commission Traffic and Circulation Committee and select an "alignment" which would have fewer impacts on families, homes, cultural facilities and businesses. This alignment is referred to as the "new preferred alignment". During the Planning Commission public hearing on February 17, 2000, the Commission amended the "new preferred alignment", hereafter known as the "Planning Commission Recommended Alignment", and recommended approval of such alignment. The "new preferred alignment" and the "Planning Commission recommended alignment" did not indicate any new significant information which: O~INAL EXHIBIT A A) Disclosed a new substantial environmental impact resulting from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; B) Disclosed a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact; c) Disclosed a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that clearly would lessen the impacts of the project, and which the City declined to adopt; and D) Disclosed that the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that public comment on the draft was in effect meaningless. Thus the Commission determined that the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report and the Additional Environmental Evaluation sufficiently addressed impacts resulting from the "new preferred alignment" and the "Planning Commission recommended alignment". Adoption of this Statement of Findings of Fact allows the City of Bakersfield to approve an adopted alignment for the South Beltway Corridor within the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Actions related to right-of-way preservation within the selected corridor including, but not restricted to, right-of-way acquisition and consideration of development proposals will be reviewed based on the documentation in the EIR. SOUTH BELTWAY ALIGNMENTS Alignment Alternatives The Planning Commission conducted Environmental Impact Report and General Plan public hearings and took public testimony on the South Beltway alternative alignments. These alignments are as follows: The Planning Commission Recommended Alignment is generally located as follows: Planninq Commission Recommended AliRnment Beginning at I-5 then easterly along Taft Highway/State Route 119 to approximately one-half (1/2) mile west of the Taft Highway/State Route 119- Buena Vista Road intersection, then southeasterty approximately two miles to Progress Road, approximately three-fourth (%) mile south of the Taft Highway/State Route 1 19-Progress Road intersection, then easterly approximately two and one-half miles to Stine Road, then southeasterly approximately three-fourth (%) mile to Engle Road approximately one-fourth (1/4) mile west of the Engle Road-Wible Road intersection, then easterly ORI(~I~AL EXHIBIT A approximately one and one-half (1 ½ ) miles along the Engle Road/DiGiorgio Road alignment to approximately one-quarter (¼) mile east of South "H" Street, then northeasterly approximately one (1) mile to approximately one-quarter (¼) mile south of Curnow Road, then easterly approximately one and one-half (1 ½ ) miles to the Adobe Road alignment (extended), then northeasterly approximately one (1) mile to the Panama Road-Osweil Street Alignment (extended) intersection, then northerly approximately two and one-half (2 ½ ) miles along the Oswell Street Alignment (extended) to approximately one-half (½) mile south of the Oswell Street Alignment (extended)-Hermosa Road alignment (extended) intersection, then northeasterly approximately four (4) miles to approximately one-quarter (1/4) mile west of the Muller Road-South Edison Road intersection, then easterly along Muller Road approximately two (2) miles to Comanche Drive, then northerly approximately one (1) mile along Comanche Drive to State Route- 58. The New Preferred Alignment is generally located as follows: New Preferred Ali,qnment Beginning at I-5 then easterly along Taft Highway/State Route 119 to approximately the Taft Highway/State Route 119-Buena Vista Road intersection, then southeasterly approximately one (1) mile to Old River Road, approximately one-fourth (¼) mile south of the Taft Highway/State Route 119-Oid River Road intersection, then easterly approximately three (3) miles to Stine Road, then southeasterly approximately one and one-half (1½) miles to approximately one- half (½) mile east of the Engle Road-Wible Road intersection, then easterly approximately three and one-half (3½) miles along the Engle Road/DiGiorgio Road alignment to the DiGiorgio Road-Adobe Road intersection, then northeasterly approximately one and three-fourth (1%) miles to the Panama Road-Oswell Street alignment (extended) intersection then northerly approximately three (3) miles along the Oswell Street Alignment (extended) to approximately the Oswell Street Alignment (extended)-Hermosa Road alignment (extended) intersection, then northeasterly approximately one-half (½) mile to the East White Lane alignment (extended)-Fairfax Road intersection, then easterly approximately four (4) miles along the East White Lane alignment (extended) to the Malaga Road-East White Lane alignment (extended) intersection, then northeasterly approximately one (1) mile to Comanche Drive, then northerly approximately one-half (%) mile along Comanche Drive to State Route-58. The Previous Preferred Alignment is generally located as follows: Previous Preferred Ali.qnment Beginning at I-5 then easterly along Taft Highway/State Route 119 to approximately three-fourth (%) mile west of Buena Vista Road, then southeasterly to approximately one-fourth (¼) mile west of the Old River Road-Engle Road alignment (alignment extended), then easterly along the Engle Road alignment to ORtGI~4AL EXHIBIT A approximately one-fourth (¼) mile east of the Cottonwood Road -Engle Road alignment (alignment extended)/DiGiorgio Road intersection, then northeasterly to Hosking Road, then northerly along the Oswell Street alignment (extended) to approximately one-fourth (¼) mile north of Hermosa Road, then northeasterly to Muller Road, then easterly along Muller Road to approximately one-fourth (¼) mile west of Comanche Drive, then northeasterly to Comanche Drive then northerly along Comanche Drive to State Route-58. The Old Preferred Alignment/Staff Alignment/Hosking Road Alignment is generally located as follows: Old Preferred Alignment/Staff Ali.qnment/Hosking Road Alignment Beginning at I-5 then easterly along Taft Highway/State Route 119 to approximately one-half (%) mile west of Buena Vista Road, then northeasterly to the intersection of Old River Road and McCutchen Road, then easterly along McCutchen Road to approximately one-quarter (¼) mile west of the intersection of McCutchen Road and Ashe Road, then northeasterly approximately one-half (½) mile, then easterly approximately one (1) mile, then southeasterly approximately two and one-half (21/2) miles to the Monitor Street alignment (extended)-Astor Avenue intersection, then easterly along Astor Avenue alignment (extended) to Cottonwood Road, then northeasterly approximately four (4) miles to White Lane, then easterly along the White Lane alignment approximately nine (9) miles to State Route (58), The North of McCutcheon Alternative is identical with the Old Preferred Alignment except for a minor variation which is generally located as follows: North of McCutcheon Alternative The North of McCutcheon Alternative is identical with the Old Preferred Alignment except for a minor variation and is generally located as follows: Beginning along the Old Preferred Alignment at a distance of approximately one- quarter (¼) mile south of the McCutcheon Road-Green Road intersection, then northeasterly approximately one-half (½) mile to approximately one-quarter (¼) mile north of McCutchen Road, then easterly approximately two (2) miles where it connects to the Old Preferred Alignment approximately one-quarter (¼) mile east of Ashe Road. The Taft Highway/State Route 119 shares much of the alignments of both the Previous Preferred Alignment and the Old Preferred Alignment and is located as follows: Taft Highway Alternative Beginning at I-5, then easterly along Taft Highway/SR-119 to the Panama Road-Union Avenue intersection then northeasterly to approximately one-quarter ORiGiNAL EXHIBIT A (¼) mile south of the Hosking Avenue-Cottonwood Road intersection, then northeasterly approximately four (4) miles to White Lane, then easterly along the White Lane alignment approximately nine (9) miles to State Route (58). The Engle Road Alternative shares much of the alignments of both the Previous Preferred Alternative and the Old Preferred Alignment and is generally located as follows: Engle Road Alternative Beginning at I-5 this alternative alignment extends eastward along Engle Road, where between Old River Road and approximately one-half (½) mile west of South Union Avenue the alignment is the same as the New Preferred Alternative, then northeasterly to approximately one-quarter mile (¼) south of the Hosking Avenue-Cottonwood Road intersection, then northeasterly approximately four (4) miles to White Lane, then easterly along the White Lane alignment approximately nine (9) miles to State Route (58), where between the Hosking Avenue-Cottonwood Road intersection and State Route-58 the alignment is the same as the Old Preferred Alignment. The Bear Mountain Alternative is not a variation of any of the alignments and is generally located as follows: Bear Mountain Alternative Beginning at I-5 this alignment extends along Bear Mountain Boulevard eastward to Malaga Road then north along Malaga Road to SR-58 and then northwesterly to where it connects to Kern Canyon Road/State Route-184. REJECTION OF ALTERNATIVES New Preferred Alignment The "new preferred alignment" is rejected due to social disruption and economic stress to existing and future homeowners, and to existing and future development. South of Taft Highway between Buena Vista Road and Adobe Road, the alignment would cause single-family dwellings to be demolished, farm land would be divided disrupting farming operations and smaller farms may be displaced. North of Taft Highway along the White Lane alignment between the Oswell alignment and Comanche Drive, single-family dwellings would also be displaced and farming operations would also be affected. Previous Preferred Alignment The "Previous Preferred alignment" is rejected due to social disruption and economic stress to existing and future homeowners, and to existing and future development. The diagonal segments of this alignment, located south of Taft Highway, would divide farms, 5 ORIGI~AL EXHIBIT A disrupt farming operations and displace both residences and farming operations. North of Taft Highway, the diagonal segments would also affect farming operations and single-family dwellings. Along the Muller Road alignment segment, single-family homes fronting on Muller Road would be displaced. Old Preferred Alignment (Hosking Road Aliqnment) and North of McCutcheon Road Alternative Both the "Old Preferred Alignment" and the "North of rvicCutcheon Road Alternative" are rejected due to social disruption and economic stress to existing and future homeowners, and to existing and future development. These alignments transverse an area of the City developing to urban type land uses which include but are not limited to single-family dwellings, a high school, an elementary school and a community center. Impacts created by these alignments include but are not limited to displacement of 60 to 70 homes, displacement of 235 to 270 persons, disruption of neighborhood cohesion, and traffic noise impact to existing and future residences (Draft Environmental Impact Report South Beltway Transportation Corridor, 1998). The northeast-southwest oriented segment of the alignment located between Old River Road and Allen Road (extended) and the northeast-southwest oriented segment of the alignment located between Weedpatch Highway and Union Avenue would divide farms, displace farms and adversely affect farming operations. Taft Hiqhway Alternative The "Taft Highway Alternative" is rejected because it has many of the same impacts as the "Previous Preferred Alignment" and the "North of McCutcheon Road Alternative". Along Taft Highway from approximately one-fourth mile west of Old River Road to approximately one-forth mile east of the South Union Avenue/Golden State Highway, social disruption and economic stress woutd occur to the established communities of Old River, Pumpkin Center and Greenfield and other commercial and residential development located outside of such communities but located along this segment of Taft Highway. The Taft Highway Alternative would also split these communities into north and south segments. Such disruption and stress would include but not be limited to displacement of existing residences, cultural landmarks and commercial services, disruption of neighborhood cohesion, possible elimination of all of the community of Old River and major portions of the communities of Pumpkin Center and Greenfield, and noise impacts to residential, cultural and commercial land uses. The northeast- southwest oriented segment of the a~ignment located between Weedpatch Highway and Union Avenue would divide and displace farms and adversely affect farming operations. Engle Road Alternative The Engle Road Alternative is rejected because it cannot effectively relieve traffic OR;~INAL EXHIBIT A congestion. Engle Road is located one mile south of both the City boundary and Taft Highway. From Interstate-5 to approximately one-half mile east of State Route-99, Engle Road parallels Taft Highway. The farther south a beltway is located from existing traffic congestion and the fewer roadway connections a beltway has with the traffic congested area, the less efficient the beltway becomes at relieving such congestion. Considering both the distance from existing traffic congestion and the absence of roadway connections to Taft highway and the southern portion of the City, the Engle Road Alternative would not efficiently alleviate traffic congestion. Bear Mountain Boulevard Alternative The Bear Mountain Boulevard Alternative is rejected because it cannot effectively relieve traffic congestion. Bear Mountain Boulevard is located four miles south of both the City boundary and Taft Highway. The effectiveness of the "Bear Mountain Boulevard Alternative" to alleviate traffic congestion in the southern part of the City is practically non-existent. MITIGATED ADVERSE IMPACTS The potential significant adverse impacts that would be mitigated are listed below. Based on the EIR, the following impacts may result from 1) the proposed action of selecting and protecting a preferred corridor alignment for the South Beltway, and/or 2) the related, subsequent action of developing the adopted alignment into a transportation facility that serves Metropolitan Bakersfield and the County of Kern. Taking the first action of preserving an adopted alignment improves the possibility that the corridor will eventually be developed into a transportation facility. The later action is subject to further environmental and public review, and will require further approvals in the future when and if the corridor is advanced for funding and development. The facts discussed for the following impacts identify these differences where appropriate in terms of timing and responsibility for mitigation. The Bakersfield City Council finds that the following potential adverse impacts would be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of the project design features and recommended mitigation measures, or there are specific economic, social, and other considerations that make infeasible other project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. LAND USE Significant Impact ORIGINAL EXHIBIT A Development of the adopted alignment as a transportation facility would ultimately result in an irreversible change in land use from agricultural to a transportation corridor, resulting in the loss of prime agricultural lands and soils. Finding Specific economic, social, and other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation document. Facts in Support of Finding The adoption of the South Beltway alignment conforms with the City's General Plan Circulation Element policies, including to "preserve freeway and interchange rights-of- way consistent with corridor study alignments and specifications," among other provisions. Because all of the alternative alignments considered in the EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation document for the South Beltway corridor cross prime agricultural lands, preservation of a freeway corridor wilt have an unavoidable impact of eventually removing some agricultural lands permanently from productivity. Based on lands that are currently under Williamson Act contracts, which voluntarily restricts private landowners to using their land for agriculture or open space for a period of ten years, the alignments considered would have the following relative impacts: The "Planning Commission recommended Alignment, the "new preferred alignment" and the "previous preferred alignment" cross the greatest amount of agricultural land under Williamson Act contract, estimated at approximately 550 acres within the proposed right-of-way. This is due to the selection of this route away from the most developed areas. The Taft Highway/Panama Road alignment would impact the least prime agricultural land (about 300 acres); the Bear Mountain Boulevard and the former preferred alignments would impact the same amount (about 360 acres); the North of McCutchen alternative would impact about 450 acres; and the Engle Road Alternative would impact about 490 acres. The no project alternative would avoid this impact altogether, but would not meet the objectives of the proposed project action of preservation of a transportation corridor. The Draft and Final EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation documents discuss the objective of preserving a corridor that might serve future traffic, and by doing so help avoid greater future right-of-way conflicts and property acquisition costs that would occur when a freeway is placed through a well developed suburban or urbanized area. The preservation of a future transportation corridor through this area will allow more compatible planning and development to proceed outside the South Beltway corridor while minimizing future right-of-way and construction conflicts within the corridor. EXHIBIT A This unavoidable adverse impact is considered acceptable in light of the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Exhibit "B". TRANSPORTATION Significant Impact Local roads may be changed and/or local cimulation patterns impacted by a developed freeway within the adopted alignment, adversely affecting access. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The adoption of an alignment for the South Beltway corridor provides the option in the future as traffic congestion increases for the City to allow construction of a freeway that would ultimately enhance regional travel, and concentrate vehicle trips on a freeway facility as opposed to local streets and roads. The impact of the freeway on local circulation has the potential for some local streets and cimulation patterns to be adversely affected by placement of the freeway across the roads or where the freeway creates new interchanges and circulation changes. In most cases, the freeway design would accommodate local roads through the provision of interchanges and overcrossings. This significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation document, which would eventually be incorporated into the design of the project: Prior to or in conjunction with any preliminary design of the corridor as a transportation facility, a traffic operations analysis shall be performed based on then current travel forecasts. The analysis shall be used to define the exact configuration and type of lanes, interchanges, ramps, and intersection connections with local roads. This shall include evaluation of local road changes affected by new freeway ramp connections or where local roads are crossed by the freeway to determine how access and circulation shall be maintained. ©RIGINAL EXHIBIT A GEOLOGY AND SOILS Si,qnificant Impact There is a potential for substantial damage to a future freeway facility caused by strong ground shaking associated with an earthquake, or with settlement associated with liquefaction. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The ultimate development of a freeway within the adopted alignment, with its associated structures and facilities, can be designed to minimize the potential for these impacts. The potential for these impacts is the same for all of the alternative corridors considered, since structures such as overpasses, bridges, interchanges and ramps, embankments, retaining and noise walls, and similar features would be required regardless of the route adopted. Design of these facilities is normally completed during the preliminary and final engineering stages of the project, and takes into account site- specific subsurface and soil conditions. This significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation document, which would eventually be incorporated into the design of the project: Seismic ground shaking, At the time that preliminary and/or final design is conducted, all structures, such as bridges and overpasses, shall be designed to withstand strong ground shaking. Site specific ground motion calculations for maximum credible earthquakes shall be performed and the structures and foundations shall be designed to the most current standards to withstand those ground motions. Liquefaction. Geotechnical studies shall be performed along the alignment, and zones of high liquefaction potential shall be identified. Areas of liquefaction shall be treated by measures recommended in the studies, which may include compaction of soils, replacement of soils with engineered fills, or equivalent measures. Subsidence. All structure foundations shall be designed to minimize this impact. 10 ORiGiNAL EXHIBIT A Landslides and Other Geologic Hazards. Site specific soils and geologic conditions for maximum slope angles for all cut and fill slopes shall be determined by the geotechnical studies. A grading plan shall be developed to mitigate any potential slope stability problems, WATER RESOURCES Significant Impact At the time that the selected corridor is under construction as a transportation facility, there is the potential for sediments to erode from exposed soils into local water bodies. There is also a potential for spills and leaks of fuels at construction sites to be discharged through storm water runoff. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding This impact would be associated with ultimate construction of the freeway. Construction contract and permit condition specifications for the control of erosion are normally applied to a freeway project, which require that these impacts be minimized. This includes the need for development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which includes adherence to practices that minimize these impacts. These requirements apply to the project regardless of the adopted alignment. This significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation document, which would eventually be incorporated into the design of the project. At the time that construction is planned, the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern must show compliance with their joint National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for non-point discharges (permit No. CA0083399). This would be achieved in part through development of the required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must include current Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize storm water pollution and eliminate harmful discharges to surface waters. These may include trapping of sediments within the project construction area, 11 OR1G~NAL EXHIBIT A requirements in any contract specifications for construction equipment maintenance, and requirements that fueling of equipment be restricted to areas where spills and leaks are easily contained. Significant Impact Selection of a preferred corridor for the South Beltway could lead to the construction of a transportation facility that would result in adverse impacts to the Arvin-Edison Water District's infrastructure. Such infrastructure impacts are the crossing of high volume water pipelines and canals. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding Six of the alternative alignments (Planning Commission recommended alignment, new preferred alignment, previous preferred alignment, Taft Highway/State Route 119, Engle Road, and North of McCutchen alternatives), would have similar adverse impacts to the Arvin-Edison Water District facilities, since they all follow the same route at their east end near State Route 58. Such impacts include the crossing of water pipelines and canals. These alternatives would therefore not be any more effective in reducing this impact. The "New Preferred Alignment" would impact the District's pumping plant infrastructure located along the southwest corner of Fairfax Road and East White Lane and was not recommended by the planning commission. The "Planning Commission Recommended Alignment" is located south of the District's pumping plant not affecting such infrastructure, thus mitigating impacts to the pumping plant. The Bear Mountain Boulevard alternative, for the portion of the alignment along Bear Mountain Boulevard to Malaga Road, is the furthest south of the alternatives considered and the least effective in addressing traffic needs in the future. The "previous preferred alignment" was specifically routed along Muller Road and Comanche Drive to minimize impacts to the Arvin-Edison Water District facilities by following existing roads. The "Planning Commission Recommended alignment" was specifically routed to miss homes located along Muller Road will lessen impacts to the Arvin-Edison Water District facilities. Each of the six alternative alignments, including the "Planning Commission recommended alignment", present some degree of impact to the Arvin-Edison Water District facilities. Such impacts include water pipelines, canals and a water pumping station. The "Planning Commission Recommended Alignment" may present the least 12 ORIGit~AL EXHIBIT A degree of impacts to such facilities, more specifically the District's pumping station. However, this alignment will have fewer disrupting affects on families and homes than the other five alignments. In addition, fine tuning of this alignment can route the "Planning Commission Recommended Alignment" an even greater and safer distance away from pumping plant facility. This significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation Document, which would eventually be incorporated into the design of the project. Prior to or at the time that the corridor is advanced for preliminary design, Water District facilities that have not been avoided through shifts in the adopted alignment shall need to be redesigned and replaced as necessary to maintain operation of the system. This measure will require close consultation and coordination with the Water District. Where water deliveries to existing Arvin-Edison Water District users cannot be adequately maintained, replaced, or substituted, compensation may be necessary and appropriate, taking into account the Water District's long term contracts and water delivery obligations. Compliance with this measure will also require evaluation of the extent of effects of development of the corridor on the District's facilities and their users. AIR QUALITY Significant Impact At the time that construction of a transportation facility occurs, there is a potential for an exceedance of an air quality standard associated with dust and construction equipment emissions. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding This impact would be associated with ultimate construction of the freeway. Construction contract specifications for the control of dust are normally applied to a freeway project, which require that these impacts be minimized. These requirements apply to the project regardless of the adopted alignment. 13 EXHIBIT A This significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation document, which would eventually be incorporated into the design of the project. Specific control measures shall be applied to the construction contract to control construction-related emissions. Standard construction contract specifications shall be applied, which shall include dust control practices such as general watering in active excavation and grading areas, use of chemical stabilizers, and cultivation of a vegetative cover on completed graded areas. NOISE Significant Impact Development of a selected corridor as a transportation facility will result in adverse noise impacts to adjacent land uses. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The ultimate development of the adopted corridor as a transportation facility will result in noise impacts from the traffic utilizing the facility in the future. All of the alternative alignments considered in the Draft and Final EIR, and the Additional Environmental Evaluation document, pass through areas of residential use or other noise sensitive land uses, and therefore none of the alternative alignments can entirely avoid this impact. The evaluation of noise impacts, based on areas that might have noise levels in excess of 60 dBA (which is the planning guideline for exterior noise levels for residential land uses), indicated that about 45 homes are located in the vicinity of the previous preferred alignment that could exceed this criteria level (60 dBA Ldn), Approximately 106 homes along the Taft Highway/Panama Road alignment would exceed this level. The old preferred alignment and the Engle Road alternatives would have about the same number of residences that might exceed this level (94 and 92 homes, respectively). Noise impact along the new preferred alignment may also exceed the criteria level. Along the Planning Commission recommended alignment, the number of homes which would be affected is less than those affected along either of 14 EXHIBIT A the other alignments. The Bear Mountain Boulevard alignment is estimated to have about 51 homes that would exceed this level, and the North of McCutchen Alternative is estimated at 41 homes that might exceed this level. The ultimate design of the South Beltway's adopted alignment as a freeway would have to meet noise abatement criteria that require noise reduction measures where noise sensitive land uses are predicted to exceed established criteria. Noise levels can be reduced through incorporation of noise barriers or equivalent measures in the design of the project. These measures can reduce noise levels from traffic by 5 dBA or greater, which is considered an effective mitigation measure that results in a noticeable reduction in noise levels. Thus, alignments that have a greater number of homes that might exceed the City's noise criteria can, in most cases, be effectively reduced through incorporation of noise barriers or equivalent measures. These measures do not, however, eliminate all traffic noise. This significant effect has been eliminated or can be substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation document, which would eventually be incorporated into the design of the project: At the time that the preferred corridor is advanced to preliminary design, noise studies shall be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state and local standards and criteria for noise abatement. These studies shall define all areas along the proposed route that qualify for noise abatement, in the form of sound walls, berms, or other equivalent abatement features. Noise abatement measures recommended as a result of the above evaluation shall be included in preliminary and final design plans for the corridor, and eventually in all applicable construction contract specifications. To avoid potential secondary visual or aesthetic impacts from the noise walls, a landscape plan shall be developed at the time that the noise studies conclude with any determination that sound barriers are recommended. The landscape plan shall consider all areas visible from either the freeway or outside of the freeway right-of-way where vegetation planting would enhance the appearance of the corridor, taking into account access for maintenance, safety, clearance from the roadway, and any other applicable considerations. The landscape plan shall be advanced as an integral element of the preliminary and final design plans for the corridor. Lands adjacent to the selected alignment shall be planned in light of the future development of the corridor into a transportation facility. All development proposed adjacent to the proposed 15 EXHIBIT A corridor shall comply with the existing policies and implementation measures governing noise mitigation measures and controls contained in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Significant Impact Construction of a transportation facility would result in the permanent removal of native vegetation and seasonal wetlands within the corridor, and potential impacts to special status plant and animal species. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding All of the South Beltway alternative alignments cross vegetation communities and potential seasonal wetland habitat areas. Reconnaissances of each of the alignments indicates that the habitats crossed are similar. Review of recorded sensitive species occurrences are also similar between the alternative alignments. The Draft and Final EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation documents identified mitigation measures that would apply to the ultimate development of the corridor, including provision of species specific surveys, mitigation enhancement, and consultation with resource wildlife agencies regarding the mitigation measures. This significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation document, which would eventually be incorporated into the design of the project. Prior to approval of final design plans, acquisition and enhancement of equal and/or higher value habitats shall be identified and incorporated into the project for areas of the preferred corridor alignment that fall outside of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP). The goal of this measure shall be to provide a net increase in habitat value and the capacity of the habitat to support sensitive plant and animal species. This would involve identification of areas suitable for development or enhancement as habitat mitigation, acquisition or protection of the mitigation areas from future development, preparation of mitigation plans and specifications, identification of 16 O~JGINAL EXHIBIT A monitoring and maintenance responsibilities, and identification of funding to complete these activities. Species specific surveys shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance. Areas where there is positive identification of rare plants or animal habitat in the corridor should be avoided by installing temporary fencing and designation of the area as environmentally sensitive in any construction contracts. Areas identified during these surveys as special status species habitat shall be avoided. Construction activities shall be timed to avoid or minimize impacts to breeding animals. Prior to approval of final design plans, consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall occur to insure all measures to avoid and minimize impacts to special status plant and animal species have been followed or are proposed. Consultation with CDFG shall address any potential for an unavoidable "take" of a special status species. Prior to approval of final design plans, coordination with the CDFG and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, if federal funding is involved, shall occur to determine appropriate mitigation measures for special status plant and animal species that are unavoidable. These might include establishment of on-site mitigation or contribution to a mitigation bank program. CULTURAL RESOURCES Significant Impact Heretofore unidentified cultural resources may be present within the adopted alignment corridor, and could be potentially impacted by eventual construction of a transportation facility. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding This impact has the potential to occur at the time of ultimate construction of the freeway, Based on the information identified to date, it has a potential to occur regardless of the mute of the adopted alignment. Mitigation measures are available to 17 EXHIBIT help identify unknown resources potentially within the adopted alignment, and to address previously unknown resources that are found before or during construction. This significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation document, which would eventually be incorporated into the design of the project. Any area ultimately identified for project development or construction that has not been subject to an intensive, formal cultural resources survey shall be surveyed for cultural resources at the time the project is advanced to preliminary design and a corridor- specific environmental assessment is performed. If cultural resources are found and if the resource is determined to be important under CEQA criteria, mitigative data recovery or other mitigative measures shall be devised, and carried out by a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with all concerned parties. In the event that Native American Burials are detected within the corridor, specific mitigation measures would be determined in consultation with Native American Most Likely Descendants. Options could include leaving a burial in place if further disturbance can be avoided, or removal and reburial with or without previous archaeological treatment. All such procedures shall be conducted within the context of current CEQA Guidelines and requirements. In the event that construction personnel observe previously undiscovered subsurface prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits or human bone are encountered in an area within the preferred corridor and/or construction areas, work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be halted and a professional archaeologist consulted, or, in the case of human burials, the County Coroner and the appropriate Native American Most Likely Descendants (identified by the Native American Heritage Commission). If the resource is determined to be important under CEQA criteria, mitigative data recovery or other mitigative measures should be devised and carried out by a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with all concerned parties. In the case of Native American Burials, specific mitigation measures would be determined in consultation with Native American Most Likely Descendants. Options could include leaving a burial in place if further disturbance can be avoided, or removal and reburial with or without previous archaeological treatment. All such procedures shall be conducted within the context of current CEQA Guidelines. SOCIOECONOMICS 18 EXHIBIT A S qnificant Impact Acquisition of right-of-way for corridor preservation and eventual construction of a transportation facility will result in relocation of homes and businesses within the preferred corridor. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding Relocation impacts were identified in the Additional Environmental Evaluation document for the previous preferred alignment at 56 residential properties, plus an additional 12 properties involving potential acquisition of a portion of the parcels. An estimated seven businesses will require acquisition of potentially some or all of their property or parcels. The Draft and Final EIR for the old preferred alignment estimated 60 to 70 residences would require acquisition, which is similar to three of the other alternative alignments (North of McCutchen at 65 to 70 homes, Taft Highway/Panama Road at 65 to 70 homes, and Engle Road at 55 to 60 homes). The new preferred alignment and the previous preferred alignment are very similar due to sharing all but approximately five miles of the same alignment and this five mile segment is separated from the previous preferred alignment by only three-fourth's (3/4) of a mile. The Bear Mountain Boulevard alignment reduces this impact, at an estimated 15 to 20 homes. However, the Bear Mountain Boulevard alignment, by avoiding direct impacts to existing homes, is also the most indirect route for the South Beltway corridor and consequently has the least projected volume of traffic in the future. The Planning Commission recommended alignment reduces the dwelling unit impact to ten single-family dwellings. Properties that require acquisition as a result of route adoption and/or eventual development of the corridor into a transportation facility would be eligible for relocation assistance and compensation under the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act. This significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the Draft and Final EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation documents. Provisions of the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act shall be 19 OR[GI~AL EXHIBIT A complied with in regards to the acquisition of any properties within the preferred corridor alignment. Where and when applicable, this would include entitlement of displaced property owners to fair market value for their property at the time the displacement occurs, and additional relocation assistance may be allocated depending on any special relocation requirements. Significant Impact The preservation of the corridor and its eventual development as a transportation facility has the potential to introduce a barrier that may disrupt or divide an existing neighborhood or community. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding Although the majority of the length of the alignments considered traverse relatively rural or undeveloped areas, all of the alternative alignments cross through areas of existing housing, and in some cases businesses. These neighborhoods will be adversely affected by the relocation of existing homes and businesses as well as the division caused by construction of a freeway facility with access between each side limited to interchanges and overcrossing structures. This impact can be reduced by incorporating access enhancements in circulation between each side of the ultimately developed corridor. This significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation document, which would eventually be incorporated into the design of the project. Potential impacts to neighborhood cohesion shall be examined on a site specific basis at the time that the project advances to preliminary design. Preliminary design of the project shall take into account enhancements that provide circulation and access between each side of the corridor, and across connecting facilities such as ramps and interchanges. Measures to consider shall include pedestrian and bikeway provisions at interchanges, pedestrian overcrossing structures, or equivalent measures. 2o EXHIBIT A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Significant Impacts There is a potential that unknown contaminated sites might be discovered following adoption of an alternative, and/or that contaminated sites are inadvertently disturbed as a result of ultimate development of the corridor. Such an event could lead to inadvertent exposure of hazardous materials to workers and/or the public. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding This impact has the potential to occur at the time of ultimate construction of the freeway. Based on the information identified to date, it has a potential to occur regardless of the route of the adopted alignment. Mitigation measures are available to help identify and address sites containing potentially contaminated soils or water. This significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation document, which shall be implemented at the time that right-of-way is considered for acquisition. Prior to the start of right-of-way acquisition, a detailed Initial Site or Phase I/Phase II assessment shall be conducted specific to the chosen alignment, to determine the exact location and current status of sites within the proposed right-of-way. Soils shall be tested prior to right-of-way acquisition and construction to determine the status of contamination from sources such as underground storage tanks, agricultural wastes, pesticide contamination, or oil production contamination. No project right-of-way shall be acquired within identified contaminated properties until preliminary site investigations are completed, a remediation plan is developed, as necessary, and that plan is implemented in accordance with state and federal guidelines. Remediation plans should be implemented in cooperation with the landowner. 21 ORiGI~4AL EXHIBIT A Existing oil wells and lines, and underground fuel storage tanks shall be identified, capped, abandoned, and/or removed prior to construction activities. Structures that are to be demolished shall be inspected for hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos) prior to demolition. Proper safety procedures shall be used when demolishing structures containing hazardous materials to reduce exposure of workers, the public, and the environment. A note shall be placed in the project's resident engineer's files to alert construction crews to the possibility of undetected soil contamination. If odor or fumes were encountered during construction, work shall be stopped and the resident engineer informed for further remedial action. VISUALRESOURCES Significant Impact Construction of a transportation facility within the adopted alignment may result in adverse visual impacts from constructing new structures and facilities within the corridor. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The ultimate design and construction of a freeway within the South Beltway corridor would incorporate aesthetic treatment and landscaping to reduce this impact. These impacts are related to the facilities and structures that are part of a freeway, and would not be avoided by any of the alternative routes. This significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation document, which would eventually be incorporated into the design of the project. At the time that the project is advanced to preliminary design and/or at final design, the following measures shall be considered for incorporation into the project: Design structures and colors to blend with the existing environment. 22 ORIGli~AL EXHIBIT A Restore vegetation with native species growing in the vicinity wherever existing vegetation is disturbed as a result of construction. Design grading to blend with existing topography. Employ earth mounding where feasible at edges and any depressed freeway sections to control noise rather than construct masonry walls, or utilize a combination of berms with walls on top to minimize the exposed amount of wall. Employ gradual slope-mounding techniques to blend freeway grades with adjacent land forms. Restore vegetation with native species growing in the vicinity wherever existing vegetation is disturbed as a result of construction. Where noise walls are necessary, provide sufficient space for landscaping, preferably on both sides of the walls. At interchanges, the walls shall preferably be set back to allow landscaping in areas between ramps and walls. GROWTHINDUCEMENT Significant Impact Development of a future transportation facility has the potential to be growth inducing in areas where localized access is improved or changed. Finding Specific economic, social, and other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Draft and Final EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation documents. Facts in Support of Finding Ultimate development of the adopted alignment corridor as a transportation facility has the potential to facilitate or encourage growth at areas where local access is changed or improved. None of the alternatives would avoid this impact. The potential changes in localized growth would be associated with specific locations of interchanges or access points to the freeway corridor; thus each alternative would vary the precise location of where potential changes in land use and growth might occur. Any future development along the corridor is subject to approvals by the City or County, and thus this impact can be controlled through local General Plan land use designations and zoning. 23 EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The City of Bakersfield proposes to approve the South Beltway Corridor project although unavoidable adverse loss of prime agricultural lands and growth inducement impacts have been identified in the EIR. Even though these adverse impacts are not reduced to a level considered less than significant, the City of Bakersfield City Council finds that those impacts are outweighed by economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the South Beltway Corridor project, as contained in the Final EIR and/or information in the record of the project's approval and as are discussed below. Further, the alternatives that were identified in the EIR would not provide the project benefits with the same or less environmental impacts. Therefore, the City of Bakersfield City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR and the public record, adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations which has been balanced against the unavoidable adverse impacts in reaching a decision on this project. Discussion. The impacts to agricultural lands and the potential for growth inducement are considered unavoidable effects if the South Beltway Corridor is adopted, regardless of its alignment. All of the alignments considered in the Draft and Final EIR, and Additional Environmental Evaluation, affect prime agricultural lands. The "Planning Commission recommended alignment" affects prime agricultural land while presenting the least impact to single-family dwellings. The potential for growth inducement is associated with the construction of a new freeway with interchanges, which can provide enhanced access and/or changes in local circulation within localized areas along the alignment. This has the potential to facilitate or enhance opportunities for growth and new development in these areas. Because all of the alternatives would have similar interchange and access improvements at major or key local road crossings, this impact would not be avoided by any of the other alignments. Economic, Legal, Social, Technological or Other Benefits of the Proposed Action. The action of preserving a designated right-of-way will allow for future development to be planned and approved around the corridor, thus reducing the potential for adverse right-of-way acquisition and impacts in the future. It is estimated that Kern County's O~G~AL EXHIBIT B population will approach one million people by 2010, an 18 percent increase over the 1990 population level. In the 30 years following 2010, it is projected that the County's population will nearly double, reaching 1.9 million people in 2040. One third of the County's population is currently within the City of Bakersfield. The greatest population increase has been in the southwest sector where housing has been available due to new residential construction. It is anticipated that Metropolitan Bakersfield will continue to grow, by about 60 percent between 1990 and 2010. As the County and City develop, infill of housing and business will result in future constraints in the choices of where a new, by then needed, regional transportation corridor can be located. Initiating right-of-way acquisition at that time would result in a greater number of homes and other properties needing acquisition, and less opportunity to accordingly plan development around a future corridor. The designation of an adopted alignment and ultimate development of the corridor into a transportation facility will benefit future traffic conditions by providing a regional freeway. The regional and local development discussed above will result in considerably more trips on the local transportation network in the future. Traffic projections discussed in the Draft and Final EIR and Additional Environmental Evaluation documents show a benefit of a regional freeway providing a regional transportation corridor and local circulation improvements in the future. This effect would result from a regional freeway reducing the number of trips on local roads by attracting drivers to the more efficient regional freeway facility. The option of having a preserved corridor that would accommodate an enhancement to the regional transportation network in the future can provide economic benefits. These can include more efficient transportation that supports business and commeme, such as through reduced shipping time for commerce, reductions in lost time associated with commuting, and attraction of a regional area to new growth and business. S:\Dole\SBVV~Statement Dec 1 1999.wpd 2 EXHIBIT "C" MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN SOUTH BELTWAY CORRIDOR PROJECT Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measures LAND USE L-1 Noise walls, noise barriers or equivalent shielding techniques, and vegetation screening shall be incorporated into the design and construction of the corridor. These mitigation measures are more specifically addressed under Noise. The City and County would be responsible for ensuring that engineering and environmental studies are performed to integrate adequate noise and aesthetic mitigation measures into the project, in accordance with standards that exist at that time. L-3 New preposals for development shall be reviewed by the County and City in regards to the potential for impacts (and land use compatibility) in the future from construction and operation of a transportation facility TRANSPORTATION T-1 and T-2 Prior to or in conjunction with any preliminary design of the corridor as a transportation facility, a traffic operations analysis shall be performed based on then Applicable to Applicable to Development Engineering Corridor Preliminary Services Services and Protection Design (Planning and Traffic (Tier i) (Tier 11) Building) Engineering X X X Planning Approved by on Engineering Approved by on Engineering Approved by Fire Department Comments current travel forecasts. The analysis shall be used to define the exact configuration and type of lanes, interchanges, ramps, and intersection connections with local roads. This shall include evaluation of local road changes affected by new freeway ramp connections or where local roads are crossed by the freeway to determine how access and circulation shall be maintained. GEOLOGY AND SOILS GS-I Seismic ground shaking. At the time that preliminary and/or final design is conducted, all structures, such as bddges and overpasses, shall be designed to withstand strong ground shaking. Site specific ground motion calculations for maximum credible earthquakes shall be performed and the structures and foundations shall be designed to the most current standards to withstand those ground motions. GS-2 Liquefaction. At the time that preliminary and/or final design is conducted, geotechnical studies shall be performed along the alignment, and zones of high liquefaction potential shall be identified. Areas of liquefaction shall be treated by measures recommended in the studies, which may include compaction of soils, replacement of soils with engineered fills, or equivalent measures. GS-3 Subsidence. At the time that preliminary and/or final design is conducted, all structure foundations shall be designed to minimize this impact. GS-4 Landslides and Other Geologic Hazards. At the time that preliminary and/or X X X X on Engineering Approved by on Engineering Approved by on Engineering Approved by on Engineering final design is conducted, site specific soils and geologic conditions for maximum slope angles for all cut and fill slopes shall be determined by the geotechnical studies. A grading plan shall be developed to mitigate any potential slope stability problems. GS-6 Gas and Oil Fields. Oil fields and related infrastructure that must be acquired would require compensation for any property right affected by the action. Ultimate development of a freeway would have a direct impact on existing infrastructure. The compensation would be determined on a case- by-case basis. WATER RESOURCES WR-la Water District facilities that cannot be avoided through shifts in the alignment of the preferred alignment shall need te be redesigned and replaced as necessary to maintain operation of the system. New water delivery facilities may need to be constructed to irrigate displaced farmers or farmland adversely altered by development of a transportation facility. WR-lb Where water deliveries to existing Arvin-Edison Water District users cannot be adequately maintained, replaced, or substituted, compensation may be necessary and appropriate, taking into account the Water District's long term contracts and water delivery obligations. Compliance with this measure will also require evaluation of the extent of effects of development of the corridor on the District's facilities and their users. WR-2 The City shall prepare a Storm Water X X X X X Approved by on Engineering Approved by on Engineering Approved by on Engineering Approved by on Engineering Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be used to minimize storm water pollution and eliminate harmful discharges to surface waters. WR.-3 The design of the highway shall include a runoff drainage system and cuiveds sized sufficiently to prevent the facility from acting as a dam for overland flow of natural drainage. AIR QUALITY AQ-1 Specific control measures shall be applied to the construction contract to control construction-related emissions. Standard construction contract specifications shall be applied, which shall include dust control practices such ~,s general watering in active excavation and grading areas, use of chemical stabilizers, and cultivation of a vegetative cover on completed graded areas. NOISE N-la At the time that the preferred corridor is advanced to preliminary design, noise studies shall be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state and local standards and criteria for noise abatement. These studies shall define all areas along the proposed route that qualify for noise abatement, in the form of sound wails, berms, or other equivalent abatement features. N-lb Noise abatement measures recommended as a result of the above evaluation shall be included in preliminary and final design plans for the corridor, and X X X X 4 Approved by on Engineering Approved by on Engineering Approved by on Engineering Approved by on Engineering Approved by eventually in all applicable construction contract specifications. N-lc To avoid potential secondary visual or aesthetic impacts from the noise walls, a ~andscape plan shall be developed at the time that the noise studies conclude with any determination that sound barriers are recommended. The landscape plan shall consider all areas visible from either the freeway or outside of the freeway right-of-way where vegetation planting would enhance the appearance of the corridor, taking into account access for maintenance, safety, clearance from the roadway, and any other applicable considerations. The landscape plan shall be advanced as an integral element of the preliminary and final design plans for the corridor. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT NE-I Prior to approval of final design plans, acquisition and enhancement of equal and/or higher value habitats shall be identified and incorporated into the project for areas of the adopted corridor alignment. The goal of this measure shall be to provide a net increase in habitat value and the capacity of the habitat to support sensitive plant and animal species. This would involve identification of areas suitable for development or enhancement as habitat mitigation, acquisition or protection of the mitigation areas from future development, preparation of mitigation plans and specifications, identification of monitoring and 0[¥t¢ maintenance responsibilities, and identification · ' O~,of funding to complete these activities. 4~NE-2 At the time that design and construction X X X 5 Planning Approved by on Planning on Engineering Approved by on is planned for the corridor, intensive ground surveys shall be performed to inventory and document all sensitive biological habitat and species potentially occurring within the alignment. NI:-3 Prior to approval of final design plans, consultation with the California Depadment of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall occur to insure all measures to avoid and minimize impacts to special status plant and animal species have been followed or are proposed. Consultation with CDFG shall address any potential for an unavoidable "take" of a special status species. NE-4 Prior to approval of final design plans, coordination with the CDFG and U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service, if federal funding is involved, shall occur to determine appropriate mitigation measures for special status plant and animal species that are unavoidable. These might include establishment of on-site mitigation or contribution to a mitigation bank program. X X Approved by on Planning Approved by OR Planning Approved by on NE-5 Prior to approval of final design plans, Impacts to Valley saltbush scrub and Valley sink scrub wetlands shall be mitigated by restoration of sites where this vegetation has been degraded. Restoration would be implemented on lands within or adjacent to the existing ecological preserves. The mitigation goal would be to restore this wetland type at a 3:1 ratio to ensure that there is no net loss of wetlands. Wetlands would be restored on lands acquired for mitigation of terrestrial habitats. Degraded Valley saltbush scrub and Valley sink scrub wetlands on these lands would be restored and enhanced. CULTURAL RESOURCES CR-Ic Anyarea ultimately identified for project development or construction that has not been subject to an intensive, formal cultural resources survey shall be surveyed for cultural resources at the time the project is advanced to preliminary design and a corridor-specific environmental assessment is performed. If cultural resources are found and if the resource is determined to be important under CEQA criteria, mitigative data recovery or other mitigative measures shall be devised, and carried out by a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with all concerned parties. X X Planning Approved by on. Planning Approved by on CR-1 b tn the event that Native American Burials are detected within the corridor, specific mitigation measures would be determined in consultation with Native American Most Likely Descendants. Options could include leaving a burial in place if further disturbance can be avoided, or removal and reburial with or without previous archaeological treatment. All such procedures shall be conducted within the context of current CEQA Guidelines and requirements. X Planning Approved by on CR-2 In the event that construction personnel observe previously undiscovered subsurface prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits or human bone are encountered in an area within the preferred corridor and/or construction areas, work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be halted and a professional archaeologist consulted, or, in the case of human burials, the County Coroner and the appropriate Native American Most Likely Descendants (identified by the Native American Heritage Commission). If the resource is determined to be important under CEQA criteria, mitigative data recovery or other mitigative measures should be devised and carried out by a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with all concerned parties. In the case of Native American Burials, specific mitigation measures would be determined in consultation with Native American Most Likely Descendants. Options could include leaving a burial in place if further disturbance can be avoided, or removal and reburial with or without previous archaeological treatment. All such procedures shall be conducted within the context of current CEQA Guidelines. X Planning Approved by on SOCIOECONOMICS SE-1 The City shall comply with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act in regards to the acquisition of any propedies within the preferred corridor alignment. Where and when applicable, this would include entitlement of displaced property owners to fair market value for their property at the time the displacement occurs, and additional relocation assistance may be allocated depending on any special relocation requirements. SE-2 Potential impacts to neighborhood cohesion shall be examined on a site specific basis at the time that the project advances to preliminary design. Preliminary design of the project shall take into account enhancements that provide circulation and access between each side of the corridor, and across connecting facilities such as ramps and interchanges. Measures to consider shall include pedestrian and bikeway provisions at interchanges, pedestrian overcrossing structures, or equivalent measures. HAZARDOUS WASTE HW-1 Prior to the start of right-of-way acquisition, a detailed Initial Site or Phase I/Phase II assessment shall be conducted specific to the chosen alignment, to determine the exact location and current status of sites within the proposed right-of-way. HW-2 Soils shall be tested prior to right-of- way acquisition and construction to determine the status of contamination from sources such X X X X Planning Approved by on Planning Approved by on Engineering Approved by on Engineering Approved by as underground storage tanks, agricultural wastes, pesticide contamination, or oil production contamination. HW-3 No project right-of-way shall be acquired within identified contaminated properties until preliminary site investigations are completed, a remediation plan is developed, as necessary, and that plan is implemented in accordance with state and federal guidelines. Remediation plans should be implemented in cooperation with the landowner. HW-4 Existing oil wells and lines, and underground fuel storage tanks shall be identified, capped, abandoned, and/or removed prior to construction activities. HW-$ Structures that are to be demolished shall be inspected for hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos) prior to demolition. Proper safety procedures shall be used when demolishing structures containing hazardous materials to reduce exposure of workers, the public, and the environment. HW-6 A note shall be placed in the project's resident engineer's files to alert construction crews to the possibility of undetected soil contamination. If odor or fumes were encountered during construction, work shall be stopped and the resident engineer informed for further remedial action. X X X 10 Building Approved by on X on Engineering Approved by on Engineering Approved by on Engineering Approved by on VR-1 At the time that the project is advanced to preliminary design and/or at final design, the following measures shall be considered for incorporation into the project: Overcrossings of the freeway Design structures and colors to blend with the existing environment. Restore vegetation with native species growing in the vicinity wherever existing vegetation is disturbed as a result of construction. X Planning Approved by on VR-2 Freeway Design Design grading to blend with existing topography. Employ earth mounding where feasible at edges and any depressed freeway sections to control noise rather than construct masonry walls, or utilize a combination of berms with walls on top to minimize the exposed amount of wall. Employ gradual slope-mounding techniques to blend freeway grades with adjacent land forms. Restore vegetation with native species growing in the vicinity wherever existing vegetation is disturbed as a result of construction. Where noise walls are necessary, provide sufficient space for landscaping, preferably on both sides of the walls. At interchanges, the walls shall preferably be set back to allow landscaping in areas between ramps and wails. X Planning Approved by on EXHIBIT "D" PLANNING COMMISSION RECOM ALIGNMENT South Beltway Alignment Exhibit "E', South Beltway Alignment A strip of land 300.00 feet in width, through portions of Sections 31 through 36, Township 30 S, R 26 E, MDM, Sections I through 6, Township 31 South, Range 26 East, MDM., Sections 1 through 6, Township 31 South, Range 27 East, MD.M, Sections 3 through 6, Township 31 South, Range 28 East, MD.M, Sections 13, 14, 22, 23, 27, and 34, Township 30 South, Range 28 East, MD.M, and Sections 9, 10, 11, and 16 through 18, Township 30 South, Range 29 East. MD.M, in both the City of Bakersfield and in unincorporated areas of the County of Kern, State of California, being a parcel of land, lying 150.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at the point of intersection of the North line of Section 6, T. 31 S., R 26 E., with the centerline of State Route VI-KER-5. (Interstate 5) Thence (1) South 89° 17' 17" East, along said North line, 2282.94 feet more or less, to the Northeast corner of said Section 6; Thence (2) South 89° 16' 25" East, along the North line of Section 5, T. 31 S., R. 26 E., 5285.13 feet more or less, to the Northeast corner thereof; Thence (3) South 89° 26' 47" East, along the North line of Section 4, T. 31 S., R. 26 E., 5288.59 feet more or less, to the Northeast corner thereof; Thence (4) South 89° 28' 48" East, along the North line of Section 3, T. 31 S., R. 26 E., 5290.21 feet more or less, to the Northeast corner thereof; Thence (5) South 89° 29' 49" East, along the North line of Section 2, T. 31 S., R. 26 E., 5287.82 feet more or less, to the Northeast corner thereof; Thence (6) South 89° 31' 05" East, along the North line of Section 1, T. 31 S., R.26 E., 2644.07 feet more or less to the North quarter corner thereof, said point also being the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Southwesterly, and having a radius of 5000.00 feet; Thence (7) Southeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 31° 54' 40" an arc distance of 2784.76 feet to a point on the West line of Section 6, T. 31 S., R. 27 E., from which the Northwest corner of said Section 6 bears North 00° 33' 45" East 755.65 feet more or less; Thence (8) Continuing Southeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 13° 28' 10" an arc distance of 1175.43 feet; Thence (9) South 44° 08' 15" East a distance of 1483.26 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Northeasterly, and having a radius of 5000.00 feet; Thence (10) Southeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 45© 25' 28" an arc distance of 3964.01 feet more or less, to the Northwest corner of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 5, T. 31 S., R. 27 E.; Thence (11) South 89© 33' 43" East along the North line of the South half of the South half of said Section 5, 5285.46 feet more or less, to the Northwest corner of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 4, T. 31 S., R. 27 E.; Thence (12) South 89° 18' 09" East along the North tine of the South half of the South half of said Section 4, 5286.05 feet more or less, to the Northwest corner of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 3, T. 31 S., R. 27 E.; Thence (13) South 89° 10' 17" East along the North line of the South half of the Southwest quarter of said Section 3, 2642.32 feet more or less, to the Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 3, said point also being the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Southwesterly, and having a radius of 5000.00 feet; Thence (14) Southeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 17© 22' 19" an arc distance of 1515.99 feet; Thence (15) South 71© 47' 58" East a distance of 1205.22 feet more or less, to a point on the West line of Section 2, T. 31 S., R. 27 E., from which the Southwest corner of said Section 2 bears South 00© 45' 38" West 739.76 feet more or less; Thence (16) Continuing South 71° 47' 58" East 1194.17 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Northeasterly, and having a radius of 5000.00 feet; Thence (17) Easterly along said curve through a central angle of 17© 29' 49" an arc distance of 1526.91 feet more or less, to a point on a line parallel with and 150.00 feet Northerly of the South line of said Section 2; Thence (18) Along said parallel line South 89© 17' 47" East a distance of 2644.02 feet more or less, to a point on the East line of said Section 2, from which the Southeast corner of said Section 2 bears South 01© 06' 31" West 150.00 feet more or less; Thence (19) Along a line 150.00 feet North of and parallel with the South line of the Southwest quarter of Section 1, T. 31 S., R. 27 E., South 88© 29' 10" East a distance of 2641.34 feet more or less, to a point on the East line of said Southwest quarter, from which the South quarter corner of said Section 1 bears South 01© 30' 50" West 150.00 feet more or less; Thence (20) Along a line 150.00 feet North of and parallel with the South line of the Southeast quarter of Section 1, T. 31 S., R. 27 E., South 88© 29' 11" East a distance of 2639.16 feet more or less, to a point on the East line of said Section 1, from which the Southeast corner of said Section I bears South 01© 00' 02" West 150.01 feet more or less; Thence (21) Along a line 150.00 feet North of and parallel with the South line of the Southwest quarter of Section 6, T. 31 S., R. 28 E., South 89° 30' 46" East a distance of 637.84 feet more or less, to a point on the centerline of State Route VI-KER-99 (Freeway 99); Thence (22) Continuing along said parallel line, South 89© 30' 46" East a distance of 2158.40 feet more or less, to a point on the East line of said Southwest quarter, from which the South quarter corner of said Section 6 bears South 00© 29' 02" West 150.00 feet more or less; Thence (23) Along a line 150.00 feet North of and parallel with the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 6, South 89© 31' 11" East a distance of 1224.51 feet more or less, to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Northwesterly, and having a radius of 5000.00 feet; Thence (24) Northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 16© .33' 56" an arc distance of 1445.62 feet to a point on the East line of said Section 6, from which the Southeast corner of said Section bears South 00© 38' 50" West a distance of 357.53 feet; Thence (25) Continuing along said curve through a central angle of of 00© 04' 00" an arc distance of 5.82 feet; Thence (26) North 73° 50' 53" East 2648.11 feet more or less, to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Southeasterly, and having a radius of 5000.00 feet; Thence (27) Easterly along said curve through a central angle of 16° 36' 56" an arc distance of 1449.99 feet to the Northwest corner of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 5, T. 31 S., R. 28 E.; Thence (28) South 89© 32' 11" East along the North line of the South half of the Southeast quarter of said Section 5, 1324.02 feet more or less, to the Northwest corner of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 4, T. 31 S., R. 28 E.; Thence (29) South 89° 46' 45" East along the North line of the South half of the South half of said Section 4, 3969.49 feet more or less, to the Northwest corner of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 4, said point also being the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Northwesterly, and having a radius of 5000.00 feet; Thence (30) Northerly along said curve through a central angle of 15° 21' 56" an arc distance of 1340.89 feet more or less, to a point on the West line of the Southwest quarter of Section 3, T. 31 S., R. 28 E., from which the West quarter corner of said Section 3 bears North 00° 37' 15" East 1149.02 feet more or less; Thence (31) Continuing Northerly along said curve through a central angle of 31° 31' 00" an arc distance of 2750.36 feet more or less; Thence (32) North 43° 20' 19" East 2213.26 feet more or less to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Northwesterly, and having a radius of 5000.00 feet; Thence (33) Northerly along said curve through a central angle of 10° 46' 08" an arc distance of 939.75 feet more or less, to a point on the South line of the Southeast quarter of Section 34 T. 30 S., R. 28, from which the Southeast quarter corner of said Section 34 bears South 89° 33' 54" East 910.98 feet more or less; Thence (34) Continuing Northerly along said curve through a central angle of 32° 01' 31" an arc distance of 2794.73 feet more or less, to a point on a line 150.00 feet westerly of and parallel with the East line of said Section 34, from which the East quarter corner of said Section 34 bears radially South 89° 27' 20" East 150.00 feet; Thence (35) Along said parallel line, North 00° 32' 40" East 2648.57 feet more or less, to a point on the North line of said Section 34, from which the Northeast corner of said Section 34 bears South 89° 38' 27" East 150.00 feet; Thence (36) Along a line 150.00 feet West of and parallel with the East line of Section 27, T. 30 S., R. 28 E., North 00° 33' 15" East 5295.08 feet more or less, to a point on the North line of said Section 27, from which the Northeast corner of said Section 27 bears South 89° 39' 17" East 150.00 feet; Thence (37) Along a line 150.00 feet west of and parallel with the East line of the Southeast quarter of Section 22, T. 30 S., R. 28 E., North 00° 33' 32" East 2648.00 feet more or less, to a point from which the East quarter corner of said Section 22 bears South 89° 26' 28" East 150.00 feet, said point also being the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Southeasterly, and having a radius of 4000.00 feet; ORIGINAL Thence (38) Northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 15© 44' 21" an arc distance of 1098.79 feet more or less, to a point on the East line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 22, from which the East quarter corner of said Section 22 bears South 00© 33' 27" West 1085.02 feet more or less; Thence (39) Continuing Northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 25© 45' 36" an arc distance of 1798.40 feet more or less, to a point on the South line of Section 14, T. 30 S., R. 28 E., from which point the Southwest corner of said Section 14 bears North 89© 37' 27" West 854.21 feet more or less; Thence (40) Continuing Northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 33© 25' 22" an arc distance of 2333.35 feet; Thence (41) North 75© 28' 51" East 2589.59 feet more or less, to the West line of the Southwest quarter of Section 13, T. 30 S., R. 28 E., from which the West quarter corner of said Section 13 bears North 00© 36' 41" East 780.43 feet more or less; Thence (42) Continuing North 75© 28' 51" East 2678.80 feet more or less, to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Southeasterly, and having a radius of 7500.00 feet; Thence (43) Easterly along said curve through a central angle of 14© 45' 57" an arc distance of 1932.82 feet; Thence (44) Along a line 150.00 feet North of and parallel with the East-West midsection line of said Section 13, South 89° 45' 12" East 796.07 feet more or less, to a point of intersection with the West line of the Northwest quarter of Section 18, T. 30 S., R. 29 E., from which the Northwest corner of said Section 18 bears North 00° 32' 58" East 2500.87 feet more or less; Thence (45) Along a line 150.00 feet North of and parallel with the East-West midsection line of said Section 18, South 89° 46' 33" East 150.00 feet more or less, to a point of intersection with a line 150.00 feet East of and parallel with the West line of the Northwest quarter of said Section 18, said point also being the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Northwesterly, and having a radius of 5000.00 feet; Thence (46) Easterly along said curve through a central angle of 23© 08' 04" an arc distance of 2018.87 feet; Thence (47) North 67° 24' 54" East a distance of 1400.46 feet more or less, to the the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Southeasterly, and having a radius of 5000.00 feet; Thence (48) Easterly along said curve through a central angle of 22° 48' 50" an arc distance of 1990.90 feet to a point on the West line of the Northwest quarter of Section 17, T. 30 S., R. 29 E., from which the Northwest corner of said Section 17 bears North 00° 24' 30" East 1174.84 feet more or less; Thence (49) South 89° 46' 16" East a distance of 3986.80 feet more or less, to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Northwesterly, and having a radius of 5000.00 feet; Thence (50) Easterly along said curve through a central angle of 15° 24' 46" an arc distance of 1345.03 feet, to a point on the West line of the Northwest quarter of Section 16, T. 30 S., R. 29 E., from which the Northwest corner of said Section 16 bears North 00° 24' 18" East 998.87 feet more or less; Thence (51) Continuing Easterly along said curve through a central angle of 05° 52' 32" an arc distance of 512.74 feet; Thence (52) North 69° 07' 05" East a distance of 1814.51 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Southeasterly, and having a radius of 5000.00 feet; Thence (53) Northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 07° 02' 23" an arc distance of 614.33 feet more or less, to a point on the South line of the Southeast quarter of Section 9, T. 30 S., R. 29 E., from which the South quarter corner of said Section 9 bears North 89° 46' 21" West 110.35 feet more or less; Thence (54) Continuing Easterty along said curve through a central angle of 14° 04' 11" an arc distance of 1227.83 feet to a point on a line 150.00 feet Northerly of and parallel with the South line of said Southeast quarter; Thence (55) South 89° 46' 21" East along said parallel line a distance of 1325.65 feet more or less, to a point on the East line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 9, from which the Southeast corner of said Section 9 bears South 00° 17' 12" West 150.00 feet more or less; Thence (56) Along a line 150.00 feet north of and parallel with the South line of the Southwest quarter of Section 10, T. 30 S., R. 29 E., South 89° 52' 07" East a distance of 1291.45 feet more or less, to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Northwesterly, and having a radius of 4000.00 feet; Thence (57) Northerly along said curve through a central angle of 89° 58' 49" an arc distance of 6281.81 feet more or less, to a point of intersection with the East line of said Section 10, from which the Northeast corner of said Section 10 bears North 00° 09' 04" East 1144.50 feet more or less; Thence (58) North 00© 09' 04" East a distance of 495.80 feet along the East line of said Section 10 to a point on the centedine of State Route VI-KER-58, said point also being the terminus for this description. OFFICE OF COUNTY SURVEYOR Prepared By: ..~ ~ Compared By: (~. ['~ ~ LS 5307 ©~iG~NAL