Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 105-09 I RESOLUTION NO. 0-5- 09 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING THE TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OF A WILLIAMSON ACT LAND USE CONTRACT ON 201.20 ACRES, AND THE EXCLUSION OF 243.20 ACRES FROM THE BOUNDARIES OF KERN COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE NO. 14 ON CERTAIN PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF ALFRED HARRELL HIGHWAY AND WEST OF THE FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF MORNING DRIVE IN THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD (FILE NO. 09-0192). WHEREAS, Robert Kapral, representing The Canyons LLC, filed an application requesting the cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract on 201.20 acres within Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 14, and the exclusion of 243.20 acres from the boundaries of Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 14 on certain property within the City of Bakersfield as hereinafter described and as shown on Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Bakersfield in accordance with the provisions of Sections 51232, 51233, and 51284 of the Government Code, did set, WEDNESDAY, May 6, 2008, at the hour of 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before said City Council on said application. Notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least ten (10) calendar days before said hearing by publication in The Bakersfield Califomian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, the subject parcel was originally entered into a Land Use Agreement with Kem County pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Government Code Title 5, Division 1, Part 1, Chapter 7, Section 51200 et seq.) commonly known as the Williamson Act", on February 29, 1968, as shown in Book 4135, Pages 477 through 483 of the Office of the Kern County Recorder; and WHEREAS, the Kem County Board of Supervisors approved a tentative Williamson Act Contract cancellation for the entire subject parcel on July 18, 1977 as Kern County Resolution No. 77-351 subject to a cancellation fee that since expired; and WHEREAS, the subject parcel was annexed into the City of Bakersfield on September 13, 1977 as a portion of the "Rio Bravo Annexation" (Annexation No. 77-210); and WHEREAS, the Bakersfield City Council approved a tentative partial Williamson Act Contract cancellation for a 42-acre portion of the subject parcel on March 22, 1978 (Resolution No. 32-78) subject to a cancellation fee. The required cancellation fee was paid and a Certificate of Final Cancellation recorded on June 19, 1978 in Book 5118, Pages 2169 through 2170 of the Office of the Kern County Recorder; and 1 o~~AKF9~-~ m U O r)RIGINAL WHEREAS, Williamson Act Land Use Contract Cancellation 201.20 acres and the exclusion of 243.20 acres from the boundaries of Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 14 is described as follows: Williamson Act Land Use Contract Cancellation: Robert Kapral, representing Canyons, LLC, the property owner, has applied for the cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract for the 201.20-acre portion of a 243.20- acre parcel within Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 14 located south of Alfred Harrell Highway and west of the future alignment of Morning Drive in Northeast Bakersfield, being a portion of the west half of Section 6, Township 29 South, and Range 29 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of California (portion of APN 386- 030-04); and Exclusion of 243.20 Acres From Aaricultural Preserve No. 14: Robert Kapral, representing Canyons, LLC, the property owner, has applied for the exclusion of a 243.20-acre parcel from the boundaries of Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 14 located south of Alfred Harrell Highway and west of the future alignment of Morning Drive in Northeast Bakersfield, being a portion of the west half of Section 6, Township 29 South, and Range 29 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of California (APN 386-030-04); and WHEREAS, the City Council continued the public hearing to the next General Plan Amendment cycle; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Bakersfield in accordance with the provisions of Section 65355 of the Government Code, held a public hearing on August 19, 2009, on General Plan Amendment 03-0337 of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element and Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, and Tentative Cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract on 201.20 acres, notice of the time and place of public hearing having been given at least ten (10) calendar days before said hearing by publication in The Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, the City Council continued the public hearing to the September 9, 2009 regular meeting; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 51282(b)(1), the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served pursuant to GC Section 51245, said notice was recorded as Document No. 0209020251 on February 13, 2009, in the Office of the Kern County recorder; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 51282(bX2), the cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent contracted lands from agricultural use as evaluated in the Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment, February 2009 ("ALECA"), attached hereunto as Exhibit "C". The ALECA determined that with the exception of properties located north of Alfred Harrell Highway along the Kern River, none the properties within the project's Zone of Influence are under Williamson Act Contract. Because there is physical separation created by the topography of the area and by intervening streets, the Kern River Regional Park and the Kern River, these properties would not be affected by the proposed changes; and ~AKF 2 m U O ORIGINAL WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 51282(b)(3),the cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, since property is currently zoned R-1 and R-1-HD (One Family Dwelling and One Family Dwelling-Hillside Development) and has General Plan land use designations of LR and OS-S respectively (Low Density Residential and Open Space-Slopes). Subject to approval of General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 03-0337 (The Canyons Project), the proposed use of the property is single family residences, public parks, public trails and permanent open space. The property's proposed zoning is R-1-HD for 126.05 acres and OS-HD (Open Space-Hillside Development) for 117.15 acres; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 51282(b)(4),the cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development since the properties lying to the south, east and west are zoned R-1 and R-1-HD. The Kern River Regional Park, a County public recreational facility, lies north of the property. Cancellation of the Contract would be consistent with the patterns of urban development established by the Metropolitan General Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 51282(b)(5), there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted lands. The Department of Conservation does not rate any part of the property as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmland. Instead, the Department of Conservation rates the property as potential grazing land. The ALECA report concludes vegetation on the property is sparse and not suitable for grazing. The property and proximate properties to the east, west and south are zoned for residential use and to the north is the Kern River Regional Park, a public recreational facility. Agricultural use of the property would not be compatible with residential-zoned lands or lands used for public recreation. Development of the contracted land for residential use, public parks, public trails and permanent open space would, therefore, provide more contiguous patterns of urban development consistent with the Metropolitan General Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 51283, the Kern County Assessor has determined the full market value of the land with respect to which the cancellation is requested, as though it was free of the contractual restriction, and has certified to this Council on September 9, 2009 that the fair market value is $1,049,000 and that the cancellation fee is $131,125 for the 201.20 acres, and has certified that there are no additional deferred taxes under Government Code Section 51283; and WHEREAS, the subject site is also part of a proposed General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (No. 03-0337, known as the Canyons Project) to allow the development of a mixed use neighborhood for single family residences, public parks, public trails, permanent open space, and commercial development; and WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of EIR's as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures, have been duly followed by city staff and the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Canyons Project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (SCH# 2006031060); and 3 o`'~AKF9J ~ m r U O r)RIGINAL WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, the City of Bakersfield prepared a Recirculated Final EIR for General Plan Amendment/Specific Parks and Trails Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 03-0337 (The Canyons Project) to address the potential impacts of the proposed project on agricultural resources, which documents that this tentative contract cancellation and exclusion from the boundaries of Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 14 is a later project that will have less than significant impact; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Canyons Project (File No. 03- 0337) has been certified by the City Council; and WHEREAS, a notice of hearing was sent to the Department of Conservation pursuant to Section 51284 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, a notice of hearing was sent to property owners of lands within one mile of the project site, neighboring jurisdictions and agencies pursuant to Government Code (GC) Sections 51232, 51233, and 51284; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings: 1. All required notices have been given. 2. The laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of EIR's as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures, have been duly followed. 3. That the infrastructure exists or can easily be provided to accommodate the types of density and intensity of the proposed development. 4. The public necessity, general welfare and good zoning practice justify the cancellation of the Williamson Act Land Use Contract on 201.20 acres within Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 14, and the exclusion of 243.20 acres from the boundaries of Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 14 on certain property within the City of Bakersfield more specifically described in the attached legal descriptions (See Exhibit "A"). 5. The Williamson Act Land Use Contract cancellation and exclusion from the Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 14 are compatible with the surrounding uses. 6. The Williamson Act Land Use Contract cancellation and exclusion from the Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 14 are consistent with the existing Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan designations of LR and OS-S (Low Density Residential and Open Space-Slopes) for the subject property. 7. That the Williamson Act Land Use Contract cancellation is consistent with the purposes of Title 5, Division 1, Part 1, Chapter 7 (the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or the Williamson Act) of the Government Code Sections 51282(b)(1) through(5). o~gPKF,9~-~ 4 > m F- r ~ o ORIGINAL NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND FOUND BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD as follows: 1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. That the City Council has, pursuant to Sections 51282(b)(1) through(5) of the Government Code, made the required findings to tentatively approve the cancellation of the Williamson Act Land Use Contract. 3. The Williamson Act Land Use Contract cancellation and exclusion from the Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 14 pertain to the Recirculated Final EIR for General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 03-0337 (The Canyons Project). 4. Approve the tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act Land Use Contract on 201.20 acres within Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 14, and the exclusion of 243.20 acres from the boundaries of Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 14 on certain property within the City of Bakersfield more specifically described in the attached legal descriptions (See Exhibit "A"), subject to the conditions and contingencies enclosed in the Certificate of Tentative Cancellation (see Exhibit "B"), and subject to payment of a cancellation fee of $131,125 to be recomputed if not paid within a year of the tentative cancellation's approval, pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 51282. 5. The City Clerk or his/her designee is authorized to record the Certificate of Tentative Cancellation upon certification of the Recirculated Final EIR for General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 03-0337. 6. The City Clerk or his/her designee is authorized to record the Certificate of Final Cancellation tentative cancellation upon completion and compliance with all conditions and contingencies enclosed in the Certificate of Tentative Cancellation. ---------000-------- 5 o~caAKF9~, U ~ ORIGINAL 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 SEP 0 9 2008 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER C(Xa(50~1 ~er►harn , ~yrUr Go~►cln Hv►hSOr Su11 vGn Scr 1vr~,v NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ri.0rkL ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER Y\ My ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER .n ny\Q' L PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CMC CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk o Me Council of the City of Bakersfield SEP 0 9 20 APPROV HARVEY L. HALL MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: VIRGINIA GEN O City Attorney By: ee~ Exhibit A - Location Map and legal descriptions B - Certificate of Tentative Cancellation C - Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment, February 2009 KShea S:\Ag Land Preservation\Project Files\Canyons 38603004\sept 9 2009 MCC Res WA 1 st.doc August 20, 2009 6 T r v o (ORIGINAL EXHIBIT A Location Map and Legal Descriptions for the Williamson Act Land Use Contract Cancellation and Exclusion from Agricultural Preserve No. 14 4aaKF9 ~ m U p ORIGINAL N W C) LC ;t N W (i , l Q J ~ It WV I - O Ix Q G r i ~ VmQ _ ~ W~ O LL rn QpJ ~~id, Z.. o ~ W Z ow 8Q JNt►vuow Q U W - - s - co J `n N W o W U 4 W Z N co O Q U LL - m U C 7 Q~ - - 4 Ct -0 LU LU (4 W, IX a Z J a j W , UC)Q i - AIN/1A"1 y-- Z • i Z Q - I „ cn ~ , a J I _ - as q JVLN M~ am - - ~ ~ spa , I -,~IKF Page 1 of 2 ` "r C~p 1GINAL Legal Description of the 201.20 acres subject to a Williamson Act Contract within Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 14 The Southwest quarter and the East half of the Northwest quarter of Section 6, Township 29 South, Range 29 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of California, according to the Official Pat thereof. Excepting therefrom the following described real property: Beginning at a point being the West quarter corner of said Section; thence easterly along center line a distance of 1,320 feet, thence South 18°30' West a distance of 2,200 feet to a point; thence West parallel to the center line a distance of 660 feet; thence North along the West line 2000 feet to the point of beginning and containing 42 acres, more or less. Legal Description of the 243.20 acres within the boundaries of Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 14 The Southwest quarter and the East half of the Northwest quarter of Section 6, Township 29 South, Range 29 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of California, according to the Official Pat thereof. Page 2 of 2 043 A KF,9 s m v o ORIGINAL EXHIBIT B Certificate of Tentative Cancellation ~ r ORIGINAL DRAFT Recording requested by and for the benefit of the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CITY CLERK 1600 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD CA 93301 CERTIFICATE OF TENTATIVE CANCELLATION WITH RESPECT TO LAND UNDER CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS (LAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1965) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 1. The City Council of the City of Bakersfield has given tentative approval of the petition Robert Kapral, representing Canyons, LLC, the property owner, for cancellation of contractual restrictions for the remaining 201.20-acre portion of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract which a notice of nonrenewal has been served pursuant to Section 51245 of the Government Code, recorded on February 13, 2009, as Document No. 0209020251 in the office of the Kern County Recorder, as to the land hereinafter more fully described, entered into under the Land Conservation Act of 1965, and which land is located in Agricultural Preserve No. 14 in the County of Kern, after public hearing duly noticed and held. 2. The name of the owner of the land herein mentioned, at the time of cancellation is Canyons, LLC. 3. The amount of the cancellation fee determined by said City Council to be paid as deferred taxes upon such cancellation, in accordance with paragraph (b) of Section 51283 of the Government Code, and certified by the Kern County Assessor to said Council on September 9, 2009, as being due pursuant to said Act, and that the Kern County Assessor's fair market value is $1,049,000 and that the cancellation fee is $131,125 for the 201.20 acres. 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 51283.4, the Council has established the following conditions and contingencies, and has declared that a Certificate of Cancellation of said contract with respect to said parcel of land will be issued and recorded within thirty (30) days after being notified in writing by the landowner that each and all of said conditions and contingencies is satisfied: Page 1 of 2 4 3 AKF9 Q), sT F-- rn r v o ORIGINAL (a) Payment in full of the cancellation fee hereinabove mentioned; and (b) Unless said cancellation fee is fully paid, or a Certificate of Cancellation is issued, within one year from the date of recordation of the Certificate of Tentative Cancellation, such fee shall be recomputed as of the date the landowner notifies this City Council in writing that he/she has satisfied the conditions and contingencies, as provided in subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 51283.4, and the landowner shall pay any additional fee arising from such recomputation as a further condition to issuance of a Certificate of Cancellation; provided, however, that the landowner shall not be entitled to refund of any cancellation fee previously paid even if the recomputed fee is less; and (c) Landowner shall obtain all permits, if any, necessary to commence the project of the proposed alternative use; and (d) Landowner shall satisfy all conditions of approval as stated in the Council Resolution No. attached hereunto as Exhibit "1 5. Pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 51283.4, if land owner has been unable to satisfy the foregoing conditions or contingencies, he shall notify this City Council of the particular conditions or contingences he is unable to satisfy; within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice, and upon a determination by this that the landowner is unable to satisfy the foregoing conditions or contingencies this Council shall execute a Certificate of Withdrawal of said tentative approval of the cancellation of contract and cause the same to be recorded; however, the landowner shall not be entitled to the refund of any cancellation fee previously paid. 6. The real property to which the foregoing tentative cancellation proceedings applies is situated in the City of Bakersfield, State of California, and is described in the attached aforementioned Council Resolution, and made a part hereof by this reference. Dated this 9th day of September, 2009, by order of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield. PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CIVIC CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield SA4g Land PreservationlProject FileslCanyons 386030041Tentative Certificate Cancellation.doc Page 2 of 2 o~~AKF9s m r v O ORIGINAL Exhibit 1 shall be the executed copy of the City Council Resolution. oF~AKF9' T rn r O -')RIGINAL EXHIBIT C Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment February 2009 o``~ P KF,9~-c\ m F- r ORIGINAL The Canyons, Bakersfield, CA WZ1 INC. Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment February 2009 Submitted to: The City of Bakersfield 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Prepared by: WZI Inc. 171728 1h Street Bakersfield, California 93301 ~~KF9 o' sT > m F- r O 1717 28" STREFT, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (661) 326-1112 FAX: (661) 326-0191 ORIGINAL WZ1 INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1 Introduction 1 2 Project Description 1 3 Regulatory and Environmental Settings 2 3.1 Land Conservation (Williamson) Act 2 3.2 Agricultural Preserve 2 3.3 Existing Setting 2 3.4 Agricultural Use 6 4 Thresholds of Significance 7 5 Methodology 8 5.1 California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model 8 5.2 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Factors 12 6 Project Analysis 12 6.1 LESA Model 12 6.2 Kern County/Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan 13 6.2.1 Description of Existing Agricultural Character 13 6.2.2 Discussion of Farmland Conversion Impacts 16 6.3 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Factors 19 7 Conclusion 21 8 References .................................................................................................................22 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Location Map - Canyons Project Exhibit 2 Zoning Map with Williamson Act and Agriculture Preserve Boundaries Exhibit 3 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Map Exhibit 4 Williamson Act Contract/Agriculture Preserve, With Zone of Influence Exhibit 5 Soil Map Exhibit 6 Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Worksheet 1 Exhibit 7 Site Assessment Worksheet 2 Exhibit 8 Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Scoresheet Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment 1gAKF9 O `fr i m t: r v ~ ORIGINAL WZ1 INC. APPENDICES Appendix I LESA Model Instruction Manual Appendix 2 Historic Kern County Memorandum Appendix 3 Kern County Counsel Recommendation Regarding Williamson Act Contract Cancellation Appendix 4 City of Bakersfield Resolution Appendix 5 Kern County Assessor Records 1iIiIIIiw Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment ~AKF9 s~ O 7q►GINAL WZI INC. 1 Introduction At the request of the City of Bakersfield Planning Department, WZI Inc. has conducted an agricultural land evaluation and conversion assessment for the Canyons Project, Bakersfield, California property located in the northwest portion of the City of Bakersfield south of Hart Memorial Park. The assessment was conducted in part utilizing the California Department of Conservation Office of Land Conservation, California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model, 1997 (Appendix 1 "LESA Model Instruction Manual"), and factors observed in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. WZI is a professional services consulting firm with experience in regulatory compliance and environmental engineering and geology. The members of WZI are State of California Registered Environmental Assessors, Registered Professional Engineers and Geologists. WZI expresses no opinion as to disciplines, subjects and practices outside those specifically enumerated above. Further, WZI expresses no opinion herein as to any matters of California or federal law. This assessment is based on the foregoing and subject to the limitations, qualifications, exceptions and assumptions set forth herein. 2 Project Description The Canyons Project site consists of approximately 890 acres, and is bounded by Alfred Harrell Highway to the west, north and east, and vacant land immediately on the north, south, and east (Exhibit 1 "Location Map - Canyons Project"). The property is encumbered by a Williamson Act contract affecting up to 201.20 acres of the project site, plus an Agricultural Preserve designation adopted by the County of Kern, that covers 243.2 acres of the site. This study applies only to the 243.2 acre portion of the Canyons Project. The proposed Canyons Project includes the development of a new community with residential, commercial, and recreational land uses. The proposed mixed-use project is primarily residential and includes the development of 11 private gated communities with 1,033 private gated residences and 301 non-gated residences. The project includes the development of approximately 1,214 single-family residential lots on approximately 508.61 acres (1,000 single-family residential lots on approximately 461.93 acres and 214 single family lots on approximately 46.68 acres), approximately 120 multi-family dwelling units on approximately 28.18 acres, and approximately 65,000 square feet of general commercial on approximately 8.15 acres. The project also includes a private recreational center on 5.2 acres near the center of the project site and north of the proposed commercial area. In addition to this center, three areas are proposed for parks totaling 17.33 gross acres (12.97 net useable acres). These three parks include (1) a 8.5 gross acre (6.34 net useable acre) park in the northeast portion of the project site, (2) a 6.83 gross acre (4.63 net useable acre) park in the east-central portion of the site and immediately south of Clearwater Canyon Parkway Place, and (3) a 2-acre (gross and net) lot proposed adjacent to a future City of Bakersfield park located southwest of the project site and east of Mooncrest Place. The project plan includes 9.66 miles of public trails and 1.43 miles of Class I bike path, totaling approximately 11.09 miles. Approximately Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment o4~'AKF9J, 1 ~ U p ORIGINAL WZ1 INC. 284.41 acres will be retained as open space while approximately 42 acres will be maintained as common areas. The Canyons Project property is described as Kern County Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN: 386-030-(02)(04)(12); 436-010-37). The portion of the Canyons Project which is under Williamson Act Contract and within the Agricultural Preserve is described as Kern County Assessor's parcel Numbers 386-030-04. This portion of the site is located in the east '/a of the northwest '/a and the southwest '/a of Section 6, Township 29S, Range 29E, Mount Diablo Base & Meridian. 3 Regulatory and Environmental Settings 3.1 Land Conservation (Williamson) Act The California Land Conservation Act, better known as the Williamson Act, has been the state's premier land protection program since its enactment in 1965. More than 16 million of California's 30 million acres of farm and ranch land are currently protected under the Williamson Act. The California Legislature passed the Williamson Act in 1965 to preserve agriculture and open space lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. The Act creates an arrangement whereby private landowner's contract with counties and cities to voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open space uses. The vehicle for these agreements is a rolling term 10-year contract (i.e., unless either party files a "notice of non-renewal," the contract is automatically renewed for an additional year.) In return, restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their actual use, rather than potential market value. 3.2 Agricultural Preserve An agricultural preserve defines the boundary of an area within which a city or county will enter into contracts with landowners. The boundary is designated by resolution of the Board of Supervisors (Board) or City Council (Council) having jurisdiction. Only land located within an agricultural preserve is eligible for a Williamson Act contract. The presence of an agricultural preserve by itself does not involve a land use restriction. 3.3 Existing Setting The project site is currently vacant and is predominantly open space located within an elevated area of plateaus, hills and bluffs that are non-irrigated land designated by the California Resource Agency as grazing land, much of which has been disturbed by the construction of high-voltage transmission lines and their continued maintenance, previous oil, sand and gravel operations, and the use of off- road recreational vehicles by the public. Specifically, most of the area planned for development is highly disturbed due to previous oil and mining activities, fire, and livestock grazing. Additionally, the project site has been disturbed by unauthorized use by off-highway-vehicles, biking, and hiking activities throughout the site and adjacent land. Although portions of the site have been used for oil production, these operations have been abandoned, leaving much of the site vacant and barren of vegetation and wildlife, as it was never reclaimed following the mining. In addition, the site is predominately surrounded by vacant land, which includes, Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment bAKF9 O c!'~ 2 F m r v p ORIGINAL WZ1 INC. 4iIIIW open space to the south, northwest, north and northeast, and a closed landfill to the southwest. The subject property is located in the City of Bakersfield. The project site is included in Agricultural Preserve No. 141 and was historically used for grazing and mining activities. The property is currently zoned for single family residential use (Exhibit 2 "Zoning Map with Williamson Act and Agriculture Preserve Boundaries"). The property must be in an Agricultural Preserve to qualify for a Williamson Act Land Use Contract. Kern County Assessor's records reveal that a portion of the project site is under a Williamson Act Land Use Contract (Exhibit 2 "Zoning Map with Williamson Act and Agriculture Preserve Boundaries"). Exhibits 2 "Zoning Map with Williamson Act and Agriculture Preserve Boundaries" and 3" Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Map" identify the site and surrounding zoning as well as the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use designation. The property currently has General Plan Land Use Designations of Low Density Residential (LR) and Open Space-Slopes (OS-S). The property is zoned One Family Dwelling (R-1) and One Family Dwelling/Hillside Development (R-1/HD). The properties lying to the north are zoned for Rural Suburban minimum 2.5 acre lots/Hillside Development (R-S-2.5/1-113) and Open Space (OS) within the City of Bakersfield Zoning Maps. Other properties to the north are zoned for Open Space (OS) and Agriculture (A) within the unincorporated County of Kern. The properties to the south, east, and west are zoned for One Family Dwelling (R-1); One Family Dwelling/ Hillside Development (R-1/1-113); Rural Suburban/minimum 10 acre lots (R-S/IOAC); Rural Suburban/10 acre lots/Hillside Development (R-S/1 OAC/HD); Agriculture (A); and Agriculture/Hillside Development (A/HD) within the city of Bakersfield Zoning Maps. Other properties to the west are zoned for Agriculture (A) and Floodplain-Primary (FP-P) within the unincorporated County of Kern. The Metropolitan Bakersfield land use designations of the properties lying to the north are Open Space-Slopes (OS-S), Open Space-Park (OS-P), and Kern River Plan Element: 3.1, 3.1/2.1 and 5.35. The Metropolitan Bakersfield land use designations of the properties lying to the south and east are Open Space-Slopes (OS-S) and Low Density Residential (LR). The Metropolitan Bakersfield land use designations of the properties lying to the west are Open Space-Slopes (OS-S) and Rural Residential minimum 2.5 acre lot (R-R). The Kern County Online Mapping System,2 City of Bakersfield Cumulative Projects and Active Tentative Tract Maps indicate that there is approximately one residential subdivision tract development project located within a one-quarter radius surrounding the site (Exhibits 4 "Williamson Act Contract/Agriculture Preserve, with Zone of Influence"). The project site contains the following soil types as defined by the U. S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (Exhibit 5 "Soil Map"): According to the Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 14 Map, revised 2-04. z http://206.169.45.184/imt`/sites/km_pub/launch.jsp Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment 43AK~c 3 O. 9~n m .l r ~~1GlNAL WZ1 INC. • 134 Cuyama loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on dissected alluvial fans and stream terraces. It formed in alluvium derived dominantly from granitic rock. Elevation is 425 to 1,000 feet. The average annual precipitation is about 8 inches, the average annual temperature is about 65 degrees F, and the average frost-free season is 275 to 325 days. Permeability of this Cuyama soil is moderately slow. Available water capacity is moderate or high. Runoff is slow or medium, and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. If this unit is used for homesite development, the main limitations are slope, moderate shrink-swell potential, and the very cobbly substratum. Erosion is a hazard in the steeper areas. Only the part of the site that is used for construction should be disturbed. Structures to divert runoff are needed if buildings and roads are constructed. Removal of pebbles and cobbles in disturbed areas is needed for best results when landscaping, particularly in areas used for lawns. In summer, irrigation is needed for lawn grasses, shrubs, vines, shade trees, and ornamental trees. Buildings and roads should be designed to offset the limited ability of the soil in this unit to support a load. Septic tank absorption fields do not function properly during rainy periods because of wetness and the moderately slow permeability. The limitation of moderately slow permeability can be overcome by increasing the size of the absorption field. If the density of housing is moderate to high, community sewage systems are needed to prevent contamination of water supplies as a result of seepage from onsite sewage disposal systems. The effects of shrinking and swelling can be minimized by using proper engineering designs and by backfilling with material that has low shrink-swell potential. This map unit is in land capability class (LLC)3 Vle, nonirrigated, Storie Index 61.4 • 135 Cuyama loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on dissected alluvial fans and stream terraces. It formed in alluvium derived dominantly from granitic rock. The vegetation in areas not cultivated is mainly annual grasses and forbs. Elevation is 425 to 1,000 feet. The average annual precipitation is about 8 inches, the average annual temperature is about 65 degrees F, and the average frost-free season is 275 to 325 days. Permeability of this Cuyama soil is moderately slow. Available water capacity is moderate or high. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. If this unit is used for homesite development, the main limitations are the steepness of slope, moderate shrink- swell potential and cobbly substratum. Removal of pebbles and cobbles in disturbed areas is needed for best results when landscaping, particularly in areas used for lawns. Buildings and roads should be designed to offset the limited ability of the soil in this unit to support a load. Septic tank absorption fields do not function properly during rainy periods because of wetness and moderately slow permeability. The limitation of moderately slow permeability can be overcome by increasing the size of the absorption field. If the density of housing is moderate to high, community sewage systems are needed to prevent Agricultural potential is based on the US Department of Agriculture Land Capability Classification system (LCC). ° United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Northwestern Part, 1988 Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment 4 o~3AKF9~ ~ m r O ORIGINAL WZ1 INC. contamination of water supplies as a result of seepage from onsite sewage disposal systems. The effects of shrinking and swelling can be minimized by using proper engineering designs and by backfilling with material that has low shrink-swell potential. This map unit is in LCC subclass Vle (17), nonirrigated, Storie Index 54. • 151 Elkhills-Torriorthents, stratified, eroded, complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes. This map unit is in areas of uplifted, dissected, old valley fill. The Elkhills soil supports a uniform plant cover of annual grasses, forbs, and scattered shrubs, and the Torriorthents support little if any cover. Elevation is 600 to 1,600 feet. The average annual precipitation is about 7 inches, the average annual temperature is about 63 degrees F, and the average frost-free season is 240 to 300 days. The Elkhills soil is deep and well drained. It formed in alluvium derived dominantly from sedimentary and granitic rock. Permeability of the Elkhills soil is moderately rapid. Available water capacity is moderate. Runoff is rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is high. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more.Torriorthents are deep and well drained. They formed in alluvium derived dominantly from sedimentary and granitic rock. Permeability of the Torriorthents is moderate to slow. Available water capacity is moderate or high. Runoff is rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is high. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Some areas of this unit are used for livestock grazing. Oil wells are common on the unit.This unit is suited to livestock grazing. The production of forage on the Elkhills soil is limited by low rainfall, steepness of slopes, and the high hazard of erosion. Production on the Torriorthents is limited by low rainfall, the content of salts, and the high hazard of erosion. This unit supports sparse stands of plants that are suitable for grazing. Overgrazing or operating off-road vehicles on the unit causes the plant community to deteriorate and increases soil erosion. Reestablishing plant cover is difficult, especially if the surface layer has been lost through erosion, which exposes fine textured soil material that is high in content of salts. In some areas it may be necessary to replace the surface layer for revegetation to be successful. Loss of the surface layer results in a severe decrease in productivity and in the potential of the unit to produce forage. Proper grazing use is essential. Leaving an adequate plant cover helps to control erosion and promotes the production of forage. Uniform distribution of grazing can be achieved by the proper placement of salt and livestock watering facilities. Livestock grazing should be managed to protect the unit from erosion. This unit is limited for livestock watering ponds and other water impoundments because of the moderately rapid permeability of the Elkhills soils. This map unit is in LCC subclass VIle (17), nonirrigated, Storie Index 33. • 217 Pits. This map unit consists of open excavations from which most of the soil material has been removed. In many places rock, sand, gravel, or gypsum are exposed. These areas support little if any vegetation. The areas are irregular in shape and are 10 to 500 acres in size. Elevation is 350 to 1,500 feet. Slope is 0 to 5 percent.Sand and gravel pits are mainly along the Kern River, north of Bakersfield, and north of Oildale, near the junction of James Road and California Highway 65. Most of these pits are in use and are increasing in size as the sand and gravel are excavated. Borrow pits are widely scattered throughout the survey area. These pits have provided material ranging in texture from sand to Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment 5 _ m r ~ O )RIGINAL WZ1 INC. clay loam. The material is used for building roads, for building earth dams or levees, as fill for building sites, and for farming. This map unit has no LCC or Storie Index. • 248 Xeric Torriorthents, stratified-Cuyama complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes. This map unit is on dissected alluvial fans and stream terraces. The present vegetation in most areas is mainly annual grasses and forbs. Elevation is 425 to 1,000 feet. The average annual precipitation is about 8 inches, the average annual temperature is about 65 degrees F, and the average frost-free season is 275 to 325 days.This unit is 60 percent Xeric Torriorthents and 20 percent Cuyama loam. The Xeric Torriorthents are deep and well drained. They formed in alluvium derived dominantly from granitic rock. These soils are 5 to 40 percent gravel and 5 to 30 percent cobbles. Permeability of the Xeric Torriorthents is moderately slow to rapid. Available water capacity is low to high. Runoff is rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is high. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. The Cuyama soil is deep and well drained. It formed in alluvium derived dominantly from granitic rock. In some areas the surface layer is sandy loam or coarse sandy loam. Permeability of this Cuyama soil is moderately slow. Available water capacity is moderate or high. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of water erosion is high. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. This unit is suited to livestock grazing. It has a few limitations. The main limitations are steepness of slope and susceptibility to erosion when the soil surface is disturbed. If this unit is used for homesite development, the main limitations are steepness of slope, moderate shrink-swell potential, and the very cobbly substratum. Erosion is a hazard in the steeper areas. Only the part of the site that is used for construction should be disturbed. Preserving the existing plant cover during construction helps to control erosion. Access roads should be designed to provide adequate cut-slope grade. Drains are needed to control surface runoff and keep soil losses to a minimum. Removal of gravel in disturbed areas is needed for best results when landscaping, particularly in areas used for lawns. Buildings and roads should be designed to offset the limited ability of the soils in this unit to support a load. Septic tank absorption fields do not function properly during rainy periods because of wetness and the moderately slow permeability. The limitation of moderately slow permeability can be overcome by increasing the size of the absorption field. If the density of housing is moderate to high, community sewage systems are needed to prevent contamination of water supplies as a result of seepage from onsite sewage disposal systems. The effects of shrinking and swelling can be minimized by using proper engineering designs and by backfilling with material that has low shrink-swell potential. This map unit is in LCC subclass We (17), nonirrigated, Storie Index 29. 3.4 Agricultural Uses • "More than one-quarter of California's landmass is used for agriculture-about 27.7 million acres, including 5 million acres of federal grazing land. About half of ' California Farm Bureau Federation, http://www.cfbfcom/info/moca.cfm Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment 6 ~aAKF9s o T 'm U 0 ORIGINAL WZ1 INC. this total is pasture and range, another 39% is cropland, and the remainder is divided between woodland and other land. • Roughly 1.5% of the state's total agricultural land (including a similar percentage of its cropland) was converted to urban uses between 1988 and 1998. • About 97% of California's 74,000 farms are family or individually operated, with 76.6% organized legally as proprietorships, 14.6% as partnerships and 6.0% as family owned corporations. • About 5,000 of the largest farms (those with over $1 million in sales) account for 75% of all market value of agricultural products sold. • About 62,000 farms (84% of the total) have annual market sales of less than $250,000. Together, they account for less than 10% of the state's total sales." Direct urbanization is one form of farmland loss. Loss of farmland can be attributed to agricultural acres that are converted to environmental uses or, for economic reasons, are left idle for long periods or permanently taken out of production. The "Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program" does not attribute theses losses to direct urbanization, but includes them in the broad "other land" category. Agricultural to other conversions can include land converted to wetlands and wildlife habitat, land temporarily idled before eventual development (at least 4 years), and land taken out of production because of higher prices for inputs, such as water, or lower crop prices. Development density and population growth affect agricultural lands being converted to urban use. Between 1988 and 1998 California's population grew by about 19%, or 2% per year, while, about 497,000 acres of the State's farmland was converted to urban uses. This translates to a statewide average development density of about 0.1 acres of converted farmland per new resident, reflecting the larger concentration of new population in the existing urbanized regions of the coastal cities. Bakersfield by virtue of its agricultural setting has a much greater land preexisting development density of 0.3 acres per person. In 2000, Bakersfield covered 113 square miles, 6 the 2008 GIS based area shows that Bakersfield has grown to 136 square miles, while adding an estimated 93,500 people as of 2008.' 4 Thresholds of Significance This study utilizes the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines for significance determination. Agriculture Resources: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an 6 Kem County Quick Facts from the US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states 7 Population data contained on City of Bakersfield website, httn //www bakersfieldcity us/city_services/devsrv/ fc/Population and Housing Data.odf. Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment ~AKF9~ 7 ; m r Q -`RIGINAL WZ1 INC. optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Cumulative Impacts: An agricultural conversion cumulative impact is considered significant if the agricultural property to be converted is actively farmed during the past four years for commercial production and the property is situated in an area where there is no preexisting urban development defined by the presence of any high density non-agricultural land use directly adjacent to the property. 5 Methodology This study utilizes the California Department of Conservation Office of Land Conservation, California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model, 1997 to assist in impact characterization and supplements this analysis with an analysis of factors provided in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The property is designated as being committed to future nonagricultural development based upon residential zoning and the existence of a tentative tract map, however, this analysis was performed since the property is currently being farmed. 5.1 California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) is a term used to define an approach for rating the relative quality of land resources based upon specific measurable features. The formulation of a California Agricultural LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812/1993), which charges the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, with developing an amendment to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines concerning agricultural lands. Such an amendment is intended "to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects of the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process" (Public Resources Code Section 21095). The California Agricultural LESA Model is composed of six different factors. Two Land Evaluation factors are based upon measures of soil resource quality. Four Site Assessment factors provide measures of a given project's size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. For a given project, each of these factors is separately rated on a 100-point scale. The factors are then weighted relative to one another and combined, resulting in a single numeric score for a given project, with a maximum attainable score of 100 points. It is Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment 8 A KF99 PI m r U O ORIGINAL WZ1 INC. this project score that becomes the basis for making a determination of a project's potential significance, based upon a range of established scoring thresholds. Land Evaluation Factors The two Land Evaluation factors that are separately rated and included in the California LESA Model are: 1. The Land Capability Classification Rating 2. The Storie Index Rating 1. The USDA Land Capability Classification (LCC) The LCC indicates the suitability of soils for most kinds of crops. Groupings are made according to the limitations of the soils when used to grow crops and the risk of damage to soils when they are used in agriculture. Soils are rated from Class I to Class VIII, with soils having the fewest limitations receiving the highest rating (Class I). Specific subclasses are also utilized to further characterize soils. 2. The Storie Index The Storie Index provides a numeric rating (based upon a 100 point scale) of the relative degree of suitability or value of a given soil for intensive agriculture. The rating is based upon soil characteristics only. Four factors that represent the inherent characteristics and qualities of the soil are considered in the index rating. The factors are: profile characteristics, texture of the surface layer, slope, and other factors (e.g., drainage, salinity). Site Assessment Factors The four Site Assessment factors that are separately rated and included in the California LESA Model are: 1. The Project Size Rating 2. The Water Resources Availability Rating 3. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating 4. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating 1. The Project Size Rating The Project Size Rating relies upon acreage figures that were tabulated under the Land Capability Classification Rating in Table 1 (Exhibit 6 "Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Worksheet I"). The Project Size rating is based upon identifying acreage figures for five separated groupings of soil classes within the project site, and then determining which grouping generates the highest Project Size Score. 2. The Water Resources Availability Rating The Water Resources Availability Rating is based upon identifying the various water sources that may supply a given property, and then determining whether different restrictions in supply are likely to take place in years that are characterized as being periods of drought and non-drought. illiw Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment 9 o~3AKF9~-~ a r U p ORIGINAL WZ1 INC. 3. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating Determination of the surrounding agricultural land use rating is based upon the identification of a project's "Zone of Influence" (ZOI), which is defined as that land near a given project, both directly adjoining and within a defined distance away, that is likely to influence, and be influenced by, the agricultural land use of the subject project site (Exhibit 4 "Williamson Act Contract/Agriculture Preserve, with Zone of Influence"). The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating is designed to provide a measurement of the level of agricultural land use for lands in close proximity to a subject project. The California Agricultural LESA Model rates the potential significance of the conversion of an agricultural parcel that has a large proportion of surrounding land in agricultural production. The definition of a "Zone of Influence" that accounts for surrounding lands up to a minimum of one quarter mile from the project boundary is the result of several iterations during model development for assessing an area that will generally be a representative sample of surrounding land use. 4. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating is essentially an extension of the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating, and is scored in a similar manner. Protected resource lands are those lands with long-term use restrictions that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses of land. Included among them are the following: • Williamson Act contracted lands • Publicly owned lands maintained as park, forest, or watershed resources • Lands with agricultural, wildlife habitat, open space, or other natural resource easements that restrict the conversion of such land to urban or industrial uses. The California Agricultural LESA Model is designed to make determinations of the potential significance of a project's conversion of agricultural lands during the Initial Study phase of the CEQA review process. Scoring thresholds are based upon both the total LESA score as well as the component Land Evaluation (LE) and Site Assessment (SA) sub-scores (Table 5.1-1). In this manner the scoring thresholds are dependent upon the attainment of a minimum score for the LE and SA sub scores so that a single threshold is not the result of heavily skewed sub-scores (i.e., a site with a very high LE score, but a very low SA score, or vice versa). A single LESA score is generated for a given project after all the individual Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors have been scored and weighted. Just as with the scoring of individual factors that comprise the California Agricultural LESA Model, final project scoring is based on a scale of 100 points, with a given project being capable of deriving a maximum of 50 points from the Land Evaluation factors and 50 points from the Site Assessment factors (Table 5.1-2). Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment 10 a AKF9 Q), (P t m U p nRIGINAL WZ1 INC. Table 5.1-1 California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds Total LESA Score Scoring Decision 0 to 39 Points Not Considered Significant 40 to 59 Points Considered Significant only if LE and SA Sub-scores are each greater than or equal to 20 points 60 to 79 Points Considered Significant unless either LE or SA Sub-score is less than 20 points 80 to 100 Points Considered Significant The conclusions drawn from the California Agricultural LESA Model will be evaluated along with the factors identified in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan to determine project significance. . Analysis Procedure The procedure includes: 1. Obtaining the project size and extent, including the Zone of Influence (ZOI), this is defined as of all surrounding, adjoining property parcels within a radius of 0.25 miles. 2. Obtaining the project area soil types from a soil survey and the soil type's aerial extent and proportion within the project. 3. Identifying the Land Capability Classification (LLC) of the various soil types and obtaining the corresponding point rating. 4. Multiplying the LLC by the proportion of the project site soil type map unit to obtain the LLC Score. 5. Obtaining the Storie Index for each soil type from the soil survey and multiplying by the proportion of the project site soil type map unit to obtain the Storie Index Score. 6. Obtain the Project Size Score based upon the soil type's aerial extent and proportion within the project. The highest Project Size Score is then applied to the entire project 7. The LLC and Storie Index Scores are then summed. 8. The Water Resource Availability Score is then obtained based upon water supply sources and physical or economic restrictions. 9. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating is then obtained by calculating the proportion of the ZOI that is used as agricultural land. 10. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating is then obtained by calculating the proportion of the ZOI that is protected resource land. 11. All of the various scores are then weighted to obtain a Weighted Factor Rating. 12. These Weighted Factor Ratings are then summed to obtain the Total Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Score. 13. The Total Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Score is finally used to determine the level of significance. Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment 11 3AKF m - r O INAL WZ1 INC. kIIIIiW Table 5.1-2 Weighting of Factors Land Evaluation Factors Land Capability Classification 25% Storie Index Rating 25% Land Evaluation Subtotal 50% Site Assessment Factors Project Size 15% Water Resource Availability 15% Surrounding Agricultural Lands 15% Surrounding Protected Resource Lands 5% Site Assessment Subtotal 50% Total LESA Factor Weighting 100% 5.2 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Factors The general plan recommends that certain factors be evaluated when determining the appropriateness of proposed agricultural conversions. These factors includes: • Soil quality, • Availability of irrigation water, • Proximity to non-agricultural uses, • Proximity to intensive parcelization, • Effect on properties subject to "Williamson Act" land use contracts, • Ability to be provided urban services (sewer, water, roads, etc.), • Ability to affect the application of agricultural chemicals on nearby agricultural properties, • Ability to create a precedent-setting situation that leads to the premature conversion of prime agricultural lands, • Demonstrated project need, • Necessity of buffers such as lower densities, setbacks, etc. 6 Project Analysis 6.1 LESA Model Representative project inputs provided in Table 6.1-1 were incorporated into the LESA Model. Model results are provided as Exhibits 6 "Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Worksheet 1", 7 "Site Assessment Worksheet 2", and 8 "Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Scoresheet." a Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, page V-13. Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment 12 04 g A KF m - r ORIGINAL WZ1 INC. Table 6.1-1 Representative LESA Model Project Inputs Soil Type Soil Map Unit LCC Class 134 (39.8 acres) Cuyama loam (2%-9% slopes) VI 135 (11.84 acres) Cuyama loam (9%-15% slopes) VI 151 (53.80 acres) Elkhills - Torriorthents VII 217 (17.93 acres) Pits - 248 (119.8 acres) Xeric Torriothents VII • Project Acreage: 243.2 • Water Source: City • Zone of Influence: '/4 mile • Protected Resource Lands: 201.2 acres under Williamson Act, 243.2 acres have Agricultural Preserve designation. Based on the California Agricultural LESA Model, the score for the subject parcel using the above methodology is 35.3. Therefore, the property's conversion from agricultural land is not considered significant (Exhibit 8 "Land and Site Assessment Scoresheet"). 6.2 Kern County/Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan 6.2.1 Description of Existing Agricultural Character • Describe the agricultural character of the area covered by the proposed action and of nearby or surroundings which may be affected by the conversion. Historically, the subject property and surrounding properties to the east and south have been utilized for agriculture and more recently have been designated for residential development. The site consists predominately of highly disturbed vacant land, with numerous unpaved access roads meandering through the site. Most of the area within the Agricultural Preserve is not of a pristine, undisturbed nature, but already had been extensively altered by previous activities that include oil, sand and gravel mining, off-highway-vehicles, hiking, fire, and livestock grazing. Accordingly, numerous trails resulting from the disturbances from off-highway-vehicles, biking, trespassers, and hiking are evident throughout the site. The property currently has General Plan Land Use Designations of Low Density Residential (LR) and Open Space-Slopes (OS-S). The property is zoned One Family Dwelling (R-1) and One Family Dwelling/Hillside Development (R-1/HD). The properties lying to the north are zoned for Rural Suburban minimum 2.5 acre lots/Hillside Development (R-S-2.5/HD) and Open Space (OS) within the City of Bakersfield Zoning Maps. Other properties to the north are zoned for Open Spaces (OS) and Agriculture (A) within the unincorporated County of Kern. The properties to the south, east, and west are zoned for One Family Dwelling (R-1); One Family Dwelling/ Hillside Development (R-1/HD); Rural Suburban/minimum 10 acre lots (R-S/IOAC); Rural Suburban/10 acre lots/Hillside Development (R-S/1 OAC/HD); Agriculture (A); and Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment 13 o y rn U D ORIGINAL WZ1 INC. Agriculture/Hillside Development (A/HD) within the city of Bakersfield Zoning Maps. Other properties to the west are zoned for Agriculture (A) and Floodplain-Primary (FP-P) within the unincorporated County of Kern. The Department of Conservation does not rate any part of the project site as farmland that is prime, of statewide importance, or unique, but only potentially grazing land with an area designated vacant and disturbed. Neither the 201.20-acre area that is currently under Williamson Act contract or the total 243.2 acre parcel within Agriculture Preserve No. 14, have little if any potential to support grazing or any other agricultural use. Surface mining removed the vegetation and top soil from most of the site, and subsequent unauthorized off-road vehicle use and other activity has eroded the steeper canyons and drainages. Vegetation is sparse and not suitable for grazing. In 1973, even before mining occurred, the property had limited capacity to serve livestock (requiring 20-30 acres per cow). New grass suitable for grazing has not repopulated the former mining areas. No nearby property is under Williamson Act contract or used for grazing or any other agricultural activity. In fact, grazing is prohibited on nearby publicly owned parcels designated as special habitat areas and in the Kern River Park to the north. Agricultural use would not be compatible with development already approved on properties to the south, as well as future development on the remaining portion of The Canyons site that is not subject to the contract. • Provide a map which identifies the location of Agricultural Preserves and lands under Williamson Act Land Use Contracts in the project area; The project site is included in Agricultural Preserve No. 14. None of the project's Zone W of Influence is under Williamson Act Contract. • Note the number of acres and type of land in each preserve (i.e., whether prime or non-prime soils); The project lies within Agricultural Preserve No. 14. Agricultural Preserve No. 14 contains approximately 141,700 acres. About 764,785 acres or nearly 56 percent of the northwestern part of Kern County would meet the requirements for 9 prime farmland if an adequate and dependable supply of irrigation water were available. The following table reflects the most recent available information on farmland acreages in Kern County based on California Department of Conservation data. ' United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Northwestern Part. 1988 Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment ~~gAKF9~ 14 a r- ? O ")RIGINAL WZ1 INC. `kIlIlw Table 6.2-1 (1) County Summa and Chan e b Land Use Cate go Land Use Category Total 2004 Acreage Inventoried Prime Farmland 518,804 Farmland Of Statewide Importance 106,32 Unique Farmland 51,095 Farmland Of Local Importance 0 Important Farmland Subtotal 676,22 Grazing Land 911,70 Agricultural Land Subtotal 1,587,933 Urban And Built-Up Land 94,604 Other Land 866,47 Water Area 97 Total Area Inventoried 2,549,992 (1) Based on Table A46, Part I from the Department of Conservation webpage at http://www.consrv. ca.gov/DLRP/fmmpistats_reports/county_conversion_tables. htm • Agricultural potential based on the US Department of Agriculture Land Capability Classification system. The agricultural potential based on the Land Capability Classification system (LCC) is shown below: 134 Cuyama loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes, deep, well drained soil, LLC VIe, Storie Index 61. 135 Cuyama loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, deep, well drained soil, LCC VIe, Storie Index 54. 151 Elkhills-Torriorthents, stratified, eroded, complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes, LCC VIIe, Storie Index 33. 217 Pits, excavations from which most of the soil material has been removed, no LCC or Storie Index. 248 Xeric Torriorthents, stratified-Cuyama complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes, LCC VIIe, Storie Index 29. • If the property is under Williamson Act Land Use contract, describe the impacts of any required cancellations of such contract(s) affecting project site and surrounding properties; include the following data. a. Indicate the location of Williamson Act contracts on lands within and adjacent to the project area; A portion of the property, 201.2 acres, is under Williamson Act Land Use contract. No properties within the project's Zone of Influence are under Williamson Act Contract. Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment ~gAKF9 15 O I-P a.. F-- m U p~ ORIGINAL WZ1 INC. i1IIIW b. Discuss the effects that cancellation of Williamson Act contracts might have on nearby properties also under contract; With the exception of properties located north of Alfred Harrel Highway along the Kern River, none the properties within the project's Zone of Influence are under Williamson Act. Because there is physical separation created by the topography of the area and by intervening streets and the Kern River, these properties would not be affected by the proposed changes. c. Discuss the specific findings pursuant to Section 51282, Government Code, that must be made by the Board of Supervisors in order for the Williamson Act contract to be cancelled; The project has requested cancellation on the parcels under Williamson Act Contract. 6.2.2 Discussion of Farmland Conversion Impacts • Discuss the type, amount of land and location of farmland conversion that would result from implementation of the project. The 201.2 acres currently under Williamson Act contract are all zoned for single family residential development (R-1) (Exhibit 2 "Zoning Map with Williamson Act and Agriculture Preserve Boundaries"). The 243.2 acres included in the subject property within the Agriculture Preserve designation, are all designated as grazing land. The site is located within the City of Bakersfield in Section 6, T. 29S, R. 29E, MDB&M. The project site was previously committed to future nonagricultural development. • Discuss the impact on current and future agricultural operations; include: Any changes to methods of agricultural activity applied to adjacent lands that will occur as a result of implementation of the project. a. The area is subject to development and has residential and commercial development in proximity to surrounding the property (see Exhibit 4 "Williamson Act Contract/Agriculture Preserve, with Zone of Influence"). Residential and commercial uses can create adverse impacts on farming operations with the introduction of pests, disease and weeds, increased flooding and siltation, and increased traffic, vandalism, trespassing, and citizen complaints. In addition, local residents are impacted by farming activities and can limit agricultural operations through complaints of impacts from noise, dust, odors, and spray drift from pesticide and fertilizer use. b. Further impact occurs from urban encroachment to adjacent lands remaining in agricultural production. Conflicts arise from the infringement of the new residential users, which include people and animals, into the area. However, the conversion of this property from residential use to Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment 16 AKF9~ T _ m r ~ d 7RIGINAL WZ1 INC. commercial use is consistent with urbanization that is planned and occurring. • The cumulative and growth-inducing impact of the development on farmland in the project area and surrounding area. The cumulative impact discussion should treat this proposal within the context of all similar proposals approved within the past several years (5 years), or pending approval, as well as applications for similar proposals expected within the foreseeable future (See Section 15355, State CEQA Guidelines); County wide, the total amount of agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use between 2002 and 2004 (the latest data available)10 was 1,661 acres. The following table is based on data provided by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Table 6.2-2 Kern County Land Use Conversion from 2002 to 2004(12) Urban and Total Land Land Use Category Total Agriculture Built-up Land Other Land Converted to Land 2004 2004 (9) 2004 Another Use 2000-2004 Prime Farmland (1) (2) 4,634 3,757 1,040 14,81 Farmland Of Statewide Importance (1) (2) 96 626 685 3,931 Unique Farmland (2) 3,391 626 5,62 Farmland Of Local importance 0 0 Important Farmland Subtotal 81988 4,389 2,351 24,37 Grazing Land (3) (4) 57 45 1,028 5,511 Agricultural Land Subtotal 9,56 4,84 3,379 29,886 Urban And Built-Up Land (6) 121 _ 91 832 Other Land (6)(7) 1,66 3,261 - 15,86 Water Area 0 0 Total Acreage Converted 11,347 8,10 3,470 46,58 (1) Conversion between Important Farmland categories primarily due to corrections made to soil unit identification. (2) Conversion to Grazing and Other Land primarily due to land left idle for three or more update cycles in various parts of the county. (3) Conversion to Prime Farmland primarily due to newly irrigated agricultural land on the Hacienda Ranch quadrangle and the use of digital imagery to delineate more distinct field boundaries. (4) Conversion to Other Land primarily due to identification of vacant land adjacent to the Oildale airport, ranchettes and aggregate mines. (5) Conversion from Urban and Built-up Land primarily the result of the use of digital imagery to delineate more distinct urban boundaries. (6) Conversion to Prime and Unique Farmland due to newly irrigated agricultural land including citrus groves, turffarms and alfalfa. and the use of digital imagery previously unavailable. (7) Conversion to Grazing Land due to newly identified grazing on specified areas of the Kern National Wildlife Refuge. (8) Agriculture land includes grazing land (9) Urban and Built-up land area consist of residential, commercial and industrial (10) Other land consists of Rural area, wet land, government own land, gravel pit, and aquaculture (11) Based on Table A-46 from the Department of Conservation webpage at http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLPP/fmmp/stats_reports/cowry_conversion_tables.htm Cumulative Impact of Farmland Conversion Adjacent urban uses prevent the safe application of agricultural chemicals necessary to allow commercial production rates needed to support active agricultural use. As such the alternatives for the grower is to leave land fallow, develop a compatible use for the agricultural zoning or convert the land for urban use and transfer the offset agricultural activity to a new area where farming can take place without concerns due to adjacent 10 hnp://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/stats_reports/county_conversion_tables.htm 4111111111, Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment 43AK~c9 17 a m - r - a `HIGINAL WZ1 INC. urban dwellers. Tax implications compel the farmer to acquire new lands to replace land that is sold.] 1 However, some land conversion is not offset by new agricultural lands. This loss is made up by higher productivity. 12 The pressure to switch land with diminished productive capability from agricultural to urban development will compel the owner of reduced production farmland to develop the land in the urban path. "The difference in the price per acre for land in agricultural production and agricultural land for development is typically large. In urbanizing areas, bare ground sold for development regularly exceeds $40,000 per acre, considerably more if urban improvements are in place. Meanwhile, the average agricultural land prices in California are much smaller-$1,050 for grazing land and $5,500 for fruit.'3 Therefore, the loss of agricultural property directly adjacent to urban development when there is a preexisting urban environment directly adjacent does not represent a cumulative impact. By requiring that new urban entitlements be directly adjacent to previously existing high density non-agricultural land uses, the City of Bakersfield policy regarding urban development in areas with agriculture precludes the creation of a new urban island. The cumulative and growth-inducing impact can be considered consistent with similar proposals approved within the last several years as evidenced on Exhibit 4 "Williamson Act Contract/Agriculture Preserve, with Zone of Influence," shows existing and proposed development projects. Based on the historic population trend (93,500 people added between 2000 and 2008) and the local preexisting development density, urban use in Bakersfield should have expanded 18,400 acres (roughly 29 square miles of growth induced farmland converted to urban use). The actual trend in Bakersfield growth shows that the incremental development area was less (23 square miles between 2000 and 2008). Due to the large amount of available non-agricultural open space only 9,500 acres were converted from agricultural land uses to urban land use; resulting in an agricultural development density of 0.1 reflecting the state average intensification of urban density per acre of new growth. Discussion of Mitigation Measures and Alternatives Provide a discussion of mitigation measures and alternatives that would lessen the farmland conversion impacts of the project; include: • Alternate site for proposed project; discuss directing proposed development to other site(s) containing lower quality soils in order to protect prime agricultural land; include lands under ownership of US Tax Code,TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter O, PART Ill, § 1031 12 UC Davis, The UC/AIC Quarterly, The Newsletter Of The UC Agricultural Issues Center, Volume 13. No. 4. 1999, "In more than half a century between 1940 and 1997, total agricultural land in California was reduced 9.3%, from 30.5 million acres to 27.7 million. (Meanwhile agricultural production went up substantially due to more efficient use of land and water, and a shift to higher-value crops.) Between 1986 and 1996, less than 2% of the state's agricultural base-about 232,000 acres-was converted to urban uses. These actual rates of loss may be smaller than the common impression...... 13 UC Davis, Farmland Conversion: Perceptions and Realities, AIC Issues Brief, Number 16, May 2001 Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment 18 o a K~9s~ m 1- r U ~ ORIGINAL WZ1 INC. developer and lands not under ownership of developer, but still reasonably available for development (i.e., land is for sale, not in production, imported agriculture water not available, etc.); None of the adjacent sites in the vicinity contain prime agricultural farmland. Development exists surrounding the project. Other lands with similar land use entitlements that have equivalent size at a comparable economic value do not exist in this vicinity. • Limitation of subdivision to areas contiguous to existing development; The subdivision is near other, planned and existing areas of development (Exhibits 3 "Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Map" & 4 "Williamson Act Contract/Agriculture Preserve, with Zone of Influence"). a. Protect other existing farmland of equivalent or better quality with Williamson Act contracts; or require contracts on adjacent lands to prevent further sprawl; None of the project's Zone of Influence is under Williamson Act Contract. b. Implement right-to-farm ordinances to diminish nuisance impacts of urban uses on neighboring agricultural operations, and vice-versa; The City of Bakersfield does not have a "right to farm" ordinance. The proposed project is in harmony with urban uses and does not create a nuisance impact on neighboring agricultural uses. c. Consider establishment of farmland trusts to preserve agricultural land; The City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern have not established farmland trusts. d. Where land use designations or zoning districts exist on the property, provide for a transfer of development rights to less agriculturally productive lands. The existing residential land use and zoning on the property is contiguous to lands that are zoned residential. 6.3 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Factors The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan recommends that certain factors be evaluated when determining the appropriateness of proposed agricultural conversions. These factors include: 14 • Soil quality; See Section 3, Environmental Setting • Availability of irrigation water; Currently the site is not being farmed. Historically the site has been used as grazing land with no irrigation water supply available on the property. 14 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, page V-13. Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment a AKfi9~-~ 19 F- m U pO ORIGINAL WZ1 INC. • Proximity to non-agricultural uses; The subject property lies within an area proposed for residential development. There is one proposed development tract lying within a one-quarter mile radius of the subject property. • Proximity to intensive parcelization; The following Table 6.3-1 indicates the designations as reflected in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and proposed amendments that will allow future land use parcelization to the north, south, east, and west of the project (Exhibit 4). Table 6.3-1 Neigh orinProperty: General Plan Designation Project Location General Plan Designation North OS-S, OS-P, Kern River Plan Element 3.1, 3.1/2.1, 5.35 South OS-S, LR East OS-S, LR West OS-s, R-R • Effect on properties subject to "Williamson Act" land use contracts; None of the project's Zone of Influence is under Williamson Act and therefore would not be affected by the proposed changes; therefore, there would be no effect. • Ability to be provided urban services (sewer, water, roads, etc.); The site will be accessible by proposed City and County maintained roads. Municipal sewer and water service are expected to be taken from Morning Drive. City sewer service is to be required as a condition of this development. • Ability to affect the application of agricultural chemicals on nearby agricultural properties; Changes to methods of agricultural chemicals applied to adjacent lands that would occur as a result of implementation of this project are not expected due to the proximity of existing and proposed residential development. • Ability to create a precedent-setting situation that leads to the premature conversion of.prime agricultural lands; This property is currently both zoned and designated for residential uses. Parcels to the south, east, and west are also planned for development. Land within the immediate vicinity has similar soils characteristics and water resource availability as the Project site, and are also not considered prime agricultural lands. Therefore, the project does not have the ability to create a precedent-setting situation that leads to premature conversion of prime agricultural lands. • Demonstrated project need; The project is in accord with adjacent residential development in the area, and is necessary to provide for future residential demand and to offset the deficiency in future urban housing demands. Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment 20 O~ g A KF9~ m U O ORIGINAL WZ1 INC. Necessity of buffers such as lower densities, setbacks, etc. The project is located adjacent to agricultural, commercial, and residential land. The proposed developments to the north, south, and east of the project boundary are zoned for low-density residential development. The agricultural land to the west of the site is zoned for low-density residential however, there is no tentative tract map associated with this land. The proposed project is consistent with this use (Exhibit 4 "Williamson Act Contract/Agriculture Preserve, with Zone of Influence"). 7 Conclusion Based on the foregoing analysis and the LESA Model not considered significant rating of 35.3, the impact to agricultural resources due to the conversion of prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance is considered less than significant. Zoning for the site is currently residential. Consequently, the project is consistent with the need for residential development and with the growth projections for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, West. The factors as identified above suggest that the property's conversion from grazing land to residential use is considered to be less than significant. No other changes to the existing environment are involved with this proposed conversion. Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment o``gAKF9~ 21 r- m U C) ORIGINAL WZ1 INC. 8 References California Department of Conservation, 1997; California Agricultural Land Evaluation And Site Assessment Model Instruction Manual, f http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/LESA/lesamodi.pd City of Bakersfield Planning Department, Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, December 2002 Kern County Online Mapping System; http://206.169.45.184/imf/sites/krn pub/launch.isp Kern County Engineering & Survey Services Department, Agricultural Preserve No. 9 Map, March, 2004 UC Davis, Farmland Conversion: Perceptions and Realities, AIC Issues Brief, Number 16, May 2001 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Northwestern Part, 1988 US Tax Code, TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter O, PART 111, § 1031 Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment o``~AKF9~ 22 r U p ORIGINAL EXHIBITS s o~~AKF9T U O ORIGINAL akersfield, CA W T~ A ' ern Cou l 34 36 36 31 r t`rt f ~Tm, r~ F s 7-1 11 12 7 B AERIAL PHOTO SOURCE: USGS 1994 0 0.5 1.0 SCALE IN MILES WZI INC. BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA The Canyons Agricultural Land Evaluation Location Map - Canyons Project DATE EXHIBIT 2/09 City of Bakersfield a K~9 T rr P FINAL 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles N Legend Williamson Act Contract Boundary (201 Acres) !ZOONE AgnculturePreserveBoundary(243Acres) E ng 31 S Agricultural Agncultural - 20 Acre Minimum Agncultural - Flood Plain Secondary Overlay ® Agncultural - Hillside Development Overlay Flood Plain Primary + - Open Space Open Space - Flood Plain Secondary Overay One Family Dwelling t One Family Dwelling - Hillside Development Overlay Residential Suburban- 10 Acre Minimum P. Residential Suburban - 2.5 Acre Minimum - Hillside Development Overlay : Residential Suburban - 2.5 Acre Minimum - Flood Plain Secondary Overlay Residential Suburban - 2.5 Acre Minimum - Hillside Development Overlay Fp,p Q Sections - 4i QS .F P-611 R-1 1 6 5 kiw R-1 R-1 R-1 D S-10A R-1 +4D R-1 R-1-HD R-1-HD 12 7 8 WZI INC. R4-HD BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA The Canyons R4 -HD R4 SID Agricultural Land Evaluation Zoning Map with R-1 Williamson Act Contract Boundary & Agricultural Preserve Boundary RS.6A R-1 DATE City of Bakersfield 2 3AK~9cP n - r - C "IGINAL 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles ` w S 35 36 31 1 6 5 12 8 WZI INC. BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA L.gwd Me canyons HIGHMEDIUMDENSITYRESIDENTIALCOUNTYJURISDICTI.N:~11A2D.UINETACRECITYJURISDICTbN'..T25MID.1Te2 DUJNETACRE Agricultural Land Evaluation O LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - T 35 D.U /NET ACRE - OPEN SPACE INCLUDES'. RESOURCE NANAGEMENTANEAS, AGRICULTURE AND 110001-1 - PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES MSLOPESE-EEI-3- Metropolitan Bakersfield - PUBLIC FACIUTIES INCLUDES'. GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, HOSPITALS, PUBLIC UTIUTIE6, CEMETERIES, SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS, WASTE DISPOSAL SITES AND OTHER PUBLICLY OWNED FACILITIES _ EIMNSNE AGRICULTURE'. MINIMUM 11111 PARCEL SIZE ILANDS UNDER WILLIAMSON ACT MINIMUM I ACRE PARCEL) General Plan Ma A K~. n - MINERAL PETROLEUM AND INNBIUM 5 ACRE PARCEL DATE RURAL RESIDENTIAL 2/09 1 City of Bakersfield r- m v r O ORIGINAL Legend Zone of Influence r Agriculture Preserve Williamson Act Contract WZI INC. BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA The Canyons Agricultural Land Evaluation Williamson Act Contract/ Agriculture Preserve 0 550 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400 Wth Zone of Influence aAKF Feet DATE EXHIBIT 2/09 City of Bakersfield ~J' J+ T m C Soil Types & Total Acreage L' ~j 134 - 39.8 Acres r 135 - 11.84 Acres P J 0 151 - 53.80 Acres 217 - 17.93 Acres 248 - 119.83 Acres 46 11.84 N w E 135 , Sr 4.23 alt 11 4/ f 53.80 +s ar it ~ ~ i 5.23 J34 26.51 17.93 t ~ }tY 71 INC.' a'~ n BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA The Canyons 280 O Agricultural Land Evaluation e3 Soil Map EXHIR r~ oAj%Og City of Bakersfield ~ K 9s A ~ f- m U ~ ORIGINAL to . Z V , In O LL a~ N w co A d io V, N J 7 otS N .i V U > n z W oo O 75 d y co V N W ~ J ~ D m Z O 'c~ o moo wN o y t0 a w L w J LU ~ J °i V G> ° WN y O y ~ m y U. 0)CO) o fA Q V Cl) -CD lc:c a ~ ~ M N Qj N M O CO) w CO) O O k s: t• CO us M N CO) S O y V V CJ N N M CO) It C R C y Lij (1 o o ° ° U o N N J y O O i V w C1 o N C) ~O 04 C) o 0 0 0 0 ~y O t a CO) 10 o ~ 0~0 0~0 m 00 N m 0 V M M M R Q Lo Nr N y y aW Q~c cl m _r- co 0 Q aM- r N N J y gAKF Q) s~ a m r U O ORIGINAL Q ~ z m 2 N w N J 7 L ~ VQ 2 U c U o O N N e c c m 3w 0~ E m LL (D 10 U Q a w m Q U) •v o O N o o V o h ~ Q .C v Q i v O v o° O y ~ H O Q O O ~ N OC v o N to ~ O 0 3 Of W E u a H H U y Q w h ~r ~ Q •p C ~ N M !F ~ tp a a ~0AKF9 m r d "PIGINAL co Q ~ z 00 x O o a) w A = ~ M J atS y N N CO O In 0 0 M Z U c> o 0. ~ r O11J !n L N~ mA m a~i L O C n 3w , E m LLJ o 0 O N Co Wi t` OU- O SFr -y w Y _j Q U J Q m V m cm to rn 0 WCV Q 0 Lo L C O U Lo (n L U = N E T O O cc'- N N 00 0000 p W N ~ J 0 c~0 U _N x xx x x x x N r O 3 L O ce) O c O v ~ 00 0 0 m M Co O M U- O n n n n n n p ~N MICT L0 co O N N N O N .O .C .O .O J J J J J J V V V V V V C N +r O C ca J "O C w m O ? J O Q Z U C Q L < U Cc U O O Q O w :3 W O U- X N O J f6 N C N to _C (U O N 'p O cd O C C r~ c C ) ca U U L O U O LL N 'i 0 0 yam? 2 0 W ca C O N p O L p O W J CA Q CL Cl) a ,p c N O N M I F~ J (n 4 aaK 9 o• s~ _ m r U O ORIGINAL APPENDIX I o~gAKF9 s ~ r v o ORIGINAL CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL Instruction Manual f ~ 3 A K~c~ APPENDIX 1 Page 1 of 37 ~ o ORIGINAL For further information, please contact: California Department of Conservation Office of Land Conservation 801 K Street, MS 13-71 Sacramento, CA 95814-3528 (916) 324-0850 FAX (916) 327-3430 © California Department of Conservation, 1997 The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any particular purpose. 1 kliw APPENDIX 1 Page 2 of 37 m U p ORIGINAL 2 4aaKF9 APPENDIX 1 Page 3 of 37 o ORIGINAL CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL Instruction Manual 1997 Department of Conservation Office of Land Conservation 3 tJ' u^ APPENDIX 1 Page 4 of 37 r V O ORIGINAL lilllIw TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary 1 Introduction 2 Defining the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment System 2 Background on Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Nationwide 2 Development of the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model 3 The California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model 6 Section I. Required Resources and Information 6 Section Il. Defining and Scoring the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Factors 7 A. Scoring of Land Evaluation Factors 7 1. The Land Capability Classification Rating 10 2. The Storie Index Rating 12 B. Scoring of Site Assessment Factors 13 1. The Project Size Rating 13 2. The Water Resources Availability Rating 16 3. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating 23 4. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating 28 Section III. Weighting of Factors and Final Scoring 29 Section IV. Scoring Thresholds for Making Determinations of Significance under CEQA 31 Bibliography 32 Appendix A. Abridged set of California LESA step-by-step scoring instructions A-1 Appendix B. Application of the California LESA Model to a hypothetical proposed project B-1 i s APPENDIX 1 Page 5 of 37 m U O ORIGINAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) is a term used to define an approach for rating the relative quality of land resources based upon specific measurable features. The formulation of a California Agricultural LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812 /1993), which charges the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, with developing an amendment to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines concerning agricultural lands. Such an amendment is intended "to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process" (Public Resources Code Section 21095). The California Agricultural LESA Model is composed of six different factors. Two Land Evaluation factors are based upon measures of soil resource quality. Four Site Assessment factors provide measures of a given project's size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. For a given project, each of these factors is separately rated on a 100 point scale. The factors are then weighted relative to one another and combined, resulting in a single numeric score for a given project, with a maximum attainable score of 100 points. It is this project score that becomes the basis for making a determination of a project's potential significance, based upon a range of established scoring thresholds. This Manual provides detailed instructions on how to utilize the California LESA Model, and includes worksheets for applying the Model to specific projects. 1 o~aAke APPENDIX 1 Page 6 of 37 U O ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Defining the LESA System The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system is a point-based approach that is generally used for rating the relative value of agricultural land resources. In basic terms, a given LESA model is created by defining and measuring two separate sets of factors. The first set, Land Evaluation, includes factors that measure the inherent soil- based qualities of land as they relate to agricultural suitability. The second set, Site Assessment, includes factors that are intended to measure social, economic, and geographic attributes that also contribute to the overall value of agricultural land. While this dual rating approach is common to all LESA models, the individual land evaluation and site assessment factors that are ultimately utilized and measured can vary considerably, and can be selected to meet the local or regional needs and conditions for which a LESA model is being designed to address. In short, the LESA methodology lends itself well to adaptation and customization in individual states and localities. Considerable additional information on LESA may be found in A Decade with LESA - the Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (8). Background on LESA Nationwide In 1981, the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), known then as the Soil Conservation Service, released a new system that was designed to provide objective ratings of the agricultural suitability of land compared to demands for nonagricultural uses of lands. The system became known as Land Evaluation and Site Assessment, or LESA. Soon after it was designed, LESA was adopted as a procedural tool at the federal level for identifying and addressing the potential adverse effects of federal programs (e.g., funding of highway construction) on farmland protection. The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (5) spells out requirements to ensure that federal programs, to the extent practical, are compatible with state, local, and private programs and policies to protect farmland, and calls for the use of LESA to aid in this analysis. Typically, staff of the NRCS is involved in performing LESA scoring analyses of individual projects that involve other agencies of the federal government. Since its inception, the LESA approach has received substantial attention from state and local governments as well. Nationwide, over two hundred jurisdictions have developed local LESA methodologies (7). One of the attractive features of the LESA approach is that it is well suited to being modified to reflect regional and local conditions. Typical local applications of LESA include assisting in decision making concerning the sitting of projects, changes in zoning, and spheres of influence determinations. LESA is 2 o``a P KF,9s m APPENDIX 1 Page 7 of 37 o ORIGINAL IIIIIiw also increasingly being utilized for farmland protection programs, such as the identification of priority areas to concentrate conservation easement acquisition efforts. Because of the inherent flexibility in LESA model design, there is a broad array of factors that a given LESA model can utilize. Some LESA models require the measurement of as many as twenty different factors. Over the past 15 years, the body of knowledge concerning LESA model development and application has begun to indicate that LESA models utilizing only several basic factors can capture much of the variability associated with the determination of the relative value of agricultural lands. In fact, LESA models with many factors are increasingly viewed as having redundancies, with different factors essentially measuring the same features, or being highly correlated with one another. Additional information on the evolution and development of the LESA approach is provided in, A Decade with LESA -The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (8). Development of the California Agricultural LESA Model In 1990 the Department of Conservation commissioned a study to investigate land use decisions that affect the conversion of agricultural lands in California. The study, conducted by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., was prepared in response to concerns about agricultural land conversion identified in the California Soil Conservation Plan (1) (developed by the ad hoc Soil Conservation Advisory Committee serving the Department of Conservation in 1987). Among these concerns was the belief that there was inadequate information available concerning the socioeconomic and environmental implications of farmland conversions, and that the adequacy of current farmland conversion impact analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was not fully known. The findings of this study are included in the publication, The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California (2). Currently, neither CEQA nor the State CEQA Guidelines contains procedures or specific guidance concerning how agencies should address farmland conversion impacts of projects. The only specific mention of agricultural issues is contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will "convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land". Among the conclusions contained in The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California study was that the lack of guidance in how lead agencies should address the significance of farmland conversion impacts resulted in many instances of no impact analysis at all. A survey of environmental documents sent to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) between 1986 and 1988 was performed. The survey illiw 3 ~ aAK~r O 9cP~ APPENDIX 1 Page 8 of 37 U ORIGINAL lilliw showed that among projects that affected at least 100 acres of land and for which agriculture was a project issue, nearly 30 percent received Negative Declarations, and therefore did not did not receive the environmental impact analysis that would be provided by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Of those projects involving the conversion of agricultural lands and being the subject of an EIR, the study found a broad range of approaches and levels of detail in describing the environmental setting, performing an impact analysis, and providing alternative mitigation measures. The only agricultural impacts found to be significant in the EIRs were those involving the direct removal of prime agricultural lands from production by the project itself. The focus on prime farmland conversion in the projects surveyed was deemed to be related to the narrow direction provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The formulation of a California LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812 /1993), which charges the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, to develop an amendment to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Such an amendment is intended "to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process" (Public Resources Code Section 21095). This legislation authorizes the Department of Conservation to develop a California LESA Model, which can in turn be adopted as the required amendment to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Presentation of the California LESA Model The California LESA Model is presented in this Manual in the following sections: Section I. provides a listing of the information and tools that will typically be needed to develop LESA scores for individual projects. Section II. provides step-by-step instructions for scoring each of the six Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors that are utilized in the Model, with an explanation of the rationale for the use of each factor. Section Ill. defines the assignment of weights to each of the factors relative to one another, and the creation of a final LESA score for a given project. Section IV. assigns scoring thresholds to final LESA scores for the purpose of determining the significance of a given project under CEQA where the conversion of agricultural lands is a project issue. 4 A/ APPENDIX 1 Page 9 of 37 F6 )RICINAL Additionally: Appendix A. provides an abridged set of step-by-step LESA scoring instructions that can be used and reproduced for scoring individual projects. Appendix B. demonstrates the application of the California LESA Model to the scoring of a hypothetical project. 5 G3AkF9 APPENDIX 1 Page 10 of 37 0, F-- m r U p ORIGINAL The California Agricultural LESA Model Section I. Required Resources and Information The California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model requires the use and interpretation of basic land resource information concerning a given project. A series of measurements and calculations. is also necessary to obtain a LESA score. Listed below are the materials and tools that will generally be needed to make these determinations. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment calculations will require: 1. A calculator or other means of tabulating numbers 2. An accurately scaled map of the project area, such as a parcel map 3. A means for making acreage determinations of irregularly shaped map units. Options include, from least to most technical: • A transparent grid-square or dot-planimeter method of aerial measurement • A hand operated electronic planimeter • The automatic planimetry capabilities of a Geographic Information System (GIS) 4. A modern soil survey, generally produced by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, which delineates the soil-mapping units for a given project. [Note: If modern soil survey information is not available for a given area of study, it may be necessary to draw upon the services of a professional soil scientist to perform a specific project survey]. 5. Maps that depict land uses for parcels including and surrounding the project site, such as the Department of Conservation's Important Farmland Map series, the Department of Water Resources Land Use map series, or other appropriate information. 6. Maps or information that indicate the location of parcels including and surrounding the project site that are within agricultural preserves, are under public ownership, have conservation easements, or have other forms of long term commitments that are considered compatible with the agricultural use of a given project site. 6 lliIllwr 4 aaKF9 APPENDIX 1 Page 11 of 37 m - r J Q -)RIGINAL Section 11. Defining and Scoring the California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Factors This section provides detailed step-by-step instructions for the measurement and scoring of each of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors that are utilized in the California Agricultural LESA Model, and is intended to serve as an introduction to the process of utilizing the Model. Once users are familiar with the Model, a more streamlined set of instructions and scoring sheets is available in Appendix A. In addition, the scoring of a hypothetical project is presented using these scoring sheets in Appendix B. Scoring of Land Evaluation Factors The California LESA Model includes two Land Evaluation factors that are separately rated: 1. The Land Capability Classification Rating 2. The Storie Index Rating The information needed to make these ratings is typically available from soil surveys that have been conducted by the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service). Consultation should be made with NRCS staff (field offices exist in most counties) to assure that valid and current soil resource information is available for the project site. Copies of soil surveys are available at local field offices of the NRCS, and may also be available through libraries, city and county planning departments, the Cooperative Extension, and other sources. In addition, a Certified Professional Soil Scientist (CPSS) may also be consulted to obtain appropriate soil resource information for the project site. A directory of CPSS registered soil consultants is available through the Professional Soil Scientists Association of California, P.O. Box 3213, Yuba City, CA 95992-3213; phone: (916) 671-4276. 1) The USDA Land Capability Classification (LCC) - The LCC indicates the suitability of soils for most kinds of crops. Groupings are made according to the limitations of the soils when used to grow crops, and the risk of damage to soils when they are used in agriculture. Soils are rated from Class I to Class VIII, with soils having the fewest limitations receive the highest rating (Class 1). Specific subclasses are also utilized to further characterize soils. An expanded explanation of the LCC is included in most soil surveys. 2) The Storie Index - The Storie Index provides a numeric rating (based upon a 100 point scale) of the relative degree of suitability or value of a given soil for intensive agriculture. The rating is based upon soil characteristics only. Four factors that represent the inherent characteristics and qualities of the soil are 7 3 AKF APPENDIX 1 Page 12 of 37 m J p ORIGINAL considered in the index rating. The factors are: profile characteristics, texture of the surface layer, slope, and other factors (e.g., drainage, salinity). In some situations, only the USDA Land Capability Classification information may be currently available from a given published soil survey. However, Storie Index ratings can readily be calculated from information contained in soil surveys by qualified soil scientists. Users are encouraged to seek assistance from NRCS staff or Certified Professional Soil Scientists to derive Storie Index information for the soils as well. If, however, limitations of time or resources restrict the derivation of Storie Index ratings for the soils within a region, it may be possible to adapt the Land Evaluation by relying solely upon the LCC rating. Under this scenario the LCC rating would account for 50 percent of the overall LESA factor weighting. Identifying a Proiect's Soils In order to rate the Land Capability Classification and Storie Index factors, the evaluator must identify the soils that exist on a given project site and determine their relative proportions. A Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.) is used to tabulate these figures, based upon the following: Step 1. Locate the project on the appropriate map sheet in the Soil Survey. Step 2. Photocopy the map sheet and clearly delineate the project boundaries on the map, paying close attention to the map scale. Step 3. Identify all of the soil mapping units existing in the project site (each mapping unit will have a different map unit symbol) and enter the each mapping unit symbol in Column A of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A). Step 4. Calculate the acreage of each soil mapping unit present within the project site using any of the means identified in Section 1, Required Resources and Information, and enter this information in Column B. Step 5. 8 r APPENDIX 1 Page 13 of 37 m ORIGINAL Divide the acres of each soil mapping unit by the total project acreage to determine the proportion of each unit that comprises the project, and enter this information in Column C. 9 ~aAKF9 APPENDIX 1 Page 14 of 37 o sr Fn- ORIGINAL 1. Land Evaluation - The Land Capability Classification Rating Step 1. In the Guide to Mapping Units typically found within soil surveys, identify the Land Capability Classification (LCC) designation (e.g., IV-e) for each mapping unit that has been identified in the project and enter these designations in Column D of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.). Step 2. From Table 2., The Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units, obtain a numeric score for each mapping unit, and enter these scores in Column E. Step 3. Multiply the proportion of each soil mapping unit (Column C) by the LCC points for each mapping unit (Column E) and enter the resulting scores in Column F. Step 4. Sum the LCC scores in Column F to obtain a single LCC Score for the project. Enter this LCC Score in Line 1 of the Final LESA Worksheet (Table 8) Table 2. Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units Land LCC Capability Point Classification Rating, 1 100 Ile 90 Ils,w 80 Ille 70 Ills,w 60 IVe 50 IVs,w 40 V 30 VI 20 VII 10 VIII 0 10 ~ gAKF9 APPENDIX 1 Page 15 of 37 0' sue, r U p ORIGINAL N - N Y~ S L J > r O Q~ V/ f6 N U 2V J V ~ - V L ° - a` y E a J w m N Q vy m Q ~ m 2 f- v, r_ a x a~ a c ~ = O U O ~ ~ O N x . ~ M L Q~ `O 'O O co rn U m U _ LL U v O fn v U c V W U V o N O ea v 0) Q co ~ U y U o U N~ Y 'O Q , O O C 'C O J ~ a d ~ C U to O N O m O U Q Q Q x w Z c Q~ a Fes- J C) Q 4 aAKF a rn U Or ORIGINAL 2. Land Evaluation - The Storie Index Rating Score Step 1. From the appropriate soil survey or other sources of information identified in Appendix C, determine the Storie Index Rating (the Storie Index Rating is already based upon a 100 point scale) for each mapping unit and enter these values in Column G of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.). Step 2. Multiply the proportion of each soil mapping unit found within the project (Column C) by the Storie Index Rating (Column G), and enter these scores in Column H. Step 3. Sum the Storie Index Rating scores in Column H to obtain a single Storie Index Rating score for the project. Enter this Storie Index Rating Score in Line 2 of the Final LESA Worksheet (Table 8) 12 O~ ~ A KF9cP APPENDIX 1 Page 17 of 37 m u r d ORIGINAL Scoring of Site Assessment Factors The California LESA Model includes four Site Assessment factors that are separately rated: 1. The Project Size Rating 2. The Water Resources Availability Rating 3. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating 4. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating 1. Site Assessment - The Project Size Rating The Project Size Rating relies upon acreage figures that were tabulated under the Land Capability Classification Rating in Table 1A. The Project Size rating is based upon identifying acreage figures for three separate groupings of soil classes within the project site, and then determining which grouping generates the highest Project Size Score. Step 1. Using information tabulated in Columns B and D of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A), enter acreage figures in Site Assessment Worksheet 1. - Project Size (Table 1 B) using either Column I, J, or K for each of the soil mapping units in a given project. Step 2. Sum the entries in Column I to determine the total acreage of Class I and II soils on the project site. Sum the entries in Column J to determine the total acreage of Class III soils on the project site. Sum the entries in Column K to determine the total acreage of Class IV and lower rated soils on the project site. Step 3. For each of the three columns, apply the appropriate scoring plan provided in Table 3, Project Size Scoring, and enter the Project Size Score for each grouping in the Site Assessment Worksheet 1. - Project Size (Table 1 B). Determine which column generates the highest score. The highest score becomes the overall Project Size Score. Enter this number in Line 3 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8 13 a`~Kt9 m APPENDIX 1 Page 18 of 37 0 )HIUINAL Table 3. Project Size Scoring LCC Class I or II soils LCC Class III soils LCC Class IV or lower Acres Score Acres Score Acres Score 80 or above 100 160 or above 100 320 or above 100 60-79 90 120-159 90 240-319 80 40-59 80 80-119 80 160-239 60 20-39 50 60-79 70 100-159 40 10-19 30 40-59 60 40-99 20 fewer than 10 0 20-39 30 fewer than 40 0 10-19 10 fewer than 10 0 Explanation of the Project Size Factor The Project Size factor in the California Agricultural LESA Model was developed in cooperation with Nichols-Berman, a consulting firm under contract with the Department of Conservation. A thorough discussion of the development of this rating is presented by Nichols-Berman in a report to the Department entitled, Statewide LESA Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors (3). The inclusion of the measure of a project's size in the California Agricultural LESA Models is a recognition of the role that farm size plays in the viability of commercial agricultural operations. In general, larger farming operations can provide greater flexibility in farm management and marketing decisions. Certain economies of scale for equipment and infrastructure can also be more favorable for larger operations. In addition, larger operations tend to have greater impacts upon the local economy through direct employment, as well as impacts upon support industries (e.g., fertilizers, farm equipment, and shipping) and food processing industries. While the size of a given farming operation may in many cases serve as a direct indicator of the overall economic viability of the operation, The California Agricultural LESA Model does not specifically consider the issue of economic viability. The variables of economic viability for a specific farm include such factors as the financial management and farming skills of the operator, as well as the debt load and interest rates being paid by an individual operator, which are issues that cannot readily be included in a statewide LESA model. illiw 14 43AKF9 C), APPENDIX 1 Page 19 of 37 m ORIGINAL In terms of agricultural productivity, the size of a farming operation can be considered not just from its total acreage, but the acreage of different quality lands that comprise the operation. Lands with higher quality soils lend themselves to greater management and cropping flexibility and have the potential to provide a greater economic return per unit acre. For a given project, instead of relying upon a single acreage figure in the Project Size rating, the project is divided into three acreage groupings based upon the Land Capability Classification ratings that were previously determined in the Land Evaluation analysis. Under the Project Size rating, relatively fewer acres of high quality soils are required to achieve a maximum Project Size score. Alternatively, a maximum score on lesser quality soils could also be derived, provided there is a sufficiently large acreage present. Acreage figures utilized in scoring are the synthesis of interviews that were conducted statewide for growers of a broad range of crops. In the interviews growers were queried as to what acreage they felt would be necessary in order for a given parcel to be considered attractive for them to farm. The USDA LCC continues to be the most widely available source of information on land quality. Project Size under this definition is readily measurable, and utilizes much of the same information needed to score a given project under the Land Evaluation component of the methodology. This approach also complements the LE determination, which, while addressing soil quality, does not account for the total acreage of soils of given qualities within a project. This approach allows for an accounting of the significance of high quality agricultural land as well as lesser quality agricultural lands, which by virtue of their large area can be considered significant agricultural resources. In this way, no single acreage figure for a specific class of soils (e.g., soils defined as "prime") is necessary. 15 4 KF9~ APPENDIX 1 Page 20 of 37 .ll I-- m ORIGINAL 2. Site Assessment - The Water Resources Availability Rating The Water Resources Availability Rating.is based upon identifying the various water sources that may supply a given property, and then determining whether different restrictions in supply are likely to take place in years that are characterized as being periods of drought and non-drought. Site Assessment Worksheet 2. -Water Resources Availability Worksheet (Table 4) is used to tabulate the score. Step 1. Identify the different water resource types that are used to supply the proposed project site (for example, irrigation district water, ground water, and riparian water are considered to be three different types of water resources). Where there is only one water source identified for the proposed project, skip to Step 4. Step 2. Divide the proposed project site into portions, with the boundaries of each portion being defined by the irrigation water source(s) supplying it. A site that is fully served by a single source of water will have a single portion, encompassing the entire site. A site that is fully served by two or more sources that are consistently merged together to serve a crop's needs would also have a single portion. (e.g., a portion of lillIw the proposed project may receive both irrigation district and groundwater). If the project site includes land that has no irrigation supply, consider this acreage as a separate portion as well. Enter the water resource portions of the project in Column B of Table 4, Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability. [As an example, a hypothetical project site is determined to have four separate water supply portions: Portion 1 is served by irrigation district water only; Portion 2 is served by ground water only; Portion 3 is served by both irrigation district water and ground water; Portion 4 is not irrigated at all.] Step 3. Calculate the proportion of the total project area that is represented by each water resource portion, and enter these figures in Column C of Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability, verifying that the sum of the proportions equals 1.0. 16 o~ g AKF9J, APPENDIX 1 Page 21 of 37 m U ~ ORIGINAL (D M M W 0 x U U Q m C y Q m o ` V CV m N o co ~ ' C v > a N Q as L d o o Q = o N U o 6 N CL O O 2 0' d ~ t d N Y L i+ C ~ L U tl! m O O H > ~ H Q d N X 5 C _O Z M Q '0 r- T-1 N co 14T In C.0 d rm a a° a v Ke o - m .U O ORIGINAL Step 4. For each water resource supply portion of the project site, determine whether irrigated and dryland agriculture is feasible, and if any physical or economic restrictions exist, during both drought and non-drought years. These italicized terms are defined below: • A physical restriction is an occasional or regular interruption or reduction in a water supply, or a shortened irrigation season, that forces a change in agricultural practices such as planting a crop that uses less water, or leaving land fallow. (This could be from cutbacks in supply by irrigation and water districts, or by ground or surface water becoming depleted or unusable. Poor water quality can also result in a physical restriction for example by requiring the planting of salt-tolerant plants, or by effectively reducing the amount of available water.) • An economic restriction is a rise in the cost of water to a level that forces a reduction in consumption. (This could be from surcharge increases from water suppliers as they pass along the cost of finding new water supplies, the extra cost of pumping more ground water to make up for losses in surface water supplies, or the extra energy costs of pumping the same amount of ground water from deeper within an aquifer.) • Irrigated agricultural production is feasible when: 1) There is an existing irrigation system on the project site that can serve the portion of the project identified in Step 2; 2) Physical and/or economic restrictions are not severe enough to halt production; and 3) It is possible to achieve a viable economic return on crops though irrigated production. (A major question that should be considered is, if there is an irrigated crop that can be grown within the region, can it actually be grown on the project site? Depending upon the jurisdiction, some typical crops that have a large water demand may not be feasible to grow on the project site, while others that require less water are feasible. Information to aid in making this determination can be obtained from county agricultural commissioners, the UC Cooperative Extension, irrigation districts, and other sources.) • Dryland production is feasible when rainfall is adequate to allow an economically viable return on a nonirrigated crop. • A drought year is a year that lies within a defined drought period, as defined by the Department of Water Resources or by a local water agency. Many regions of the state are by their and nature dependent upon imports of water to support irrigated agriculture. These regions shall not be considered under periods of drought unless a condition of drought is declared for the regions that typically would be providing water exports. 18 O~~AK~~cP APPENDIX 1 Page 23 of 37 m v o ORIGINAL Step 5. Each of the project's water resource supply portions identified in Step 2 is scored separately. Water Resources Availability scoring is performed by identifying the appropriate condition that applies to each portion of the project, as identified in Table 5., Water Resource Availability Scoring. Using Table 5, identify the option that best describes the water resource availability for that portion and its corresponding water resource score. Option 1 defines the condition of no restrictions on water resource availability and is followed progressively with increasing restrictions to Option 14, the most severe condition, where neither irrigated nor dryland production is considered feasible. Enter each score into Column D of Table 4. Step 6. For each portion of the project site, determine the section's weighted score by multiplying the portion's score (Column D), by its proportion of the project area (Column C), and enter these scores in Column E, the weighted Water Availability Score. Sum the Column E scores to obtain the total Water Resource Availability Score, and enter this figure in Line 4 of the Final LESA Score Sheet (Table 8). 19 ~ ~aKF APPENDIX 1 Page 24 of 37 0 ORIGINAL W U tY IW- 00 cn CO Lo 0 cn Lo 0 cn Lo 0 0 0 0 Q d7 w w ti 0 0 IT M M N N C/) U to o'0c\ Oww0w0w I I I I o Z} y. Z} Z} I I I I U y W N t/l (n Z } O C.) C/) (n U) U) I I I I U 000 N Z Z Z}} I I I I o a_ (n W ~ c m ca o C'' :5 CO U) CO VJ Co U) U) L y O O y W W W W W W W Z Z Z Z 10 W- .2 N N L OL O O a LL • • o ~n CT N N W ca m O r2 c~ r- = ma cn .2 cu E .9 O t5 C'. OOL000wOw0w c c..'2' Cp Z Z} Z Z Z} Z} Z} T O G O W a) :3 C 0 y O 'L (n O L v Cu Z co Q. to O } O y O y CU R) cu CM L) U) Q) y.vc'. OOOOOW WOOW ui rn4- rn O N Z Z Z Z Z}} Z Z}} o o o a cp (n a O L ` C 'O = ' O O ' O ~ t5 'o t5 L C Q Z C CU C C'. ~O C .O O Zi r- :3 co CD w U) U) U) w (n cn U) O y W W W W W W W W W W W o } } } } } } } } } } } = CL LL O O L N y n - a z r c x O E ui Q N cM 1;r Lr) CO ~ CO 0) W O Q. CL ~ Q H LIP m U O) ORIGINAL Explanation of the Water Resource Availability Rating The Water Resource Availability factor in the California Agricultural LESA Model was developed in cooperation with Nichols-Berman, a consulting firm under contract with the Department of Conservation. A thorough discussion of the development of this rating is presented by Nichols-Berman in a report to the Department entitled, Statewide LESA Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors (3). During the development of this factor it became apparent that certain conditions unique to California would need to be represented in this system. First, it was decided to classify water reliability based upon the effects on agricultural production (such as being forced to change to lower-value crops, putting in groundwater pumps, or cutting back on the acreage farmed) rather than the actual type of limitation (such as a limitation on the quantity, frequency, or duration of water delivery). LESA systems have traditionally focused on the latter. However, it was found that the many types of limitations are too varied in California to adequately represent in the LESA system. In the Statewide LESA system, these effects are referred to as restrictions. Second, the factor had to include an interrelation with cost. The historical shortages and unreliability of California water use has led to the establishment of various interconnected and dual systems. Probably more than any other state, reliability is related with cost a more reliable water supply can sometimes be obtained, but at a greater cost. Therefore, restrictions were classified into two major categories physical and economic. These are separated because, generally, a physical restriction is more severe than an economic restriction and this should be reflected in the LESA system. Third, the factor had to include the effects of the drought cycle in California. During the drought of 1987 to 1992, many agricultural areas of the state experienced water shortages. The impact of these shortages resulted in a number of different actions. Some areas were able to avoid the worst effects of the drought simply by implementing water conservation measures. Other areas were able to obtain additional water supplies, such as by securing water transfers or simply pumping more groundwater, but at an increase in the overall price of water. Other options included shifting crops, replanting to higher value crops to offset the increase in water prices, or leaving land fallow. A project site that experiences restrictions during a drought year should not be scored as high as a similar project site that does not. The easiest way to make determinations of irrigation feasibility and the potential restrictions of water sources is to investigate the cropping history of the project site. For instance, was the water supply to the project site reduced by the local irrigation district during the last drought? If the site has a ground water supply, do area ground water levels sometimes drop to levels that force markedly higher energy costs to pump the water? 21 a aAKF O gcl-c~ APPENDIX 1 Page 26 of 37 t rn U 0 ORIGINAL If the history of the project site is unavailable (including when the site has recently installed an irrigation system), look at the history of the general area. However, remember that the project site may have different conditions than the rest of the region. For instance, the project site could have an older water right than others in the region. Although certain areas of the state had severe restrictions on water deliveries during the last drought, some parcels within these areas had very secure deliveries due to more senior water rights. If this was the case in the region of the project site, check the date of water right and compare it with parcels that received their total allotment during the last drought. The local irrigation district should have information on water deliveries. The scoring of water resource availability for a project site should not just reflect the adequacies of water supply in the past it should be a prediction of how the water system will perform in the future. For instance, a local jurisdiction might find that the allocation of flows to stream and river systems has been recently increased for environmental reasons, which will decrease the future available surface water supply. In this case, the past history of the site is not an adequate representation of future water supply and water system performance. 22 4 ~AKF O % APPENDIX 1 Page 27 of 37 o ORIGINAL 3. Site Assessment -The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating Determination of the surrounding agricultural land use rating is based upon the identification of a project's "Zone of Influence" (ZOI), which is defined as that land near a given project, both directly adjoining and within a defined distance away, that is likely to influence, and be influenced by, the agricultural land use of the subject project site. The determination of the ZOI is described below, and is illustrated with an example in Figure 1. Defining a Project's "Zone of Influence" Step 1. Locate the proposed project on an appropriate map and outline the area and dimensions of the proposed project site. Step 2. Determine the smallest rectangle that will completely contain the project site (Rectangle A). Step 3. Create a second rectangle (Rectangle B) that extends 0.25 mile (1320 feet) beyond Rectangle A on all sides. Step 4. Identify all parcels that are within or are intersected by Rectangle B. Step 5. Define the project site's "zone of influence" as the entire area of all parcels identified in Step 4, less the area of the proposed project from Step 1. [In the illustration provided in Figure 1, Parcels W, X, and Y extend beyond Rectangle B and are therefore included in their entirety in defining the project site's Zone of Influence.] 23 QY APPENDIX 1 Page 28 of 37 m r U O ORIGINAL Figure 1: Defining a Project's Zone of Influence Rectangle A Rectangle B 1 ttlltr♦ ~ IOItt* Step 2. 3 StecP nza I. ne=tP-nttttc the sma Ueml lei llt~t reclaatilr that c+lll j array andrlimrn5lrns complitei$conl~titttitepiajPtr i of thr prn,ji,ct site tu1'llcdIec: JS FtectaIIgle Al. Panel x ~wto I Steil 'A. C"eme a second rectingltt t tRu rtnglr 131 ihaa Ktend (ti-, mile .f t i l i t feet} hrvund Qa•e tam1r, A uu all Odes Parcel Y Step 4. Merilif y all Farrkl that are ~ai,th n or are intrrserteri hy Rectaugh• B Itt~ 1 S Stepp M-11-me the faro ei t'v '[one of tttfluence" as tiie entire area of all paarrels idrnrified in Step 4. less thv aria of the prarposcd ploit!tI from Step I in this example, parcels NV. X, mid Y extend beyond Pert ngle B and are therefore included ua the thcir rntlrrt} In defining the project', zone of influence. O cP~ APPENDIX 1 Page 29 of 37 r" U r ORIGINAL Measuring Surrounding Agricultural Land Step 1. Calculate the percentage of the project's Zone of Influence that is currently producing agricultural crops. [This figure can be determined using information from the Department of Conservation's Important Farmland Map Series, the Department of Water Resources' Land Use Map Series, locally derived maps, or direct site inspection. For agricultural land that is currently fallowed, a determination must be made concerning whether the land has been fallowed as part of a rotational sequence during normal agricultural operations, or because the land has become formally "committed" to a nonagricultural use. Land that has become formally committed, whether fallow or not, should not generally be included in determining the proportion of the Zone of Influence that is agricultural land. For further information on the definition of Committed Land, refer to the following Explanation of the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating.] Step 2. Based on the percentage of agricultural land in the ZOI determined in Step 1, assign a Surrounding Agricultural Land score to the project according to Table 6, and enter this score in Line 5 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8). Table 6. Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating Percent of Project's Surrounding Zone of Influence Agricultural Land in Agricultural Use Score 90-100% 100 Points 80 - 89 90 75 - 79 80 70 - 74 70 65 - 69 60 60 - 64 50 55 - 59 40 50 - 54 30 45 - 49 20 40 - 44 10 40 < 0 25 04 a A KF~~ APPENDIX 1 Page 30 of 37 0 o ORIGINAL Explanation of the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating is designed to provide a measurement of the level of agricultural land use for lands in close proximity to a subject project. The California Agricultural LESA Model rates the potential significance of the conversion of an agricultural parcel that has a large proportion of surrounding land in agricultural production more highly than one that has a relatively small percentage of surrounding land in agricultural production. The definition of a "Zone of Influence" that accounts for surrounding lands up to a minimum of one quarter mile from the project boundary is the result of several iterations during model development for assessing an area that will generally be a representative sample of surrounding land use. In a simple example, a single one quarter mile square project (160 acres) would have a Zone of Influence that is a minimum of eight times greater (1280 acres) that the parcel itself. Land within a Zone of Influence that is observed to be fallow will require a case by case determination of whether this land should be considered agricultural land. The Department of Conservation's Important Farmland Maps may be of assistance in making this determination. In addition, land currently in agricultural production may be designated as being "committed" to future nonagricultural development. The Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program has a land use designation of Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use, and is defined as "land that is permanently committed by local elected officials to nonagricultural development by virtue of decisions which cannot be reversed simply by a majority vote of a city council or county board of supervisors. The "committed" land must be so designated in an adopted local general plan, and must also meet the requirements of either (a) or (b) below: (a). It must have received one of the following final discretionary approvals: 1. Tentative subdivision map (approved per the Subdivision Map Act); 2. Tentative or final parcel map (approved per the Subdivision Map Act); 3. Recorded development agreement (per Government Code §65864); 4. Other decisions by a local government which are analogous to items #1-3 above and which exhibit an element of permanence. Zoning by itself does not qualify as a permanent commitment. Or 26 O~~ P KF9`~-~ APPENDIX 1 Page 31 of 37 r m U ORIGINAL (b) It must be the subject of one of the final fiscal commitments to finance the capital improvements specifically required for future development of the land in question as shown below: 1. Recorded Resolution of Intent to form a district and levy an assessment; 2. Payment of assessment; 3. Sale of bonds; 4. Binding contract, secured by bonds, guaranteeing installation of infrastructure; 5. Other fiscal commitments which are analogous to items #1-4 above and exhibit an element of permanence." Lead agencies are encouraged to identify Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use within a project's ZOI and make the determination whether this land, while still in agricultural production, be considered nonagricultural land for the purposes of the calculation performed here. 27 ~ aAKF9 APPENDIX 1 Page 32 of 37 T m v O ORIGINAL 4. Site Assessment -The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating is essentially an extension of the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating, and is scored in a similar manner. Protected resource lands are those lands with long term use restrictions that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses of land. Included among them are the following: • Williamson Act contracted lands • Publicly owned lands maintained as park, forest, or watershed resources • Lands with agricultural, wildlife habitat, open space, or other natural resource easements that restrict the conversion of such land to urban or industrial uses. Instructions for the Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating Step 1. Utilizing the same "Zone of Influence" (ZOI) area calculated for a project under the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating, calculate the percentage of the ZOI that is Protected Resource Land, as defined above. Step 2. Assign a Surrounding Protected Resource Land score to the project according to Table 7, and enter this score on Line 6 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8 Table 7. Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating Percent of Project's Surrounding Zone of Influence Protected Resource Defined as Protected Land Score 90 - 100% 100 Points 80 - 89 90 75 - 79 80 70 - 74 70 65 - 69 60 60 - 64 50 55 - 59 40 50 - 54 30 45 - 49 20 40 - 44 10 40 < 0 28 o gAKF901T APPENDIX 1 Page 33 of 37 r V O ORIGINAL Section III. Weighting of Factors and Final LESA Scoring The California LESA Model is weighted so that 50 percent of the total LESA score of a given project is derived from the Land Evaluation factors, and 50 percent from the Site Assessment factors. Individual factor weights are listed below, with the sum of the factor weights required to equal 100 percent. Land Evaluation Factors Land Capability Classification 25% Storie Index Rating 25% Land Evaluation Subtotal 50% Site Assessment Factors Project Size 15% Water Resource Availability 15% Surrounding Agricultural Lands 15% Surrounding Protected Resource Lands 5% Site Assessment Subtotal 50% Total LESA Factor Weighting 100% Each factor is measured separately (each on 100 point scale) and entered in the appropriate line in Column B of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8). Each factor's score is then multiplied by its respective factor weight, resulting in a weighted factor score in Column D as indicated in Table 8. The weighted factor scores are summed, yielding a Total LESA Score (100 points maximum ) for a given project, which is entered in Line 7 of Column D. liiiw 29 o~~AK~9 APPENDIX 1 Page 34 of 37 LP , -11 m U p ORIGINAL rn o ~v I` L c J V II II II II 11 II I I 9 O O Lo LS7 Lo U') Lo Lo U N II N N T- T.- O U m o 0 0 0 0 o Q O L L~0 U X X X x x x x F m L 2) ce) o c O CD ~ LO m E cc Cc M LL °o a A A A A A A p~ ~ N M v Lo CO m m m a) m m J J J J J J V V V V V V c O U L E J N 0 m Q Z Q N 5 U Q m ~ - ~ LU LL N C N N J La O N N U c c = La U~ N U U i~ -a N a~ o .2 > O N O e3 = O X L U --I CA to a U) a Ca Q Z .f~ C N N N M d F- J (A a Q r U p ORIGINAL Section IV. California Agricultural LESA Scoring Thresholds - Making Determinations of Significance Under CEQA A single LESA score is generated for a given project after all of the individual Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors have been scored and weighted as detailed in Sections 2 and 3. Just as with the scoring of individual factors that comprise the California Agricultural LESA Model, final project scoring is based on a scale of 100 points, with a given project being capable of deriving a maximum of 50 points from the Land Evaluation factors and 50 points from the Site Assessment factors. The California Agricultural LESA Model is designed to make determinations of the potential significance of a project's conversion of agricultural lands during the Initial Study phase of the CEQA review process. Scoring thresholds are based upon both the total LESA score as well as the component LE and SA subscores. In this manner the scoring thresholds are dependent upon the attainment of a minimum score for the LE and SA subscores so that a single threshold is not the result of heavily skewed subscores (i.e., a site with a very high LE score, but a very low SA score, or vice versa). Table 9 presents the California Agricultural LESA scoring thresholds. ~Aw Table 9. California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds Total LESA Score Scoring Decision 0 to 39 Points Not Considered Significant 40 to 59 Points Considered Significant only if LE and SA subscores are each rq eater than or equal to 20 points 60 to 79 Points Considered Significant unless either LE or SA subscore is less than 20 points 80 to 100 Points Considered Significant 31 C APPENDIX 1 Page 36 of 37 m v o ORIGINAL Bibliography 1. Conserving the Wealth of the Land- A Plan for Soil Conservation, Department of Conservation. 1987. 2. The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California. Prepared by Jones and Stokes, Associates, Inc., for the California Department of Conservation. 1991. 3. Statewide LESA Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors. Prepared by Nichols - Berman, for the Department of Conservation. 1995. 4. LESA Guidelines for Local Jurisdictions - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors. Prepared by Nichols - Berman, for the Department of Conservation. 1995. 5. Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration. The Farmland Protection and Policy Act, part 658. Code of Federal Regulations - Agriculture, Parts 400 to 699. 1990. 6. Pease, J and R. Coughlin. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment: A Guidebook for Rating Agricultural Lands, Second Edition; prepared for the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1996. 7. Pease, J., et al. State and Local LESA Systems: Status and Evaluation; In: Steiner, F., J. Pease, and R. Coughlin, eds. A Decade with LESA: The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1994. 8. Steiner, F., J. Pease, and R. Coughlin, eds. A Decade with LESA: The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1994. 32 o`` 0AKF9~ r- m APPENDIX 1 Page 37 of 37 o ORIGINAL