Barstow City Council
November 4, 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1) Introduction 1
2) Executive Summary 3
3) Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases 11
4) Biological Resources 14
5) Hydrology/Water Quality 18
6) Noise 19
7) Population/Housing 21
8) Public Services and Utilities 21
9) Recreation 22
10) Traffic and Transportation 22
11) Alternatives to the Proposed Project 26
12) Growth‐Inducing Impacts 28
13) Cumulative Impacts 29
14) Mitigation Monitoring Program 31
15) Initial Study Checklist 40
1 1) INTRODUCTION

1.1  Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report
The evaluation of projects to determine their effects on the environment is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). When a project could have a significant effect on the environment, the agency with primary responsibility over the approval of the project (the lead agency) is required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

As stated in the State CEQA Guidelines §151211:

An EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. The public agency shall consider the information in the EIR along with other information which may be presented to the agency (when considering whether to approve a project).

This Draft Master EIR is intended to provide information to the public and to decision‐makers regarding the potential environmental effects of adoption and implementation of the City of Barstow General Plan Revision. CEQA permits Master EIRs to be prepared for general plans as a means of streamlining the environmental review process. The Master EIR can provide estimates of environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures associated with development projects that are considered likely to occur within the time horizon of the General Plan (2015 – 2020). Once the Master EIR has been reviewed and certified by the City Council, environmental review of subsequent projects that are similar in size, scope and location to those incorporated into the General Plan Master EIR can potentially be substantially reduced.

CEQA requires that Master EIRs contain sufficient information about anticipated development projects, including their size, location, intensity and type of development, for the lead agency to derive estimates of their likely environmental impact, accompanied by mitigation measures designed to reduce adverse environmental impacts to an acceptable level of significance. If the lead agency determines that a subsequent project is “within the scope” of the Master EIR and therefore will have no additional significant environmental effect, and that no new mitigation measures or alternatives may be required, it may prepare a written finding to that effect without preparing a new environmental document or findings. In cases in which this finding cannot be made, the agency may prepare either a mitigated negative declaration or a focused EIR for subsequent projects in order to address environmental impacts that were not sufficiently analyzed and mitigated by the Master EIR.

State law permits lead agencies to establish a fee program to offset the costs of preparing a Master EIR. In this manner, the City can recover a proportion of the costs incurred in preparing this report from project applicants who benefit from employing the document in the environmental review of their development proposals.

2 1.2 Background Reports
In order to provide the technical information necessary to conduct a thorough analysis of the likely environmental impacts of the General Plan Revision, the City of Barstow commissioned the preparation of background reports addressing the issues of circulation, noise, air quality, hydrology and biological resources. These reports are included as appendices to this Master EIR and are incorporated herein by reference.

1.3 Public Review and CEQA Process
CEQA provides three opportunities for public participation during the environmental review process. These points are: 1) during the Notice of Preparation (NOP), when public agencies and the public are informed that an EIR is to be prepared, and are requested to comment on the scope and contents of the proposed EIR; 2) upon circulation of the Draft EIR, when the public and agencies can comment on the adequacy of the environmental document; and 3) finally, after circulation of the Final EIR, when the public and agencies can evaluate the lead agency’s responses to comments submitted on the Draft EIR.

The Notice of Preparation for the City of Barstow General Plan Revision Master EIR was published in November 2014. Public agency responses to the Notice of Preparation are included as an appendix to this document. This public review draft provides a second opportunity for comment by the public and by responsible agencies, either in written form or at public hearings to be held by the Planning Commission and City Council.  This Draft EIR will be circulated for public review for a period of at least 45 days. Comments on the draft document may be submitted to:

Gaither Loewenstein, Economic Development and Planning Manager City of Barstow
220 East Mountain View Street
Barstow, California 92311
[email protected]

The Final EIR will include the City’s responses to comments submitted in response to the Draft document, along with any revisions to the report resulting from these comments and a program for monitoring the mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR.

After considering the Final PEIR in conjunction with making findings, if the project would result in significant environmental impacts after imposition of feasible mitigation measures, the City may approve the project if the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable environmental effects. Under these circumstances, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be prepared explaining why the City is willing to accept each significant effect. It is anticipated that with the possible exception of certain air quality standards the environmental impacts of implementing the revised General Plan can be effectively mitigated without taking such action.

3 2) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 Description of Planning Area and Vicinity
The General Plan Master EIR encompasses the incorporated City of Barstow and its surrounding Sphere of Influence. The Barstow planning area is located in northern San Bernardino County, roughly halfway between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. (see Exhibit 2‐1: Vicinity Map) The City’s Sphere of Influence is comprised of the incorporated area as well as lands outside of the incorporated city considered as possibilities for annexation to the city at some point in the future. (see Exhibit 2‐2: Planning Area) Within the time parameters of the revised General Plan (2015‐2020) significant annexations of lands within the Sphere of Influence are considered unlikely, with the exception of the possibility of the initial stages of a phased annexation of the Barstow Heights neighborhood, which is currently surrounded on three sides by the incorporated city.

2.2 Relationship of Planning Area to Surrounding Region Barstow is located in the High Desert region of southern California. The region experienced significant growth during the late 1990s and early 2000s as a result of regional and national economic expansion. The recession of 2007‐2009 and the extremely slow recovery from this historic downturn effectively brought this growth to a halt; only recently have there been small signs of a nascent economic recovery in the High Desert region.

Urban growth in Barstow typically occurs as a byproduct of economic expansion in High Desert communities located south of the City, including Victorville, Hesperia and Apple Valley. As housing costs in these communities rise and employment opportunities become more plentiful the viability of Barstow for residential, commercial and industrial expansion tends to increase.

While Barstow’s location at the juncture of three major highways in relatively close proximity to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach makes it a viable setting for manufacturing, logistics and retail land use expansion, a strong macroeconomic environment is a necessary prerequisite for this growth to occur. Only when economic growth is at relatively high levels can Barstow’s cost and locational advantages be fully capitalized upon. For the past several years City officials have been taking steps aimed at positioning the City to benefit from the next wave of national and regional economic expansion, such as improving roadways and infrastructure, identifying sites suitable for commercial and industrial use and removing constraints to their development and reaching out to landowners and prospective investors to increase their awareness of growth opportunities in Barstow. As a result of these efforts, it is anticipated that substantial improvement in the community’s employment base, accompanied by a return of new housing construction, could begin to occur within the time horizon of the revised General Plan. The General Plan identifies a number of specific locations at which growth is considered most likely to occur, accompanied by estimates of the nature and intensity of this anticipated development. (see Exhibit L‐2: Potential Development Sites in the General Plan Land Use Element)
4 From the standpoint of assessing regional environmental impacts, because Barstow is not immediately adjacent to other urban communities in the region, separated by over 20 miles of open space to the south and much more than that to the north, west and east, the amount of development that is expected to occur in the community by 2020 is highly unlikely to have cumulative adverse impacts beyond the local planning area. Possible exceptions to this generalization include air quality and biological resources, for which this master Environmental Impact Report contains mitigation measures designed to offset the effects of anticipated development.

5 EXHIBIT 2‐1: VICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT 2‐2: PLANNING AREA (Sphere of Influence)
6 2.3   General Plan Mitigating Features  and National Cultural and Regulatory Trends  Likely to Reduce the Environmental Impact of Planned Development
Generally speaking, industrial development is expected to occur primarily in the southwest portion of the City, residential growth is projected mainly along the Rimrock Road corridor and at various infill locations throughout the community and commercial development is most likely to be concentrated in the vicinity of the I‐15/Lenwood Road interchange and the Spanish Trail Specific Plan area along L Street between Main Street and I‐15. The City has sufficient infrastructure and roadway capacity to accommodate this projected increase in population, housing and employment. Areas of environmental concern associated with planned growth include biological resources (with particular emphasis on desert tortoise habitat) air quality (with an emphasis on incorporating project features that minimize or offset greenhouse gas emissions) and hydrology (with the need to ensure that adequate water supplies are available to support development and that new development incorporates water‐saving features being paramount in this regard). Features of the revised General Plan designed to address these issues include:
 Designation of more lands for open space and habitat protection and utilization of the interim open space designation to ensure a compact pattern of urban growth;
 Improvements to the circulation network including phased construction of a connector roadway between High Point Parkway and the Barstow Heights neighborhood (initially and ultimately to Barstow Road) and the exoansion of pedestrian pathways and bicycle routes throughout the City;  Establishment of a “mitigation bank” comprised of lands suitable for tortoise habitat to be used to offset the loss of habitat associated with planned development;
 Policies designed to encourage non‐motorized transportation and the use of electric and other low‐emission generating vehicles;
 Policies that encourage design features geared toward low water use;  Establishment of a local air quality mitigation fund to which developers may contribute in lieu of on‐site mitigation of air quality impacts of projects;  Inclusion of project features such as bicycle racks, pedestrian pathways and tree plantings in commercial and multi‐family residential developments;  and  Expansion of lands designated for diverse uses to encourage co‐location of jobs and housing, thereby reducing commute times and lessening the number of motor vehicle trips.
7 In addition to the above mitigation strategies incorporated into the General Plan, a number of national trends are likely to have the effect of reducing the environmental impact of Barstow’s planned growth. These trends include:
 Improved fuel efficiency of motor vehicles accompanied by increasing use of lower polluting alternative fuels;
 Aging of the population which, accompanied by the lower intensity driving habits of the millennial generation, which are likely to result in an aggregate reduction of vehicle trips per household;
 New laws regulating the emissions of diesel trucks and locomotives that are scheduled to take effect within the time horizon of the revised General Plan; and  Changing consumer spending patterns prompted by the expansion of online shopping, improvements and cost‐reductions in home entertainment systems and innovations in household appliances that are likely to reduce the amount of trips taken outside the home for shopping, dining and entertainment.

Whereas in previous years the average household might have made up to10 or more vehicle trips per day (a figure that is typically included in models forecasting vehicle usage) it would not be surprising if this were reduced to no more than eight daily vehicle trips by 2020 in light of the national trends and local policy initiatives identified above.  Moreover, these trips are more likely to be made in vehicles that, in the aggregate, pollute the air less and consume less fuel. As this occurs and as the trucks and trains that deliver goods to consumers begin to pollute less as well, the adverse environmental impact of urban development will be significantly reduced, both in Barstow and in the nation as a whole. While these effects are difficult to precisely quantify it can be reasonably assumed that changes in cultural trends and regulatory policies that have already begun to occur will lessen the environmental footprint of the City’s future development. To the extent that they can be quantified, these assumptions have been factored into the analyses utilized by the draft Environmental Impact Report.

2.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
An initial study (incorporated as an appendix to this report) was conducted by the Planning Department to identify the potential adverse environmental impacts of implementation of the revised General Plan. This study determined that potentially significant impacts were unlikely to occur with respect to the following environmental factors:

Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Cultural Resources
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Mineral Resources
Geology/Soils
8 As required by CEQA the Initial Study included substantiation of the City’s conclusion that General Plan implementation would not significantly affect the above environmental features.

Table 2‐1 contains a summary of the likely environmental impacts of the General Plan revision and the mitigation measures designed to address them.

9 TABLE 2‐1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS/
IMPACT

MITIGATION
Air Quality and Greenhouse
Gasses /
The project would result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors).

Significant and unavoidable impact

3.3.1 Incorporate 1 bike parking

3.3.2 Encourage use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment.

3.3.3 Provide incentives to equip garages with level electric vehicle charging stations.

3.3.4 Encourage alternative work schedules.

3.3.5 Utilize biological sequestration to offset the greenhouse gas impacts of for industrial and commercial development.

3.3.6 Establish a municipal energy fund.

3.3.7 Increase allowable residential densities.

3.3.8 Increase acreage of lands designated for diverse use development to encourage co‐location of jobs and housing.

3.3.9 Housing options for people working in Barstow.

3.3.10 Continue to explore and implement options for converting the City’s municipal vehicle fleet to low emissions vehicles.

3.3.11 Incorporate pedestrian paths and bicycle lanes and routes into the City’s circulation network.

3.3.12 Promote a compact pattern of urban development.

3.3.13 Prepare a local Climate Action Plan.

3.3.14 Incorporate bus turnouts into the design of commercial and multi‐family residential projects.

3.3.15 Prohibit the installation of wood‐burning fireplaces and stoves in new residential construction.

3.3.16 Support infill development.

3.3.17 Require Best Management Practices to reduce fugitive dust emissions.

3.3.18 Locate new air pollution point sources an adequate distance from sensitive receptors.

3.3.19 Environmental review process.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES /
Have a substantial adverse effect on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, orspecial
statusspeciesin local orregional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Less than significant impact with mitigations.

4.3.1 Proposed development on sites having evidence of the presence protected species shall require that protocol surveys be conducted to verify or refute the presence of these species. On sites at which the presence of one or more of these species is verified the impact of proposed development on these species shall be minimized or mitigated in accordance with the guidelines detailed in the Biological Technical Report.

4.3.2 Federal and state incidental take permits shall be required for development projects that are determined to have adverse impacts on desert tortoise habitat; state permits may also be required for projects adversely impacting the Mojave ground squirrel.

4.3.3 Minimization measures such as hiring a biological monitor to remove all tortoises from fenced construction areas and distributing tortoise awareness information to construction personnel who are prohibited from driving cross‐country, littering or bringing pets into the area shall be employed to minimize direct impact to tortoises and occupied habitat:

4.3.4 Adverse impacts of development projects on burrowing owls should be mitigated by one or more of the following measures:
 Avoiding occupied burrows during the breeding season
 Purchasing and permanently protecting 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird impacted
 Creating new burrows or enhancing others when destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable
 Implementing passive relocation if owls must be moved; and/or  Providing funding for long‐term management and monitoring of protected lands.

4.3.5 Avoid impacts to nesting birds.  Vegetation shall not be removed from a project site between March 15 and September 15.  A qualified biologist should survey all shrubs and structures within the project site for nesting birds, prior to project activities (including construction and/or site preparation).

4.3.6 The listed desert native plants (in Biological Resource Section) shall not be removed except under a Tree or Plant Removal Permit.

4.3.7 The listed native plants may not be harvested except under a permit. 10 TABLE 2‐1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS/
IMPACT

MITIGATION
Hydrology/Water Quality/
Increases in water demand of the magnitude
projected under the revised General Plan can
be accommodated with by the City’s existing
supplies and allocations.

Less than significant impact with mitigations.

Policies and action strategies included in the General Plan Conservation and Open Space element , including provisions geared toward cooperation and collaboration with regional water agencies and encouraging  that water‐saving features such as low‐flow fixtures and xeriscape landscaping be incorporated into the design of future development projects will have the effect of reducing project impacts even further NOISE/
Development expected to occur within the
General Plan time horizon would result in
temporary construction noise and would also
cause increases in vibrations from trucks and
vehicles associated with construction activity.

Less than significant impact with mitigations.

6.3.1 Establish limitations on construction noise generation, thereby reducing construction noise impacts below the level of significance.

6.3.2 Established limitations on vibration levels for construction thereby reducing its impacts below the level of significance.

Population/Housing/
Both housing and employment growth within
the planning area are projected to increase at a
two percent annual rate through 2020. The
existing jobs/housing ratio would remain
essentially unchanged.

No Impact.

No mitigation required.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND

UTILITIES/
The level of growth projected under the Plan,
including build‐out of the 12 sites identified as
most likely to be developed by 2020, can be
accommodated by the City’s existing public
services delivery network.

Less than significant impact
No mitigation required.

Recreation/
Demand for parks and recreation services
associated with development anticipated under
the revised General Plan can be accommodated
by the existing parks and recreation service
delivery network.

Less than significant impact
No mitigation required.

TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION/
The projected 2020 roadway network can
accommodate all projected population,
employment and housing growth while
maintaining acceptable levels of service across
all roadway segments and intersections.

Less than significant impact with mitigations.

10.3.1 The City shall implement the policies and action strategies enumerated under Goals 1‐3 of the General Plan Circulation Element.

11 3) AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GASES
Note: The City of Barstow commissioned an Air Quality Analysis Report from First Carbon Solutions that is included as an appendix to this report. What follows is a summary of existing air quality conditions, anticipated impacts of development proposed under the general plan and mitigation measures intended to offset the impact of planned development on local air quality.

The technical report commissioned by the City contains some recommended policies and mitigation measures that are not included in the EIR but will be considered on a case‐by‐case basis as each development project anticipated under the plan is submitted for review and approval. In general, the City intends to rely primarily upon incentives, as opposed to mandates, to offset adverse air quality impacts of proposed development.

3.1   Existing Conditions
The City of Barstow is located in the western portion of the Mojave Desert and has relatively good air quality in relation to other portions of central and southern California. The primary local sources of air pollutants within the planning area include Interstate Highways 15 and 40, State Route 58 and the Burlington‐Northern Santa Fe rail line and classification yard. Other local stationary sources of air pollutants include the City’s wastewater treatment facility, the Marine Corps Logistics Base and the Barstow Sanitary Landfill.  These sources, however, are dwarfed by the pollutants that migrate into the area from the San Joaquin Valley to the west and the Southern California air basin to the south. Because Barstow lies downwind of both of these highly polluted regions local air quality is diminished by factors beyond the control of the community.

Despite the presence of significant quantities of pollutants from outside of the Mojave air basin, the community has generally good existing air quality. Data from the local monitoring station indicate that the city in 2012 (the most recent year for which data are available) had zero days in which its air quality exceeded state or federal standards for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide or particulate matter. With respect to ozone, however, local air quality exceeded the more stringent state standard on 36 days in 2012 while exceeding the more stringent federal standard for nitrogen dioxide on 7 days.

Air basins where federal or state ambient air quality standards are exceeded are referred to as “non‐attainment” areas. Because Barstow exceeded these standards for ozone and nitrogen dioxide for several days in 2012 and for particulate matter on two days in 2011 Barstow is defined by law as a nonattainment area. The City’s high ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels result primarily from pollutants imported from outside the region, while its particulate matter is generated by strong desert winds; none of these factors fall within the powers of local governments or residents to influence or control.

With regard to greenhouse gas emissions, the State of California, through AB 32 and SB 375, has mandated that local jurisdictions reduce the amount of emissions within their jurisdictions to the levels that prevailed in 1990 by the year 2020. Also under this legislation, localities are required to adopt Climate Action Plans that set forth strategies for achieving the mandated 12 GHG emissions requirements. The goals, policies and action strategies set forth in the revised General Plan and this Master Environmental Impact Report are intended to address state regulatory requirements concerning both air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

3.2   Project Impacts
The results of the air quality analysis conducted under the auspices of the General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report are summarized below:
1) The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Less than significant impact
2)  The project would not violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Less than significant impact 3) The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Significant and unavoidable impact 4) The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Less than significant impact
5) The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Less than significant impact
In essence, the City’s air quality consultants have concluded that the nature and scope of development being contemplated under the revised general plan (i.e. two percent annual population and household growth with new development focused primarily in 12 designated areas) would not significantly affect local air quality. This is primarily because under the growth scenario envisioned by the plan vehicular traffic at major intersections would remain uncongested, thereby avoiding the creation of “hot spots” that generate high pollution levels.

Although the actual air quality impact of local development under the revised general plan would be negligible, because Barstow is already defined as a nonattainment area, any project that would result in the emission of pollutants for which the area is out of attainment constitutes, by definition, a significant unavoidable impact under the California Environmental Quality Act. Since it is impossible to mitigate air quality impacts to a level at which absolutely no pollutants are emitted it is necessary for the City to adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration concomitant with approval of the General Plan and certification of the Master EIR. This statement, permitted under CEQA, simply acknowledges that despite the presence of significant unavoidable environmental impacts the project is being approved in consideration of other factors, such as the need for the community of Barstow to prosper and grow.

CEQA also requires agencies to assess the impact of projects on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To address this requirement the City asked First Carbon Solutions to provide an 13 analysis of GHG impacts that is also appended to this report. With regard to the estimated impact of the revised General Plan on GHG emissions, the report prepared by the City’s air quality consultants concluded the following:
1) The project would generate direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions that would not result in a significant impact on the environment.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.
2) The project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Although the City Council will be asked to adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration with regard to air quality impacts of the revised General Plan and the plan with mitigations is not expected to generate significant impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, the City’s intent is to mitigate adverse air quality and GHG impacts of planned development to the most practicable feasible extent. The measures contained in the following section have been formulated with this objective in mind.

3.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures

3.3.1 Incorporate 1 bike parking space for every 20 motor vehicle parking spaces into the design of multi‐family, commercial and industrial development projects.

3.3.2 Encourage installation of electrical outlets on exterior walls of front and rear of residences to promote the use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment.

3.3.3 Provide incentives, such as relaxed parking requirements and density bonuses, to equip garages with level electric vehicle charging stations.

3.3.4 Encourage alternative work schedules for new commercial and industrial development.

3.3.5 Utilize biological sequestration (e.g. planting one tree per 10 metric tons of Co2 per year) to offset the greenhouse gas impacts of for industrial and commercial development.

3.3.6 Establish a municipal energy fund and accept contributions of $ 15 per metric ton of Co2 generated in lieu of on‐site air quality mitigation. Utilize fund proceeds for GHG offsets such as tree plantings, bicycle route striping and signage and open space acquisition.

3.3.7 Increase allowable residential densities from 6 to 7 units per acre in single family districts and from 16 to 20 in multi‐family districts to encourage compact urban development and shorter vehicle trips.
14 3.3.8 Increase acreage of lands designated for diverse use development to encourage co‐ location of jobs and housing.

3.3.9 Endeavor to reduce the City’s existing 1.4 jobs: housing ratio by encouraging the development of residential land uses to provide more housing options for people working in Barstow.

3.3.10 Continue to explore and implement options for converting the City’s municipal vehicle fleet to low emissions vehicles.

3.3.11 Incorporate pedestrian paths and bicycle lanes and routes into the City’s circulation network and the design of residential and commercial development projects.

3.3.12 Promote a compact pattern of urban development by utilizing the Interim Open Space/ Resource Conservation land use designation on lands located on the periphery of the planning area until such time as sufficient urban infrastructure is extended to such locations.

3.3.13 Pursuant to the provisions of the 2006 California Global Warming Solutions Act, prepare a local Climate Action Plan or utilize provisions of the Climate Action Plan currently being prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments.

3.3.14 Incorporate bus turnouts into the design of commercial and multi‐family residential projects.

3.3.15 Prohibit the installation of wood‐burning fireplaces and stoves in new residential construction.

3.3.16 Support infill development by improving and enhancing infrastructure serving vacant infill properties.

3.3.17 Require construction, grading, excavation, and demolition activities to incorporate appropriate best management practices (BMPs) to reduce fugitive dust emissions. (See Air Quality Analysis in Appendix for list of possible BMPs).

3.3.18 Locate new air pollution point sources such as, but not limited to, industrial, manufacturing, and processing facilities, an adequate distance from existing and planned residential areas and sensitive receptors.

3.3.15 Utilize the City’s environmental review process to incorporate additional air quality mitigation measures into the design of future proposed development projects employing an incentives‐based approach as an alternative to mandates. 4) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Note: The City of Barstow commissioned a Biological Technical Report from Circle Mountain Biological Resources is included as an appendix to this report. What follows is a summary of 15 existing conditions pertaining to biological resources , anticipated impacts of development proposed under the general plan and mitigation measures intended to offset the impact of planned development on sensitive biological resources. The technical report commissioned by the City contains some recommended mitigation measures that are not included in the EIR but will be considered on a case‐by‐case basis as each development project anticipated under the plan is submitted for review and approval.

4.1 Existing Conditions
Barstow is located in a high desert ecosystem that features a rich diversity of plants and animals. Many of the species of flora and fauna found within the planning area are quite common while others are less common, several of which have been designated as either threatened species or species of special concern.

The biological technical report contains voluminous information concerning both common and uncommon plant and animal species that are found within the Barstow planning area. The report also provides site‐specific information concerning the locations within the Barstow area at which these species are likely to be found. This section of the EIR focuses on uncommon species that may be particularly worthy of environmental protection.

With regard to plants, there are at least 10 special status plant species and 1 special plant resource (i.e., Creosote Bush Rings larger than 10 feet in diameter) found in the Barstow area, including the following:

Barstow Woolly Sunflower
Beaver Dam Breadroot
Chaparral Sand‐Verbena
Creamy Blazing Star
Creosote Bush Rings
Emory’s Crucifixion Thorn
Mojave Fish‐Hook Cactus
Mojave Menodora
Mojave Monkeyfolower
Parish’s Phacelia
Spiny‐Hair Blazing Star
Concerning uncommon animals, the following species have been identified in the Barstow area:

Mojave Fringe‐Toed Lizard
Agassiz’s Desert Tortoise
Burrowing Owl
Cooper’s Hawk*
Ferruginous Hawk*
Golden Eagle*
LeConte’s Thrasher
16 Loggerhead Shrike
Northern Harrier*
Osprey*
Prairie Falcon*
Swainson’s Hawk*
Vaux’s Swift*
Yellow‐Billed Cuckoo*
Mojave Ground Squirrel
American Badger
Desert Kit Fox
*Migratory birds unlikely to be adversely affected by future development in Barstow

4.2 Project Impacts
The effects of development anticipated under the revised General Plan on sensitive biological resources are likely to be largely site‐dependent. In general, infill development on properties surrounded by existing urban use and development on sites that have already been impacted by human activity, whether infill or on the periphery of developed areas, are less likely to have an adverse impact on species of concern than projects on parcels located in sensitive habitat areas that have not been disturbed by previous activities.

The biological technical report that is appended to this EIR contains extensive mapping of the Barstow planning area that documents specific locations at which sensitive plant and animal species or habitat that could accommodate such species have been observed. In addition to the biological technical report the City’s consultants conducted of field reconnaissance of twelve sites considered most likely to be developed within the 2015‐2020 time horizon of the revised General Plan (see General Plan Exhibit L‐2). The results of this field reconnaissance, also included as an appendix to this EIR, identify which species and habitats that have been encountered at these specific locations.

Based on the field reconnaissance survey and other supporting documentation contained in the biological technical report, three of the likely development sites surveyed are free of sensitive plant and animal species and could be readily developed without adversely impacting biological resources. These sites include:
 Parcel 5b, located at the northwest intersection of Lenwood Road and I‐15  Parcel 6, the Spanish Trail Specific Plan Area, located in the vicinity of L Avenue and Main Street; and
 Parcel 12, located on Old Route 66 between the highway and the BNSF railroad tracks.

Most infill properties surrounded by existing development within the city limits could also be developed without resulting in adverse biological resource impacts. The remaining sites shown on Exhibit L‐2 of the General Plan are likely to require additional site‐specific analysis of biological resource impacts once specific site development plans are submitted for review. 17 4.3 Biological Resources Mitigation Measures

4.3.1 Proposed development on sites identified by the Biological Technical Report and/or accompanying Reconnaissance Survey included as attachments to this EIR as having evidence of the presence of desert tortoises, Mojave fringe‐toed lizards, burrowing owls or Mojave ground squirrels shall require that protocol surveys consistent with applicable federal and/or state guidelines be conducted to verify or refute the presence of these species. On sites at which the presence of one or more of these species is verified the impact of proposed development on these species shall be minimized or mitigated in accordance with the guidelines detailed in the Biological Technical Report.

4.3.2 Federal and state incidental take permits shall be required for development projects that are determined to have adverse impacts on desert tortoise habitat; state permits may also be required for projects adversely impacting the Mojave ground squirrel – applicants are strongly advised to request that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife draft its permit to identify both the tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel as “covered species” to avoid subsequent delays in permit processing.

4.3.3 Minimization measures such as hiring a biological monitor to remove all tortoises from fenced construction areas and distributing tortoise awareness information to construction personnel who are prohibited from driving cross‐country, littering or bringing pets into the area shall be employed to minimize direct impact to tortoises and occupied habitat:

4.3.4 Adverse impacts of development projects on burrowing owls should be mitigated by one or more of the following measures:
 Avoiding occupied burrows during the breeding season, between February 1 and August 31
 Purchasing and permanently protecting 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird impacted
 Creating new burrows or enhancing others when destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable
 Implementing passive relocation if owls must be moved; and/or  Providing funding for long‐term management and monitoring of protected lands.

4.3.5 Pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code vegetation shall not be removed from a project site between March 15 and September 15 to avoid impacts to nesting birds. If it is necessary to commence project construction between March 15 and September 15, a qualified biologist should survey all shrubs and structures within the project site for nesting birds, prior to project activities (including construction and/or site preparation). 18 4.3.6 The following desert native plants or any part of them, except the fruit, shall not be removed except under a Tree or Plant Removal Permit in compliance within Section

88.01.050 of the San Bernardino County Development Code:
 Dalea spinosa (smoke tree) with stems two inches or greater in diameter or six feet or greater in height.
 All species of the genus Prosopis (mesquites) with stems two inches or greater in diameter or six feet or greater in height.
 All species of the family Agavaceae (century plants, nolinas, yuccas).  Creosote Rings, 10 feet or greater in diameter.
 All Joshua trees.
 Any part of the following species, whether living or dead:
o Olneya tesota (desert ironwood).
o All species of the genus Prosopis (mesquites).
o All species of the genus Cercidium (palo verdes).

4.3.7 Pursuant to the California Food and Agriculture Code the following native plants, or any parts thereof, may not be harvested except under a permit issued by the commissioner or the sheriff of the county in which the native plants are growing:
 All species of the family Agavaceae (century plants, nolinas, yuccas).  All species of the family Cactaceae (cacti), except for the plants listed in subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 80072 (i.e., saguaro and barrel cacti), which may be harvested under a permit obtained pursuant to that section.
 All species of the family Fouquieriaceae (ocotillo, candlewood).  All species of the genus Prosopis (mesquites).
 All species of the genus Cercidium (palo verdes).
 Senegalia (Acacia) greggii (catclaw acacia).
 Atriplex hymenelytra (desert holly).
 Dalea (Psorothamnus) spinosa (smoke tree).
 Olneya tesota (desert ironwood), including both dead and live desert ironwood. 5) HYDROLOGY/ WATER QUALITY

5.1 Existing Conditions
Water supplies in Barstow are sufficient to accommodate existing needs as well as future growth projected to 2020 under the revised General Plan. Additionally, the City has access to 247 acre feet of water rights from the Odessa Water District that have not yet been allocated.

The local water distribution system, however,  is in significant need of improvements due to aging and deteriorating lines in the older parts of the planning area, in addition to lines throughout the area that are undersized for meeting current fire flow demands. Although maintenance and upgrading of this system falls under the responsibility of the private water 19 purveyor, Golden State Water, it is incumbent upon the City of Barstow to ensure that due diligence is taken by the private purveyor in maintaining and upgrading the system.

5.2 Project Impacts
Population and household growth between the present and the General Plan horizon year of 2020 will result in marginal increases in water demand. If such growth occurs at the two percent annual rate forecast under the plan the City’s population will increase approximately 12 percent by 2020 Assuming that this growth occurs within homes and developments that are designed for reduced water use (i.e. low‐flow toilets, showers and appliances, xeriscape, etc.) the actual increase in water use likely to occur in association with this new development should be on the order of seven to eight percent.

Increases in water demand of the magnitude projected under the revised General Plan can be accommodated with by the City’s existing supplies and allocations. The impact of the project on hydrology and water resources is, therefore, insignificant.

5.3 Mitigation Measures
Because the impact of General Plan implementation will be less than significant mitigation measures are not required. Nevertheless, policies and action strategies included in the General Plan Conservation and Open Space element , including provisions geared toward cooperation and collaboration with regional water agencies and encouraging  that water‐saving features such as low‐flow fixtures and xeriscape landscaping be incorporated into the design of future development projects will have the effect of reducing project impacts even further. 6) NOISE
Note: The City of Barstow commissioned a Community Noise Analysis from Vista Environmental that is included as an appendix to this report. What follows is a summary of existing conditions pertaining to noise, anticipated impacts of development proposed under the general plan and mitigation measures intended to offset the impact of planned development on community noise levels.

6.1 Existing Conditions
Barstow is a generally quiet community that does not have a large portion of its land uses adversely affected by high noise levels. Exceptions to this tendency include lands located in close proximity to Interstates 15 and 40 and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railway and its classification yard. There are large areas of the City near the freeways and railroads that exceed the City’s 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standards. Exhibit N‐1 in the General Plan Noise Element provides an illustration of all properties that fall within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour.

Although the community does not currently have a significant number of noise‐generating industrial land uses, efforts to attract industrial development may lead to the establishment of 20 new industries that could generate potentially harmful noise levels. To address this concern, lands designated for industrial use have been located as far as practicable from existing residential land uses. In the event that industrial uses are proposed in the vicinity of residences noise analysis accompanied by appropriate mitigation measures shall be required of project applicants.

6.2 Project Impacts
Exhibit N‐2 in the General Plan Noise Element illustrates the extent to which noise contours in the planning area are expected to expand as a result of development anticipated under the Plan. The City’s noise consultants have concluded that, based on General Plan growth assumptions “there is certainty that stationary noise created from future development contemplated by the proposed project would not expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan”.  Moreover, “no analyzed roadway segment at 100 feet from the centerline would exceed the City’s most restrictive exterior noise standard for new residential, hotel and motel, and institutional uses of 65 dBA CNEL for the year 2020 without project conditions”.

The proposed project’s permanent noise increases from the generation of additional vehicular traffic would not exceed established state and local safety thresholds.  Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant.

Development expected to occur within the General Plan time horizon would result in temporary construction noise and would also cause increases in vibrations from trucks and vehicles associated with construction activity. At present, the City has no policies in place to address construction and vibration noise. To address this, policies have been included in the revised General Plan Noise Ordinance.

6.3 Mitigation Measures

6.3.1 Strategy 2.B.1 of the revised General Plan Noise Element exempts construction activities from the operational noise standards set forth in Table N‐1 of the Noise Element between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and enforces the standards outside of these hours. This establishes limitations on construction noise generation, thereby reducing construction noise impacts below the level of significance.

6.3.2  Strategy 2.B.2 of the revised General Plan Noise Element incorporates San Bernardino County’s established limitations on vibration levels (0.2 inches per second at the property line or nearest sensitive receptor as the City of Barstow’s standard for vibration noise, thereby reducing its impacts below the level of significance. 21 7) POPULATION/ HOUSING

7.1 Existing Conditions
The City of Barstow currently has a jobs/housing ratio of 1.4/1 resulting from the fact that many of the people who work in Barstow live in other communities and commute to work. This existing imbalance of housing and employment results in higher degrees of traffic congestion, road noise and air pollution than would be the case if the City’s jobs/housing balance were closer to 1/1.

7.2 Project Impacts
Both housing and employment growth within the planning area are projected to increase at a two percent annual rate through 2020. In the event that this was to occur, the existing jobs/housing ratio would remain essentially unchanged. The project as planned would, therefore, have no impact on population and housing from an environmental analysis standpoint. In the event that the pace of residential development were to exceed the rate of commercial and industrial growth the balance between jobs and housing would become more equitable, resulting in favorable environmental impacts.

Conversely, should the pace of employment‐generating development exceed the rate of housing growth, adverse impacts on traffic, noise and air quality could result although these impacts would not exceed the thresholds of significance established for any of these environmental criteria in the absence of a major commercial or industrial project that significantly exceeded the growth parameters included in this analysis, in which case additional environmental review and mitigation would be required on the part of project proponents.

7.3 Mitigation Measures
None required unless development is proposed that would exceed the growth parameters assumed under the revised General Plan.
8) PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES

8.1 Existing Conditions
The City currently has sufficient public services and utilities, including roadways, wastewater treatment capacity, storm drainage, streets, lighting and power to accommodate the existing population as well as the growth rates anticipated during the time period covered by the revised General Plan. Significant capital improvements to the City’s public facilities infrastructure have been made over the past several years, including upgrades to the Rimrock and Montara sewage collection systems, installation of water lines to serve the Barstow Industrial Park and improvements to the Kitchen‐Dean Wash storm water drainage system. The effect of these improvements has been to improve the overall quality of public facilities serving the residents of Barstow and to position the community for future economic development by ensuring the availability and functionality of existing public infrastructure. 22 8.2 Project Impacts
The level of growth projected under the Plan, including build‐out of the 12 sites identified as most likely to be developed by 2020, can be accommodated by the City’s existing public services delivery network.

The impact of the project on public services, therefore, is less than significant. Further, projected growth will also facilitate further improvement and expansion of public facilities in Barstow to the extent that project proponents contribute to the costs of expanding sewer, water and storm drainage infrastructure. From this perspective, not only are the potentially adverse impacts of the project less than significant, but project implementation could actually have beneficial effects on the City’s public services and services.

8.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
9) RECREATION

9.1 Existing Conditions
Parks and recreation services available to Barstow residents exceed all existing standards for communities of its size.

9.2 Project Impacts
Demand for parks and recreation services associated with development anticipated under the revised General Plan can be accommodated by the existing parks and recreation service delivery network.

Moreover, impact fees associated with future residential development, as well as general fund revenues derived as a result of planned residential, industrial and commercial growth, provide potential sources of funding for network enhancements. The impact of the project on recreation will, therefore, be less than significant.

9.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
10) TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION
Note: The City of Barstow commissioned a Traffic Study from Advantec Consulting Engineers that is included as an appendix to this report. What follows is a summary of existing conditions pertaining to vehicular and non‐motorized traffic, alternative transportation routes and facilities and the anticipated impacts of development proposed under the general plan on these community attributes, accompanied by mitigation measures intended to offset the impact of planned development on traffic and transportation networks and facilities in Barstow. 23 10.1 Existing Conditions
The Circulation Element of the revised General Plan contains a discussion of existing traffic and transportation conditions in Barstow that is based upon the traffic analysis referenced above and included in an appendix to this report. For the most part, existing traffic conditions in Barstow are well within acceptable limits as defined by the General Plan. Exceptions to this general tendency include weekend traffic along Interstates 15 and 40 and in the vicinity of Lenwood Road and Outlet Center Drive and deteriorating road conditions in portions of the community. The City has undertaken numerous capital improvement projects over the past several years to address these shortcomings associated with the local circulation network.

Among the most significant of these recent circulation network improvements is the reconstruction of numerous roadways, including the following:

Muriel Drive between Rimrock Road and Armory Road
Armory Road between Muriel Drive and Barstow Road
Country Club Drive between West Main Street and Capella Drive Second Avenue between East Main Street and Hutchinson Street Mountain View Street between Lillian Drive and East Main Street West Main Street between Second Avenue and Avenue H
Mount Vernon Avenue between Mountain View Street and Grace Street Arville Avenue between Virginia Way and E Dessert View Drive Cozy Lane between Second Avenue and Third Avenue
Second Avenue Between Mountain View Street and Grace Street First Avenue between Mountain View Street and Virginia Way Virginia Way between Barstow Road and Mount Vernon Avenue Elizabeth Street between Caliente and Belinda Avenue
Belinda Avenue between Virginia Way and Mountain View Street Fairview Street between Caliente Avenue and Second Avenue Grandview Street between Mount Vernon Street and Second Avenue Dessert View Street between Second Avenue and Mount Vernon Avenue Parkway Street between Second Avenue and First Avenue
Arville Avenue between Mountain View Street and Grandview Street Helen Ruyon Drive between Mountain View Street and Virginia Way Mountain View Street between Lillian Drive and First Avenue Frances Drive between Mountain View Street and Kelly Street Elm Drive between Mountain View Street and Kelly Street Agnes Drive between Mountain View Street and Kelly Street North Muriel Drive between Mountain View Street and E. Main Street Adele Avenue between Mountain View Street and Villafana Street Kathleen Avenue between Mountain View Street and Villafana Street Villafana Street between Lillian Drive and Muriel Drive Montery Avenue between Armory Road and Rimrock Road.

Windy Pass from Barstow Road to east of Karen Court
Starlight Street between Deseret Avenue and Monterey Avenue 24 Candlelight between Deseret Avenue and Monterey Avenue Rimrock Road between Barstow Road and Montara Road
Montara Road between Rimrock Road and Aurora Street
Armory Road between Muriel Drive and Montara Road
Karen Court
Broadway Avenue between Armory Road and Guadalupe Drive Opal Avenue between Armory Road and Rimrock Road
Clarence Griego Drive between Church Street and Forane Street Higgins Road between Rimrock Road and Armory Road
Sunset St between McBroom Ave and Sunset Ct
Sunset Court
Aurora Way
Church Street between west of Broadway to Higgins Road
De Anza Street between west of Broadway Avenue to Higgins Road Paloma Street between Broadway Avenue and Higgins Road
Forane Street between Broadway Avenue and Montara Road
Calico Drive
Solana Court
Palo Court
Broadway Court
Serrano Circle between Serrano Street and Lenwood Road
Serrano Street between Lenwood Road and Serrano Circle
In addition to the reconstruction of the above roadways the City has undertaken an aggressive pavement preservation initiative under which over three dozen roadway segments have been improved. Also of significance is the $ 1.8 million capital expenditure in constructing circulation network improvements in the vicinity of Lenwood Road, Serrano Drive and the Outlet Malls.

These improvements have greatly reduced traffic congestion at this location during peak weekend and holiday hours.

The effect of the above projects has been to alleviate existing traffic conditions while improving the quality of many of the roadways traveled by Barstow residents. Interestingly, however, fewer Barstonians travel via single‐occupancy vehicle (65.7%) than is the case statewide (73%) according to the 2010 US Census. Additionally, Barstow has a higher proportion of workers utilizing carpools (20%) than the state of California’s workforce as a whole (11.7%). For this and other reasons, alternative transportation routes and facilities, such as park and ride lots, bicycle lanes and pedestrian pathways and transit routes and stops are of particular salience in the City of Barstow. It is anticipated, therefore, that many of the circulation network enhancements that occur over the next several years will be geared toward facilitating increased use of alternative modes of transportation.
25 Traffic engineers typically employ a term called “Level of Service” (LOS) to describe roadway conditions, using a lettering system ranging from A to F. LOS “A” refers to smoothly flowing traffic with no delays while LOS “F” refers to gridlock in which traffic is not moving at all. Cities in their General Plans define what constitutes an “acceptable” level of service for roadways and intersections in their particular communities. General Plan circulation elements in urban communities characterized by high traffic congestion are likely to define LOS “D” as acceptable whereas many suburban and rural cities choose a higher minimum acceptable level of service, typically “C”. Goal 1, Policy 1A of the Circulation Element of the revised Barstow General Plan defines LOS C as the minimum acceptable level of service along all roadways and at all intersections.

All of the local roadway segments and intersections included in the traffic study conducted for the General Plan Revision are currently operating at LOS C or better. While Interstate 15 in the vicinity of the Outlet Malls may approach or exceed LOS D on some weekends and holidays, these traffic conditions are beyond the scope of city officials to address. Planned improvements to Interstate 15 could alleviate these conditions but are unlikely to occur within the 2015‐2020 time frame of the revised General Plan.

10.2  Project Impacts
As detailed in the General Plan Land Use Element, Barstow is projected to grow at an annual rate of approximately two percent from 2015 – 2020 with development expected to be comprised of a combination of infill and certain specified commercial, industrial and residential projects identified on Exhibit L‐2 of the General Plan. Based upon these overall and locational growth projections and taking into consideration improvements to the local roadway network expected to occur within the General Plan time horizon Advantec Consulting Engineers has analyzed the likely impact of project implementation on roadway levels of service throughout the community. The report concludes that the projected 2020 roadway network can accommodate all projected population, employment and housing growth while maintaining LOS C or better across all roadway segments and intersections.

Although the Advantec Traffic Study estimates that all of the growth the City is projecting to occur by 2020 can be accommodated while maintaining acceptable levels of service it is essential to emphasize that these conclusions are based on the assumption that all of the circulation network improvements identified in the General Plan Circulation Element will be implemented within the 2015 – 2020 time horizon of the revised General Plan. From this perspective, the circulation goals, policies and strategies listed in the General Plan should be regarded as mitigation measures geared toward improving existing traffic conditions as well as accommodating planned population, household and employment growth. 26 10.3 Mitigation Measure

10.3.1 The City shall implement the policies and action strategies enumerated under Goals 1‐3 of the General Plan Circulation Element.
11) ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to describe “… a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.

An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.”
The “project” in this instance is the revision of the General Plan for the City of Barstow.

Alternatives to the project would, therefore, include: 1) a “no project” alternative under which the City opted not to revise its General Plan; and 2) an alternative project that would direct future growth to locations other than those designated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram (Exhibit L‐1 in the General Plan Land Use Element) and the Map of Likely Development Sites (Exhibit L‐2 of the Land Use Element). These two alternatives will be discussed briefly below, followed by a determination of the environmentally preferable alternative.

11.1 No Project Alternative
Under this alternative the existing General Plan that was adopted in 1997 would continue to be the document that governs land use and development patterns in the City for the foreseeable future. It is important to note that development would continue to occur under this alternative; the term “no project alternative” in this instance does not constitute a “no growth” alternative.

Continued development under the existing General Plan would likely have more adverse environmental impacts than under the revised General Plan, for the following reasons:
 Allowable residential densities are higher in the revised General Plan than under the existing document. This allows for a more compact pattern of urban growth than would be likely to occur under the no project alternative.
27  The revised General Plan has an Open Space/Resource Conservation land use designation as well as an Interim Open Space/Resource Conservation designation that sets aside specific sites for permanent open space while ensuring that others are developed at a future date when services can be extended to them in a timely, cost‐ effective and less environmentally intrusive manner. Under the no project alternative, by contrast, assignment of the “Specific Plan” land use designation to the majority of acreage in the planning area makes leapfrog development and its associated adverse environmental impacts more likely than under the revised General Plan.  Under the existing General Plan there are far fewer properties designated for diverse land uses than under the revised Plan. There is, therefore, less flexibility and fewer incentives for developing projects that locate jobs in closer proximity to housing, perpetuating a pattern of separated land uses that exacerbate adverse impacts on traffic, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
 The revised General Plan contains policies and action strategies that incorporate innovations in building design and construction, transportation alternatives and resource conservation that have come to light since the 1997 adoption of the existing General Plan. Under the no project alternative in which development would proceed in accordance with standards nearly two decades old these environmentally beneficial approaches to land use planning and management would be less available to local policymakers.

11.2 Northern Development Alternative
The revised General Plan anticipates and in some respects guides most future development to occur to the south and southwest of the planning area. An alternative approach to accommodating anticipated future urban growth in Barstow would be to attempt to direct it elsewhere, such as to the northern portion of the City and its sphere of influence. This approach was considered and rejected for both environmental and economic reasons.

Environmentally, lands located in the vicinity of northernmost portion of the City have been determined to be among the most critical habitat areas for the desert tortoise. Additionally, there have been documented instances of groundwater contamination in the vicinity of the northern part of the planning area that could pose potential health threats if the area were to become more heavily populated, resulting in an increased drawdown of the water table.

From an economic standpoint, because this portion of the community is less readily accessible to the I‐15 transportation corridor and lacks the well‐developed public facilities infrastructure that exists in the vicinity of the sites identified for future development in the revised General Plan, it is regarded to be of lesser interest to prospective commercial and industrial developers.

Thus, although the City could designate properties in this vicinity for a higher intensity of future development, the private investment necessary to bring meaning to such designations would likely be difficult to attract.
28 11.3 Environmentally Preferable Alternative
Section 16126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines discusses the need for lead agencies to identify an “environmentally preferable alternative” as part of its analysis of alternatives to the proposed project. In this instance, because of the lower allowable densities and the absence of open space land use designations and updated policies concerning building design, transportation and resource conservation associated with the no project alternative and the potentially adverse biological and hydrologic impacts of the northern development alternative, the revised General Plan as proposed constitutes the environmentally superior alternative of the three that have been analyzed.
12) GROWTH‐INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to:
“discuss the ways in which a proposed project would foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects, which would remove obstacles to population growth.”
As discussed in the Land Use Element of the revised General Plan the changes in land use designations associated with the revised Plan will remove barriers to future growth by replacing the “Specific Plan” designation with more descriptive designations that lessen the pre‐approval burdens on prospective developers while providing more guidance to them concerning the nature and location of urban growth that is desired by the City. In this respect, the General Plan revision project may be regarded as growth‐inducing.

Because, however, the revised General Plan seeks to direct growth to the least environmentally intrusive sectors of the planning area while containing goals, policies and strategies designed to effectively mitigate adverse environmental impacts, the significance of the project’s growth inducing impacts will be minimized. Moreover, because Barstow has sufficient capacity to absorb the amount of growth anticipated under the plan and because the General Plan identifies sites capable of being developed with minimally adverse impacts, it is possible that development activity will be attracted to the community that might otherwise have occurred in areas with less excess capacity and greater environmental sensitivity. For example, development that occurs in the Mojave Air Basin would have less severe impacts on air quality than in the South Coast or San Joaquin Valley Air Basins. Similarly, traffic increases associated with development projects in Barstow would not elevate congestion to a level of significance whereas a like amount of traffic increase in more heavily impacted communities and regions would exceed the level of significance from an environmental review standpoint.

It may be reasonably concluded, therefore, that although the General Plan revision project could have growth‐inducing impacts, these impacts will not rise to a level of significance within 29 the 2015‐2020 time horizon that is the focus of the Revised General Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report.
13)   CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
In assessing the cumulative environmental impacts of implementation of the revised Barstow General Plan one must consider the amount of development anticipated in Barstow in relation to the scope of likely development throughout the High Desert region. Table LU‐2 of the San Bernardino County General Plan provides an estimate of the combined “build‐out potential” of the High Desert’s five local spheres of influence. The combined cumulative build‐out potential of Adelanto, Apple Valley, Barstow, Hesperia and Victorville is estimated at 67,017 residential units, 27,668,593 square feet of commercial space and 90,073,344 square feet of industrial space. The amount of development expected to occur in Barstow by the 2020 horizon year of the revised General Plan is 1,200 housing units (representing 1.79% of the High Desert’s build‐ out potential according to the County General Plan), 1,028 square feet of commercial uses (3.7% of High Desert build‐out potential) and 1,000,000 square feet of industrial uses (1.1% of the High Desert’s build‐out potential). Generally speaking, the amount of growth anticipated in Barstow under the proposed project is cumulatively negligible in relation to the overall level of growth that could be accommodated with the build‐out of the High Desert region.

In terms of the specific nature of likely cumulative environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, these would be limited primarily to air quality. As noted in Section 3.2 above, due primarily to the migration of contaminants from the heavily polluted South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins, as well as the prevalence of fugitive dust caused by the region’s high winds and desert landscape, Barstow is technically defined as a “nonattainment” area. As such, any increase in air pollution associated with development approved under the revised General Plan would, by definition, constitute a significant cumulative impact, particularly in conjunction with air pollution causing development occurring elsewhere on the High Desert. For this reason, the City Council will be adopting a Statement of Overriding Consideration concurrent with the certification of the Master Environmental Impact Report for the Barstow General Plan Revision.

Regarding cumulative biological resource impacts, because Barstow’s sister cities on the high desert, as well as more distant desert communities such as Lancaster have already developed to the point at which threatened species such as the desert tortoise have been eradicated, the impact of the proposed project would be more local than cumulative and can be mitigated to an acceptable level of significance through the implementation of policy measures and project‐ specific design features.

Concerning traffic impacts, because all local streets and intersections would remain at LOS C or better for the duration of the planning period and because traffic congestion on regional thruways such as I‐15 and I‐40 is the result of regional and national traffic volumes that are beyond the scope of the City to control or mitigate, the cumulative impact of the proposed project on traffic is less than significant.
30 Overall, therefore, the cumulative impacts of implementing the revised Barstow General Plan will not require mitigation beyond the measures specified in this document and its supporting attachments. Further, because the revised General Plan actually anticipates lower levels of residential, commercial and industrial development than the document it succeeds, the cumulative impact of the proposed project is actually lower than would be the case if the revisions to the General Plan were not adopted and put into effect. 14) MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
The implementation of each of the mitigation measures specified in this report and summarized in Table 2‐1 report will be monitored annually by planning staff and consultants where applicable in conjunction with preparation of the Annual General Plan Progress Report. The results of this mitigation monitoring process will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and comment.

Additionally, as individual development projects are approved and built planning staff will conduct on‐site field investigation to assure that agreed upon project‐specific mitigation measures are incorporated into approved projects in a timely and effective manner. The results of these investigations shall be included in the annual mitigation monitoring report to the Planning Commission.

General Plan
Master Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Date: September, 2014

1.0 MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE

1.1 LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to adopt mitigation monitoring or reporting programs for all projects for which an environmental impact report or "mitigated" negative declaration has been prepared. This law is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the CEQA process.

The program defined in this document is intended to satisfy the spirit of the law, and is based on significant research of ongoing monitoring programs throughout the state.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project encompasses the comprehensive revision of the City of Barstow’s General Plan. The project includes the review and revision of land uses within the sphere of influence, updating of environmental review and analysis of existing and future development and modernization of the primary planning document for the City of Barstow.

2.0 ROLES/RESPONSIBILITIES AND PROCEDURES

2.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for the proposed project will be in place through all phases of implementation of the project.

The Environmental Monitor (EM) will share responsibility for the operation of the Monitoring Program with the City's Environmental Coordinator (EC). The EM is responsible for managing the technical advisors and coordinating monitoring activities with City Staff. The EM is responsible for directing the preparation of Compliance Reports and filing of same with the City's designated EC. The EC is responsible for coordinating the efforts of various City reviews and maintaining project files.

Monitoring Team
The following briefly outlines the key positions in the program and their respective functions:

Environmental Monitor (EM): Manager of monitoring program – City Planner Technical Advisors: Experts in various fields to assist EM in monitoring effort.

This team includes: biologist, project geotechnical engineer, traffic consultant, civil engineer, etc.

Environmental Coordinator (EC): Staff member assigned to receive and maintain files related to monitoring reports and coordinate City staff monitoring efforts. EC will receive monitoring reports from EM.

2.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES
The Environmental Monitor (EM) manages the efforts of all members of the non-City monitoring team and coordinates these efforts with key City staff. The City's Environmental Monitor (EC) will coordinate the activities of City staff.

Others require the help of a technical advisor or consultation with City staff. In all cases, it is the EM or EC's responsibility to inform all parties of the proper timing and completion of reports.

It is the intent of this program for the City Planner (or appointed designee) to oversee the monitoring and be responsible for submitting a mitigation report, as required by the City. The program is designed so that the Environmental Monitor and Technical Advisors complete the compliance reports and contact City inspectors and plan checkers as necessary.

2.3 PROGRAM OPERATIONS
Mitigation Measures shall be implemented as specified by the Mitigation Monitoring Program Matrix.

During any project phase, unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The City Planner or designee (EM) of the City, with advice of staff or another City Department, is responsible for recommending changes to the mitigation measures, if needed. If mitigation measures are refined, the change will be documented by the City Planner (or designee) and the appropriate design, construction, or operations personnel shall be notified of the refined requirements.

3.0 AREAS IN WHICH MEASURES ARE TO BE MONITORED
The following issue areas require mitigation measures for the proposed pipeline project. The mitigation requirements are based on the analysis contained in the Environmental Analysis for the project. These measures are listed in the attached matrix, which shows the timing and responsibilities, for all mitigation measures adopted for the project.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Biological Resources
Hydrology and Water Quality
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services and Utilities
Recreation
Traffic and Transportation
Mitigation Monitoring Program / General Plan Master EIR General Plan Master EIR Mitigation Monitoring ProgramSeptember 2014 Page 34A Mitigation Requirements
Number Category Mitigation Measure
Key CityDepartmentResponsibility Timing
Sign‐offDate
I AESTHETICS NoneII AGRICULTURAL

RESOURCES
None.

III AIR QUALITY AND

GREENHOUSE
GASES
Incorporate 1 bike parking space for every 20 motor vehicle parking spaces into the design of multi‐family, commercial and industrial development projects.

PlanningDepartment
Project Reviewprior to theissuance of any
planning or buildingpermits
Encourage installation of electrical outlets on exterior walls of front and rear of residences to promote the use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment.

BuildingDepartment
Prior to issuance of
any constructionpermits.

Provide incentives, such as relaxed parking requirements and density bonuses, to equip garages with level electric vehicle charging stations.

Encourage alternative work schedules for new commercial and industrial development.

Utilize biological sequestration (e.g. planting one tree per 10 metric tons of Co2 per year) to offset the greenhouse gas impacts of for industrial and commercial development.

Establish a municipal energy fund and accept contributions of $ 15 per metric ton of Co2 generated in lieu of on‐site air quality mitigation. Utilize fund proceeds for GHG offsets such as tree plantings, bicycle route striping and signage and open space acquisition.

Mitigation Monitoring Program / General Plan Master EIR General Plan Master EIR Mitigation Monitoring ProgramSeptember 2014 Page 35A Number Category Mitigation Measure
Key CityDepartmentResponsibility Timing
Sign‐offDate
III. AIR QUALITY AND

GREENHOUSE
GASES
Increase allowable residential densities from 6 to 7 units per acre in single family districts and from 16 to 20 in multi‐family districts to encourage compact urban development and
shorter vehicle trips.

Increase acreage of lands designated for diverse use
development to encourage co‐location of jobs and housing.

Endeavor to reduce the City’s existing 1.4 jobs: housing ratio by encouraging the development of residential land uses to provide more housing options for people working in Barstow.

Continue to explore and implement options for converting the City’s municipal vehicle fleet to low emissions vehicles.

Incorporate pedestrian paths and bicycle lanes and routes into the City’s circulation network and the design of residential and commercial development projects.

Promote a compact pattern of urban development by utilizing the Interim Open Space/ Resource Conservation land use
designation on lands located on the periphery of the planning area until such time as sufficient urban infrastructure is extended to such locations.

Pursuant to the provisions of the 2006 California Global Warming Solutions Act, prepare a local Climate Action Plan or utilize provisions of the Climate Action Plan currently being prepared by the Southern California Association of
Governments.

Incorporate bus turnouts into the design of commercial and multi‐family residential projects.

Prohibit the installation of wood‐burning fireplaces and stoves in new residential construction.

Support infill development by improving and enhancing
infrastructure serving vacant infill properties.

Require construction, grading, excavation, and demolition activities to incorporate appropriate best management
practices (BMPs) to reduce fugitive dust emissions. (See Air Quality Analysis in Appendix for list of possible BMPs).

Locate new air pollution point sources such as, but not limited to, industrial, manufacturing, and processing facilities, an adequate distance from existing and planned residential areas and sensitive receptors.

Mitigation Monitoring Program / General Plan Master EIR General Plan Master EIR Mitigation Monitoring ProgramSeptember 2014 Page 36A Number Category Mitigation Measure
Key CityDepartmentResponsibility Timing
Sign‐offDate
III. AIR QUALITY AND

GREENHOUSE
GASES
Utilize the City’s environmental review process to incorporate additional air quality mitigation measures into the design of future proposed development projects employing an
incentives‐based approach as an alternative to mandates.

IV. BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
Proposed development on sites identified by the Biological Technical Report and/or accompanying Reconnaissance Surveyincluded as attachments to this EIR as having evidence of the presence of desert tortoises, Mojave fringe‐toed lizards, burrowing owls or Mojave ground squirrels shall require that protocol surveys consistent with applicable federal and/or state guidelines be conducted to verify or refute the presence of these species. On sites at which the presence of one or more of these species is verified the impact of proposed development on these species shall be minimized or mitigated in accordance with the guidelines detailed in the Biological Technical Report.

IV. BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
Federal and state incidental take permits shall be required for development projects that are determined to have adverse impacts on desert tortoise habitat; state permits may also be required for projects adversely impacting the Mojave ground squirrel – applicants are strongly advised to request that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife draft its permit to identify both the tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel as “covered species” to avoid subsequent delays in permit
processing.

Minimization measures such as hiring a biological monitor to remove all tortoises from fenced construction areas and distributing tortoise awareness information to construction personnel who are prohibited from driving cross‐country, littering or bringing pets into the area shall be employed to minimize direct impact to tortoises and occupied habitat Mitigation Monitoring Program / General Plan Master EIR General Plan Master EIR Mitigation Monitoring ProgramSeptember 2014 Page 37A Number Category Mitigation Measure
Key CityDepartmentResponsibility Timing
Sign‐offDate
IV. BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
Adverse impacts of development projects on burrowing owls should be mitigated by one or more of the following
measures: Avoiding occupied burrows during the breeding season, between February 1 and August 31
 Purchasing and permanently protecting 6.5 acres of
foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird
impacted
 Creating new burrows or enhancing others when
destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable
 Implementing passive relocation if owls must be moved; and/or
 Providing funding for long‐term management and
monitoring of protected lands.

Pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code vegetation shall not be removed from a project site between March 15 and September 15 to avoid impacts to nesting birds. If it is necessary to commence project construction between March 15 and September 15, a qualified biologist should survey all shrubs and structures within the project site for nesting birds, prior to project activities (including construction and/or site preparation).

The following desert native plants or any part of them, except the fruit, shall not be removed except under a Tree or Plant Removal Permit in compliance within Section 88.01.050 of the San Bernardino County Development Code:
 Dalea spinosa (smoke tree) with stems two inches or
greater in diameter or six feet or greater in height.
 All species of the genus Prosopis (mesquites) with stems two inches or greater in diameter or six feet or greater in height.
 All species of the family Agavaceae (century plants,
nolinas, yuccas).
 Creosote Rings, 10 feet or greater in diameter.
o
Mitigation Monitoring Program / General Plan Master EIR General Plan Master EIR Mitigation Monitoring ProgramSeptember 2014 Page 38A Number Category Mitigation Measure
Key CityDepartmentResponsibility Timing
Sign‐offDate
IV. BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
 All Joshua trees. Any part of the following species, whether living or dead:
o Olneya tesota (desert ironwood).o All species of the genus Prosopis (mesquites). o All species of the genus Cercidium (palo verdes).

Pursuant to the California Food and Agriculture Code the following native plants, or any parts thereof, may not be harvested except under a permit issued by the commissioner or the sheriff of the county in which the native plants are growing:
 All species of the family Agavaceae (century plants,
nolinas, yuccas).
 All species of the family Cactaceae (cacti), except for the plants listed in subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 80072 (i.e., saguaro and barrel cacti), which may be harvested under a permit obtained pursuant to that section.
 All species of the family Fouquieriaceae (ocotillo,
candlewood).
 All species of the genus Prosopis (mesquites).
 All species of the genus Cercidium (palo verdes).
 Senegalia (Acacia) greggii (catclaw acacia).
 Atriplex hymenelytra (desert holly). Dalea (Psorothamnus) spinosa (smoke tree).  Olneya tesota (desert ironwood), including both dead
and live desert ironwood.

V. HYDROLOGY/
Water Quality
Policies and action strategies including provisions geared toward cooperation and collaboration with regional water agencies and encouraging that water‐saving features such as low‐flow fixtures and xeriscape landscaping be incorporated into the design of future development projects.

Mitigation Monitoring Program / General Plan Master EIR General Plan Master EIR Mitigation Monitoring ProgramSeptember 2014 Page 39A Number Category Mitigation Measure
Key CityDepartmentResponsibility Timing
Sign‐offDate
VI. NOISE Set construction activity hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and enforces the standards outside of these hours. This establishes limitations on construction noise generation, thereby reducing construction noise impacts below the level of significance.

Established limitations on vibration levels (0.2 inches per second at the property line or nearest sensitive receptor.

VII. POPULATION/

HOUSING
None
VIII. PUBLIC SERVICES

AND UTILITIES
None.

IX RECREATION None.X TRAFFIC AND

TRANSPORTATION
The City shall implement the policies and action strategies enumerated under Goals 1‐3 of the General Plan Circulation Element.
mitmon1
I-40

APPENDIX G

CITY OF BARSTOW

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Project Title: General Plan Revision

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Barstow
220 E. Mt. View St., Ste. A
Barstow, CA 92311

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Gaither Loewenstein (760) 255-5177

4. Project Location: Citywide and Sphere of Influence (surrounding area)

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

City of Barstow
220 E. Mountain View Street
Barstow, CA 92311

6. General Plan Designation: n/a

7. Zoning Designation: n/a

8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Revision of City General Plan

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project’s surroundings:

North: Unincorporated lands, primarily open space with some residential South: Unincorporated lands, primarily open space with some residential East: Unincorporated lands, primarily open space with some residential West: Unincorporated lands, primarily open space with some residential

10. Other Public Agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement).
none

I-41
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and
Forestry Resources x Air Quality
x Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils x Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials x Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources x Noise
x Population/Housing x Public Services x Recreation
x Transportation/Traffic x Utilities/Service
Systems x Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
x I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

May 20, 2014
Signature Date
Gaither Loewenstein City of Barstow
Printed Name For

I-42
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

See State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sitespecific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

I-43
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I-44
Issues:

I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? x
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
x
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
x
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
x
SUBSTANTIATION:

Because the City contains a number of residences from which unobstructed desert views are available it is possible that development approved under the revised general plan will affect desert views in some cases. Mitigation measures, such as siting of buildings, open space buffers and landscaping shall reduce the significance of these impacts.

Certain commercial and industrial uses that may be approved under the revised General Plan are likely to create new sources of light or glare. Mitigation measures, such as the use of reflective lighting devices designed to minimize spillover glare, shall reduce the significance of these impacts.

Proposed Mitigation:

Possible mitigation measures to be implemented on a project-by-project basis may include landscape buffers, adjustments to building site locations, reflective caps on exterior lighting and open space buffers that distance new uses from existing residences.

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST 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 Dept. of Conservation as an optional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I-45
information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest Land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; And forest carbon measurement
methodology Provided in Forest Protocols adopted by
the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
x
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? x
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
x
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
x
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
x
SUBSTANTIATION:

There are no significant agricultural or forestry resources that would be affected by the project in the vicinity of the project area. There are no lands zoned for agricultural use whose zoning would conflict with the proposed project and there are no lands in the vicinity of the project area under Williamson Act contracts.

Proposed Mitigation:
n/a
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I-46
upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? x
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
x
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
x
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? x
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? x
SUBSTANTIATION:

None of the development anticipated under the revised General Plan would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan for the Mojave Desert Air Basin in which the project area is located, nor would the project contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violations. The Mojave Desert Air Basin is in a nonattainment area for ozone and PM10 (particulate matter in excess of 10 microns) according to the California Air Resources Board and projects anticipated under the revised General Plan, if not properly mitigated, could result in a net increase in these pollutants.

Proposed Mitigation:

Possible mitigations to be addressed in the environmental analysis may include watering of construction sites to reduce particulate matter impacts, restrictions of certain construction activities on high wind days, encouragement of non-ozone generating modes of transportation, such as walking, bicycles, electric and hybrid vehicles and ridesharing, enhancement of the circulation network to incorporate expanded pedestrian pathways, bikeways, park-and-ride facilities and intersection improvements to reduce vehicle idling and requirement of project-specific design features to reduce adverse air quality impacts.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
x
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I-47
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
x
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
x
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
x
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
x
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
x
SUBSTANTIATION:

According to the City’s biological consultant, Ed LaRue of Circle Mountain Biological Consultants, 10 plant species, 2 reptile, 12 bird, and 4 mammal species reported from the Barstow area have been assigned a special status designation by either U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2008), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2014a), and/or California Native Plant Society (2014; see the end of this appendix for an explanation of CNPS’ status designations). Unless otherwise noted, the following species have either been observed in the region by CMBC personnel between 1990 and 2014 or have been reported to the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2014a):

Plants
Barstow wooly sunflower
Beaver Dam breadroot
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I-48
Chaparral sand-verbena
Creamy blazing star
Emory’s crucifixion thorn
Mojave fish-hook cactus
Mojave menodora
Mojave monkeyflower
Parish’s phacelia
Spiny-hair blazing star
Reptiles
Agassiz’s desert tortoise
Mojave fringe-toed lizard
Birds
Burrowing owl
Cooper’s hawk
Ferruginous hawk
Golden eagle
LeConte’s thrashe
Loggerhead shrike
Proposed Mitigation:

In light of the prevalence of various threatened and sensitive species the City has contracted with Circle Mountain Biological Consultants for a detailed biological resources study that will accompany the General Plan Master Plan Environmental Impact Report.

Mitigation measures to be included in the EIR may include compensatory habitat acquisition, enhancement of existing habitat, consideration of alternative development sites designed to mitigate adverse habitat impacts, siting of buildings to minimize adverse impacts and relocation affected specimens where applicable.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in §15064.5 of the State
CEQA Guidelines?
x
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the
State CEQA Guidelines?
x
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
x
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
x
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I-49
SUBSTANTIATION:

The California Office of Historic Preservation lists seven historical and archaeological resources in the vicinity of the Barstow general plan area, none of which would be adversely impacted by development projected under the revised General Plan.

Proposed Mitigation:
n/a
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
x
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? x
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? x
iv) Landslides? x
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? x
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
x
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
x
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
x
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I-50
SUBSTANTIATION:

According to maps issued by the State Geologist there are two earthquake faults located in the vicinity of the Barstow general plan area; one to the northwest and one to the immediate south of the developed portion of the City. Consequently, residents are already subject to some risk associated with possible seismic activity. Since there are no habitable structures expected to be developed along these mapped faults under the revised general plan, there will be no significant increase in seismic risk beyond that which already exists in the planning area.

Proposed Mitigation:
n/a
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
x
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
x
SUBSTANTIATION:

The Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) adopted by the California Legislature in 2006, requires the adoption of policies and regulations and the development of strategies designed to reduce aggregate greenhouse gas emissions associated with urban development and other land uses. Because development that may occur under the auspices of the revised General Plan may result in increased greenhouse gas emissions, these impacts, if not adequately mitigated, could potentially be significant. To examine these potential impacts in greater detail the City has contracted with First Carbon Solutions/Michael Brandman Associates to conduct a detailed analysis of the air quality impacts of development expected to occur within the Barstow planning area within the 2014-2020 time parameters of the revised general plan. This study shall be incorporated into the General Plan Master EIR and mitigation measures designed to reduce the significance of greenhouse gas impacts will be adopted.

Proposed Mitigation:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I-51
In addition to the air quality mitigation measures discussed previously in this initial study document, possible measures to be employed to address greenhouse gas impacts may include biological sequestration (eg. planting trees that can absorb carbon from the atmosphere), installation of residential and commercial electric vehicle chargers, bicycle racks, increased use of locally-sourced building materials, establishment of air quality mitigation funds, increases in allowable residential density and encouragement of ridesharing and alternative work schedules.

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
x
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
x
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
x
c) Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
x
d) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
x
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
x
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
x
g) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
x
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I-52
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
SUBSTANTIATION:

None of the development anticipated under the revised General Plan is expected to result in adverse impacts associated with hazards and/or hazardous materials. In the event that projects are proposed during the course of the 2015-20 time horizon of the revised General Plan separate environmental impact analysis and mitigation will be required on a project-by-project basis.

Proposed Mitigation:
n/a
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements? x
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of
preexisting nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
x
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or areas including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
x
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding onor off-site?
x
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
x
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I-53
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? x
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
x
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
x
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
x
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow? x
SUBSTANTIATION:

To address the hydrologic and drainage impacts of anticipated development under the revised General Plan the City has contracted with Merrill-Johnson to conduct an analysis of these issues, including proposed mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the General Plan Master EIR.

Proposed Mitigation:

Mitigation measures to be deployed to address hydrologic and drainage impacts shall include improvements to the City storm drainage system, site design parameters designed to address drainage impacts and incorporation of xeriscaping and other watersaving features into residential, commercial and industrial development projects.

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? x
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
x
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community x
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I-54
conservation plan?
SUBSTANTIATION:

The revised General Plan will include land use goals, policies and strategies that will be adhered to over the course of the planning period, thereby maintaining consistency with established land use plans and other related plans.

Proposed Mitigation:
n/a
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
x
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
x
SUBSTANTIATION:

None of the development anticipated under the revised General Plan will have an adverse impact on the availability or recovery of mineral resources.

Proposed Mitigation:
n/a
XII. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
x
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
x
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
x
d) A substantial temporary or periodic x
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I-55
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
x
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

SUBSTANTIATION:

The revised General Plan Noise Element will establish noise thresholds and the Master EIR will include mitigation measures designed to keep noise resulting from development from exceeding these thresholds. The City has contracted with First Carbon Solutions/Michael Brandman Associates to conduct an analysis of noise impacts likely to result from development anticipated under the revised General Plan. This analysis, along with mitigation measures derived from it, will be incorporated into the General Plan Master EIR.

Proposed Mitigation:

The General Plan Master EIR will include a variety of noise mitigation measures, including siting buildings to minimize noise impacts, use of landscape buffers, sound walls (where appropriate), installation of noise filters and buffers on industrial buildings and placement of structures likely to generate harmful noise levels at a safe distance from noise-sensitive land uses.

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
x
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
x
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I-56
SUBSTANTIATION:

The City’s population is estimated to grow by approximately two percent annually under the revised General Plan. As the City’s economic development objectives come to fruition, additional commercial and industrial development is expected, which will result in increased demand for residences. This could necessitate an expansion of the City’s circulation infrastructure and may require additional infrastructure expansion to accommodate planned development.

Proposed Mitigation:

The revised General Plan will include a framework for infrastructure expansion to accommodate planned growth, as well as mitigation measures designed to reduce the significance of adverse impacts associated with said growth and the assessment of impact fees to finance the costs of infrastructure improvements necessitated by planned development.

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? x
Police protection? x
Schools? x
Parks? x
Other public facilities? x
SUBSTANTIATION:

The City has sufficient parkland under its standard of five acres per 1,000 residents to accommodate all of the growth anticipated under the revised General Plan. Taking into consideration student generation factors utilized by the Barstow Unified School District (.5015 elementary, middle-school and high school students generated for each singlefamily residential unit; .5241 students generated for each multi-family unit), combined with the estimated two percent increase in residential units anticipated under the revised General Plan, the District currently has sufficient excess capacity to accommodate Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I-57
projected enrollment growth associated with plan implementation. BUSD estimates current excess capacity at 438 students (elementary) 494 (middle) and 877 (high school), while planned residential growth is expected to generate approximately 907 new students at all K-12 levels combined by 2020.

Proposed Mitigation:

The Safety Element of the revised General Plan will include standards for police and fire protection that will be achieved or maintained through the implementation of impact fees to support increased facilities where needed. No mitigation measures will be required for school or park impacts.

XV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
x
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
x
SUBSTANTIATION:

Although the amount of development projected under the revised General Plan is not expected to exceed the parkland standard threshold, such development is likely to result in increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities that could result in deterioration of existing facilities.

Proposed Mitigation:

To the extent that increased facilities use results in accelerated deterioration it may be necessary to allocate more general fund revenues to parks and recreational facilities maintenance or to increase user fees to offset facilities deterioration.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I-58
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing measures
of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account
all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways
and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle
paths, and mass transit?
x
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standard
establish by the county congestion
management agency for designated
roads or highways?
x
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
x
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
x
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? x
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of
such facilities?
x
SUBSTANTIATION:

The Circulation Element of the revised general plan will include minimum standards for level of service on all roadway segments and intersections. The City has contracted with First Carbon Solutions/Michael Brandman Associates to assess the impact of planned growth on the circulation network. The circulation study, accompanied by mitigation measures designed to reduce adverse traffic impacts in a manner that maintains established minimum levels of service, will be incorporated into the General Plan Master EIR.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I-59
Proposed Mitigation:

Among the mitigation measures likely to be included in the Master EIR are intersection improvements, construction of new roadways, increased utilization of non-single occupancy vehicles, bicycles and walking, strategies intended to improve jobs/housing balance, park and ride facilities and improvements to mass transportation availability and use.

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
x
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
x
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
x
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
x
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
x
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
x
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
x
SUBSTANTIATION:

The City has sufficient wastewater treatment capacity and water allocations to accommodate the level of growth anticipated under the revised General Plan. Recent improvements to the wastewater treatment facility have resulted in increased capacity and improved performance of treatment systems. To the extent that development occurs in the southwest portion of the City additional water storage/transmittal facilities may be needed.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I-60
Proposed Mitigation:

The City has contracted with Merrill-Johnson to assess the impact of planned development on municipal utilities and service systems. This technical report, accompanied by recommended mitigation measures, will be incorporated into the General Plan Master EIR. Mitigation measures may include construction of new water storage and transmittal facilities in the southwest portion of the City.

XIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE –
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
x
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
x
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
x
SUBSTANTIATION:

The General Plan Master EIR will include analysis of impacts (a) through (c) and will be accompanied by mitigation measures designed to reduce the significance of such impacts as indicated previously in this document
Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resource Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code; Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.05, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d. 296 Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d. 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v.

Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v.

City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th656.

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
To: From:

Gaither Loewenstein, Economic
Development and Planning Manager
City of Barstow
220 E. Mountain View Street
Barstow, CA 92311
(760) 255-5177
[email protected]
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report The City of Barstow will be the lead agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project.

The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study ( is is not ) attached.

Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.

Please send your response to Gaither Loewenstein, Economic Development and Planning Manager, at the address shown above. We will need the name of a contact person in your agency.

Project Title: General Plan Revision
Signature: Date:

May 20, 2014
Title:

Economic Development and Planning Manager
Telephone:
760-255-5122
Reference: California Code of Regulations, Title 14, (CEQA Guidelines) Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375.