Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-1 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

This Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS compares the Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated 

Alternative (F-B LGA) to the complementary portion of the Preferred Alternative that was 

identified in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section California High-Speed Train Final Project 

Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement. As discussed in Section 1.1.3 of 

this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, the complementary portion of the Preferred Alternative consists 

of the portion of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Alternative from Poplar Avenue to 

Hageman Road and the Bakersfield Hybrid from Hageman Road to Oswell Street (further 

referenced as the “May 2014 Project” in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). Since the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS does not evaluate the May 2014 Project as a discrete 

subsection of the Fresno to Bakersfield Project (as it did for the Allensworth Bypass, for 

example), affected environment and impact summary discussion included in this section for the 

May 2014 Project has been extrapolated from the available information contained in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS.

This section describes the existing visual environment of the F-B LGA to the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section for the California High-Speed Rail (HSR) system, including scenic resources, 

and analyzes potential impacts on aesthetics and visual resources in and along the alignment. 

The regulatory setting, affected environment, impacts, and mitigation measures that would reduce 

project environmental consequences for aesthetics and visual resources are provided. Section

3.13.3 in Section 3.13, Station Planning, Land Use, and Development, in this Draft Supplemental

EIR/EIS provides information on issues related to land use compatibility.

3.16.1 Regulatory Setting

This section identifies the federal, state, regional, and local regulations, laws, and orders that 

apply to aesthetics and visual resources. As described in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS (California High-Speed Rail Authority [Authority] and Federal Railroad Administration

[FRA] 2014a), the Authority and FRA would comply with all applicable federal and state 

regulations. The F-B LGA would be designed to be compatible with policies in the Kern County 

General Plan, the City of Shafter General Plan, the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, and 

the Kern River Plan Element.

3.16.1.1 Federal

Please see pages 3.16-1 and 3.16-2 in Section 3.16.2.1 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014a) for a discussion of these applicable federal regulations: 

• Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f) [DOT Act 49 U.S.C.303]

• National Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. Section 470 et seq.]

3.16.1.2 State

Please see page 3.16-2 in Section 3.16.2.2 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS

(Authority and FRA 2014a) for a discussion of this applicable state regulation: 

• State Scenic Highways [California Streets and Highways Code Sections 260 to 263]

3.16.1.3 Regional and Local

Please see pages 3.16-2 through 3.16-6 in Section 3.16.2.3 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014a) for a discussion of these applicable local and regional 

plans and their policies: 

• Kern County General Plan (Kern County 2009)

• City of Shafter General Plan (City of Shafter 2005)

• Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (City of Bakersfield 2007)
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-2 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

• Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and Kern County General Plan, Kern River Plan

Element (City of Bakersfield and Kern County 1985)

3.16.2 Methods for Evaluating Impacts

A visual resource is a natural or built landscape feature that people see and that contributes to 

public enjoyment of the environment because of its visual characteristics or scenic qualities. For 

this discussion, visual resources also include state-designated scenic routes and views toward 

and in natural areas, parks, and urban areas identified as having historical or cultural significance 

or that include buildings of similar significance or notable landmark status. The list of visual 

resources was created based on analysts’ review of policy documents and cultural resource 

reports, or observations of scenic value and apparent local popularity identified during fieldwork. 

Aesthetics relates to the visual character and beauty of visual elements. Aesthetic and visual 

resource impacts are generally defined as changes in visual character or quality of the site and 

include the kind of perspective available to the viewer. Impacts are determined based on the 

extent to which the project’s physical elements and characteristics, including the potential visibility 

of scenic resources, would change the visual character and visual quality of the landscape. Some 

changes in visual character or quality are compatible with surrounding uses and resources, while 

some changes are incompatible. 

The methodology used to evaluate aesthetics and visual quality impacts follows the federal 

guidelines provided in the Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (FHWA 1988) and 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) guidelines provided in the Standard 

Environmental Reference (Caltrans 2007), as applied in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014a). The FHWA visual impact assessment methodology, the 

accepted methodology used by federal and state transportation agencies, provides an approach 

and the terminology for analyzing both visual quality and viewer response for transportation 

corridors. Chapter 27 of the Standard Environmental Reference (Caltrans 2016) provides an 

overview of the visual and aesthetics review process that Caltrans uses, and references the 

FHWA methodology for visual impact assessment. The purpose of this methodology is to define 

the visual character or quality of a landscape and objectively evaluate whether the project has the 

potential to impose a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista or substantially degrade the 

existing visual character or quality of a landscape. For purposes of this analysis, the term “scenic 

vista” either refers to designated scenic viewpoints (as identified in public documents or formally 

developed for sightseeing) or to a view generally of exceptional scenic quality, particularly if 

widely recognized or identified in public documents. Please see page 3.16-59 in Section 3.16.4 of 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014a) for a list of examples 

of scenic vistas.

The FHWA methodology for visual impact assessment includes the following components:

• Define the project setting and viewshed

• Determine who has views of the proposed project

• Identify key viewpoints (KVP) and views for the

assessment of visual impacts

• Analyze changes in existing visual resources and

viewer response

• Depict the visual appearance with simulations of

the project

• Assess the project’s visual impacts

• Propose methods to mitigate adverse visual impacts

Change to the visual quality of each KVP was determined by applying the FHWA visual quality 

analysis system, using professional judgment and familiarity with the F-B LGA. Engineering 

drawings of project components and aerial images were examined along with visual simulations 

of the KVP. The determination of the impacts on an entire landscape unit was based in large part 

upon the impacts on the KVP in the landscape units, but the determination also included the 

review of engineering drawings of project components for the entire landscape unit combined with

Key Viewpoint (KVP)

The KVP is a location with views that are 

available to sensitive viewer groups or 

representative of visual condition of entire 

landscape unit.
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-3 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

on-the-ground familiarity with the landscape units for the visual resource study area of the F-B 

LGA. Impacts at each KVP were judged by the extent to which the project’s physical elements 

and characteristics, including the potential visibility of scenic resources, would change the visual 

character and visual quality of the landscape. Some changes in visual character or quality are 

compatible with surrounding uses and resources, while some changes are incompatible. The 

following describes terms and concepts that are used when evaluating the visual impacts 

associated with long, linear transportation projects such as the F-B LGA of the California HSR

system.

3.16.2.1 Landscape Units

Landscape units are used to “break up” long, linear 

projects into logical geographic entities for which 

project-period or operational impacts from a proposed 

project can be assessed. (Construction-period impacts, 

by contrast, apply broadly across the study area and are 

not analyzed by landscape unit.) These landscape units generally have broadly similar visual 

characteristics (or character), although the visual characteristics of specific locations in each unit 

may differ from the unit’s overall character. 

Collectively, the landscape units for a project comprise 

its visual resource study area or viewshed (i.e., both the 

areas that could have views of project features and the 

areas potentially viewed from the project). The study 

area for the F-B LGA is located in Shafter, Bakersfield, 

and Kern County. It is mostly on flat terrain, and 

includes agricultural and urban areas. Viewing distances 

toward the corridor vary throughout the study area. In 

agricultural and other open areas, the corridor is visible over long distances due to the limited 

number of buildings and tall vegetation that could block views. In these areas, the study area is 

considered to be all areas within 0.5 mile of the alignment centerline from which the F-B LGA

could be visible. In urbanized areas, views toward the F-B LGA are often restricted by the 

presence of buildings and tall vegetation. In these cases, the study area includes all areas within 

0.25 mile of the alignment centerline from which the F-B LGA could be visible and within 0.25 

mile of the edge of large facilities on the alignment (i.e., the Bakersfield F Street Station and the 

maintenance of infrastructure facility [MOIF]).

In each landscape unit, KVPs provide representative examples of existing views of the landscape 

as seen by key sensitive viewer groups for each landscape unit, and assist in characterizing the 

existing visual conditions and determining the impacts on that landscape unit. KVPs also illustrate 

how a proposed project would change those views. These locations are typically selected to 

either represent (1) “typical” views from common types of viewing areas from which a proposed 

project could be seen by viewers of high visual sensitivity, such as certain highways or residential 

areas with high exposure to the project, or (2) specific, high-sensitivity areas such as parks, 

scenic viewpoints, and historic districts that may be impacted by a proposed project. Some KVPs 

are chosen to be representative of the visual condition of the entire landscape unit, and some are 

selected to represent sensitive or unique viewing locations. KVPs are very useful for depicting the 

range of visual character and visual quality found in a landscape unit, and those selected for 

analysis serve as representative examples of existing visual conditions. In this way, the view can 

be evaluated with the proposed project simulated in place to assess impacts. The impact for an 

individual KVP may not be the same as the impact for the entire landscape unit in which the KVP 

is located. This is because when evaluating impacts on landscape units, the entire unit is 

considered rather than just one specific location. The condition of the viewed landscape seen 

from a sensitive or unique KVP may be different than that of the entire landscape unit.

Landscape Unit

The landscape unit is the logical geographic 

entity in the greater study area, having 

broadly consistent internal visual character.

Visual Resource Study Area

This term describes the geographic scope of 

aesthetics analysis, including areas that could 

have views of the project or could be viewed 

from the project
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-4 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.16.2.2 Visual or Landscape Character

Visual or landscape character is an impartial description 

of what comprises the landscape and is defined by the 

relationships between the existing visible natural and 

built landscape features. These relationships are 

considered in terms of dominance, scale, diversity, and 

continuity. Visual character-defining resources and 

features include landforms, vegetation, land uses, 

buildings, transportation facilities, overhead utility structures and lighting, open space, viewpoints 

and views to visual resources, water bodies, historic structures, downtown skylines, and apparent 

upkeep and maintenance of property. Examples of types of visual or landscape character found 

along the F-B LGA include irrigated row crop agriculture, industrial uses, automobile-oriented 

retail shopping centers, single-family residences, undeveloped vacant lots, downtown business 

districts, and parks. 

Visual Character

Visual character indicates an impartial 

description of the overall nature of a 

landscape, based on visible natural and built 

features.

3.16.2.3 Viewer Response 

Under the FHWA method for assessing visual impacts, 

viewer response is an assessment of the concern viewer 

groups may have to a project based on two factors: (1) 

viewer sensitivity to visual change, and (2) viewer 

exposure to those visual changes. 

Viewer groups in the study area include such people as 

roadway/highway/rail users, residents, commercial building users, office users, park and trail 

users, and agricultural and industrial workers. The FHWA method recognizes viewer activity and 

awareness, local values, and cultural significance as the key factors in predicting viewer 

sensitivity (i.e., viewers’ degree of concern with the scenic quality of their surroundings and 

resulting sensitivity to visual change). Sensitivity to visual change varies among viewer groups 

and activity types. Generally, residents and recreationists are considered to be highly sensitive 

viewers because visual quality is a primary concern associated with the activity type. However, 

active recreationists (such as students engaged in sports) often have less viewer sensitivity than 

other recreationists, because the primary focus of the activity is the sport. Alternatively, hikers, 

sightseers, or picnickers would represent highly sensitive viewers as the scenery is a primary 

concern. This analysis also considers the viewer response by environmental justice communities, 

or minority and low-income populations, where applicable. Although minority and low-income 

populations are not more sensitive to visual impacts than other viewers, they can experience 

disproportionate effects depending on the location of project features.

Local businesspersons and commuters are considered moderately sensitive viewers, although 

viewer sensitivity in established downtown areas can be high. In these areas, particularly in parks

or along pedestrian-oriented sidewalks, viewers are likely to have expectations of a built 

environment with a higher level of vividness, intactness, and unity associated with an identifiable 

urban core, and such expectations can lead to high viewer sensitivity. Viewers in the workplace 

are generally considered to have moderate or low sensitivity because visual quality is not typically 

a focus or expectation associated with their activity. Local values, especially those reflected in 

public policies related to community design and cultural significance that address the designated 

historic status of a site, are also potential indicators of high viewer sensitivity.

Viewer exposure also determines the response of viewers. Project effects that are not visible or 

that are highly screened will not have adverse effects on viewers. In contrast, project effects in

the visual foreground (up to 0.5 mile, or foreground “distance zone”) are more likely to have

noticeable effects, while those outside that distance are not. The immediate visual foreground is 

considered to be within 0.25 mile of the project. Viewer number and duration of views are also 

important exposure factors affecting likely viewer response. 

Viewer Response

The viewer response is a product of viewer 

sensitivity and exposure to visual change.
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-5 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Viewer response ratings reflect the professional judgment of the analyst based on the relative, 

combined levels of viewer sensitivity and exposure that prevail in a particular location. For 

example:

• Low viewer response may exist when there are few viewers who experience a defined view

or when potential views of the project are screened or filtered by intervening terrain,

structures, or landscaping (low viewer exposure). Low viewer response may also occur

where viewers are not particularly concerned about the quality of views due to their activity

type (low viewer sensitivity), such as a commuter on the freeway.

• Moderate viewer response may occur where views of a project are distant enough that the

project does not dominate the view (moderate viewer exposure), or where viewer activity is

not focused on visual quality and expectations are moderate, as with office workers or

shoppers (moderate viewer sensitivity).

• High viewer response occurs where a project is highly prominent, open to view, and seen by

relatively high numbers of viewers (high viewer exposure), and where viewer concern and

expectations of visual quality are also high, as in a rural park where scenery is a primary

focus or in a residential neighborhood (high viewer sensitivity).

As applied in this study, a five-point scale of low, moderately low, moderate, moderately high, and 

high was used to rate both viewer response and its constituent components, which are viewer 

sensitivity and viewer exposure. 

3.16.2.4 Visual Quality

Visual quality is an assessment of the composition of 

the character-defining features of the landscape. Under 

the FHWA visual quality analysis system, visual quality 

is determined by evaluating the viewed landscape’s 

existing characteristics in terms of vividness, intactness, 

and unity, which are defined below. The five-point scale 

was used to rate visual quality and its components. To 

determine overall visual quality, the vividness, intactness, and unity of a viewed landscape are 

rated, and the ratings of these three factors determine the overall visual quality. The following

three factors determine visual quality:

• Vividness is the degree of drama, memorability, or distinctiveness of the landscape

components as seen from a particular view.

• Intactness is a measure of visual integrity of the natural and built landscape and its freedom

from encroaching elements. This factor can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes

as well as in natural settings. High intactness means that the landscape is free of unattractive

and out-of-place features, and that elements do not break up the landscape. Low intactness

means that visual elements in a view are unattractive or detract from the view’s quality.

• Unity is the landscape’s degree of visual coherence and compositional harmony considered

as a whole. High unity frequently attests to the careful design of individual components and

their relationship in the landscape or an undisturbed natural landscape.

Analysts familiar with the FHWA methodology visited the study area on several occasions to 

determine its existing visual quality. Section 3.16.3.5, Landscape Units, Key Viewpoints, and 

Existing Visual Quality, describes the existing visual quality categories for the KVPs in the study 

area. 

3.16.2.5 Methods for Evaluating Effects under NEPA

In the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, analysts applied specified thresholds for each 

resource topic to assess whether the intensity of each impact is negligible, moderate, or 

substantial for the Build Alternatives, and provided a conclusion of whether the impact was 

“significant”. Since the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS does not evaluate the May 

Visual Quality

Visual quality is an assessment of 

attractiveness of a landscape, based on its 

vividness, intactness, and unity.
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-6 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

2014 Project as a discrete subsection of the Fresno to Bakersfield Project (as it did for the 

Allensworth Bypass, for example), it does not provide conclusions using intensity thresholds for 

the May 2014 Project. Therefore, intensity thresholds are not used for the F-B LGA. Instead, the 

evaluation of impacts under NEPA in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS focuses on a

comprehensive discussion of the project’s potential impacts in terms of context, intensity, and 

duration and provides agency decision makers and the public with a comparison between the 

May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA.

3.16.2.6 CEQA Significance Criteria 

For this project, the following criteria are used in determining whether the project would result in a 

significant impact on aesthetics and visual quality in the following instances:

• The project would have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista

• The project would substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees,

rock outcroppings, and historical buildings within a state-designated scenic highway

• The project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and

its surroundings

• The project would create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely

affect day or nighttime area views

A significant impact would also occur if the project were to (1) introduce elements that would 

conflict with the visual character of an historic district, state, or federally listed or eligible historic 

property, or (2) substantially affect a park, recreational destination, or other feature or area 

identified as an important visual resource. 

In applying the criteria listed above, the term “substantial” is defined as a decrease of two or more 

levels of visual quality in a landscape viewed by viewers with moderate to moderately high viewer 

response, or as a decrease of one level in a landscape viewed by viewers with high viewer 

response.

3.16.3 Affected Environment

This section discusses the effects on the aesthetics and visual resources in the F-B LGA visual 

resource study area. Existing visual resources are inventoried, and the landscape units and 

subunits into which the study area has been divided for this analysis are described. Photographs 

of representative views are used to characterize the existing visual character and quality of the 

landscape.

Similar to the May 2014 Project, visual resources in the study area for the F-B LGA include 

designated scenic routes and views toward and in natural areas, parks, and urban settings that 

have been identified as having historic or cultural significance or that include buildings of similar 

significance or landmark status. These visual resources have been identified in planning and 

policy documents, in cultural resource reports, and in evaluations of scenic quality and public 

popularity observed during aesthetics and visual resources fieldwork for the F-B LGA. The

selection of representative KVPs for this analysis was based on the identified visual resources 

that could be seen from the perspective of identified viewer groups in the study area, and on 

comments received from the public. 

3.16.3.1 Summary of the May 2014 Project Affected Environment

The affected environment for the May 2014 Project is similar to that of the F-B LGA where the two 

alignments overlap in Shafter and eastern Bakersfield. These areas are discussed as part of the 

affected environment for the F-B LGA.

In the May 2014 Project’s San Joaquin Valley Rural/Agricultural landscape unit between Shafter 

and Bakersfield, row crops, orchards, and pasture are interspersed with a variety of scattered 

rural residential and agro-industrial structures. This landscape generally lacks variety and 
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-7 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

vividness. Agro-industrial developments are typically of a highly utilitarian visual character. Visual 

quality ranges from low to moderate.

The Rosedale/Greenacres landscape unit of the May 2014 Project consists largely of single-story, 

single-family suburban residential neighborhoods with wide front lawns and mature landscaping. 

Blocks of these neighborhoods are broken up by small commercial development at the 

intersections of major streets. Industrial uses and empty parcels also occur adjacent to the HSR 

alignment. Visual quality is moderate overall.

Visual quality in the vicinity of the May 2014 Project’s crossing of the Kern River varies greatly 

from very low in the industrial floodplain dominated by an oil refinery on the river’s west bank to 

moderately high in the Kern River Parkway on the east bank. Although the floodplain appears 

somewhat barren for portions of the year, its vividness is enhanced year-round by riparian 

vegetation on both banks of the river, including a large area of restored riparian woodland, trails, 

and a large, attractive artificial lagoon, which adjoins the Kern River Parkway trail north of Truxtun 

Avenue.

The Central Bakersfield Landscape Unit of the May 2014 Project consists of industrial areas with 

an often chaotic appearance and utilitarian warehouse and manufacturing structures; extensive 

older residential, single-story, single-family neighborhoods with mature tree canopies; and 

distinctive early twentieth-century, high-rise buildings in the downtown district. Visual quality ranges 

from low in industrial areas to moderately high in residential neighborhoods and downtown. 

3.16.3.2 Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative Visual Resources

City of Shafter

Potentially sensitive visual resources in the urbanized portion of Shafter include the town center, 

some residential areas, and cultural destinations. The visually intact, old town center to the west 

of the BNSF railroad tracks on Central Avenue is in the visual foreground of the alignment, 

approximately 350 feet away. Elements contributing to the visual quality of the town center 

include cohesive, older architectural design; street trees; median plantings; and other elements 

that were part of the main street development. Sensitive residential neighborhoods located in the 

immediate project foreground (0 to 0.25 mile from the F-B LGA) occur to the west of State Route 

(SR) 43 between Mayer Lane and W Tulare Avenue and to the east of Walker Street between E

Tulare Avenue and Jackson Avenue. The Shafter Depot Museum on SR 43, an historic building,

is also a potentially sensitive visual resource from the perspective of visitors. 

Rural San Joaquin Valley 

Similar to the May 2014 Project, the F-B LGA includes a section of the rural part of the San 

Joaquin Valley between the urban centers of Shafter and Bakersfield. In this area, visual 

resources consist of vast spans of orchards and open field crops, as well as panoramic views 

toward the Sierra Nevada Mountains on clear days. 

Kern River and Parkway 

The F-B LGA would cross the Kern River immediately northeast of SR 204. The Kern River 

Parkway is an important scenic and recreational resource for Bakersfield, with trails, landscape 

improvements, habitat restoration areas, and active recreation facilities. Portions of the 

Greenhorn and Tehachapi Mountains are visible from the parkway. The Kern River Plan Element, 

a portion of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (Unincorporated Planning Area), identifies 

the river as “the single most valuable visual resource in the southern San Joaquin Valley” (City of 

Bakersfield and County of Kern 1985). While Section 3.16, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, in 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014a) (page 3.16-12)

determined that the May 2014 Project would not traverse the area covered by the Kern River Plan 

Element, the F-B LGA would be located in that area.
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-8 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Urban Bakersfield 

Urbanized areas in metropolitan Bakersfield have a diverse range of potentially sensitive visual 

resources near the proposed alignment for the F-B LGA. Civic, government, and commercial 

destinations are located adjacent to the alignment in central and eastern Bakersfield along 

SR 204, Chester Avenue, Union Avenue, Sumner Street, E Truxtun Avenue, and Edison 

Highway. These destinations include, but are not limited to, the Kern County Museum and Valley 

Oaks Charter School on Chester Avenue and the Mercado Latino Tianguis at Edison Highway

and Chamberlain Avenue. Sensitive residences are located west of the alignment on Norris Road 

in north Bakersfield and east of the alignment near Roberts Lane in Oildale, southwest of SR 204, 

across from the Bakersfield F Street Station in central Bakersfield, along Q Street to the north of 

SR 178, along E California Avenue to the south of Edison Highway, and to the north of Edison 

Highway.

3.16.3.3 Maintenance of Infrastructure Facility Visual Resources

For the F-B LGA, one MOIF is proposed to be located in Shafter between the northern terminus 

of the F-B LGA section at Poplar Avenue and Fresno Avenue. The lead tracks for the MOIF 

would extend slightly north of Poplar Avenue. MOIFs provide equipment, materials, and

replacement parts for the HSR system subdivision. For more information on the proposed MOIF, 

refer to Chapter 2 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. Potentially sensitive visual resources near 

the proposed MOIF site include single-family residences located as close as approximately 215 

feet to the west of SR 43.

3.16.3.4 Bakersfield F Street Station Visual Resources

The Bakersfield F Street Station would be located on the north side of SR 204, opposite F Street. 

The proposed station would provide intermodal connectivity, drop-off facilities, an entry plaza, a 

station house area for ticketing and support services, an indoor station room, and parking 

facilities. For more information on the station’s features, please refer to Chapter 2 of this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS. Potentially sensitive visual resources near the station site include 

residents located across SR 204 from the site.

3.16.3.5 Landscape Units, Key Viewpoints, and Existing Visual Quality

This section describes the landscape units in the study area for the F-B LGA, including their 

KVPs and existing visual quality. 

Landscape Units in the Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

The following landscape units were identified between Shafter and Bakersfield for the F-B LGA: 

• Shafter Town Landscape Unit

• Rural San Joaquin Valley Landscape Unit

• Bakersfield: North Bakersfield Landscape Unit

• Bakersfield: Kern River Landscape Unit

• Bakersfield: Central Bakersfield Landscape Unit

• Bakersfield: East Bakersfield Landscape Unit
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-9 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.16-1 shows the general location of each landscape unit in the visual study area. 

Appendix 8-A discusses the similarities and differences between these landscape units and those 

of the May 2014 Project. As discussed therein, the F-B LGA and May 2014 Project would share 

approximately the same study area in the Shafter Town and East Bakersfield landscape units. 

However, the F-B LGA would shift the alignment in the Rural San Joaquin Valley landscape unit 

eastward relative to the May 2014 Project in rural Shafter, passing through a rural agricultural 

area and avoiding rural residents at the intersection of 7th Standard Road and Santa Fe Way. 

The eastward shift of the F-B LGA would continue to the North Bakersfield Landscape Unit, a 

largely industrial and commercial area, avoiding the extensive single-family residential 

neighborhoods of the May 2014 Project’s Rosedale/Greenacres landscape unit. The Kern River 

landscape unit would also shift eastward for the F-B LGA. In the Central Bakersfield Landscape 

Unit, the F-B LGA would pass through a largely commercial area along SR 204, while the May 

2014 Project would cross an area with moderately high visual quality including residences, 

landscaped medians, and distinctive early twentieth-century high-rise buildings.

Shafter Town Landscape Unit and Key Viewpoints

The Shafter Town landscape unit is a spatially distinct urban island in the broader agricultural 

landscape of the San Joaquin Valley. Figure 3.16-2 shows the locations of representative and key 

views in the Shafter Town landscape unit. 

Shafter has residential neighborhoods (Figure 3.16-3) around a defined, old commercial district 

along Central Avenue (Figure 3.16-4).

The Shafter Town landscape unit also includes an agricultural area with orchards at the northern 

end of the F-B LGA, just outside the urban portion of Shafter. This agricultural part of the 

landscape unit is similar in visual character to the Rural San Joaquin Valley landscape unit to the 

south (Figure 3.16-5). 

Visual quality in the Shafter Town landscape unit varies from low to moderately high. The 

industrial uses and vacant lots along the alignment have a low degree of intactness and unity with 

surrounding residential development and low to moderately low overall visual quality. The old 

town center, however, has moderate to moderately high visual quality, with corresponding levels 

of vividness, intactness, and unity. Elements contributing to visual quality in the town center 

include a cohesive design of earlier periods of architecture, local parks, street trees, median 

plantings, and other elements of the main street development. These features contribute to a 

prevailing intactness of character and unity of scale typical of old main streets. The Shafter Depot 

Museum, located on SR 43 near Shafter Avenue, is listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places in part for its historic architecture (United States Department of the Interior 1980). This 

building originally opened four blocks to the southeast for use as the Santa Fe Passenger and 

Freight Depot in 1917, and was moved to its current location in 1980, after which it was restored 

to its original architecture (City of Shafter 2015). The railroad depot (Shafter Depot Museum) is 

unique as the “central developmental building in Shafter” and one of the few such buildings to 

survive demolition by railroad companies (U.S. Department of the Interior 1980). The two-story 

depot has a distinctive rustic appearance, with yellow ochre horizontal wooden siding and brown 

window frames.

As reflected in the General Plan policies for the City of Shafter, viewer sensitivity in the town 

center is anticipated to be high because of community concern for the integrity and quality of the 

downtown. Central Shafter would also rate as highly sensitive because residential areas are 

located near the alignment. Residents are typically considered sensitive to visual change, as they 

spend considerable time at home and place a high value on their home environment. The number

of potential viewers in central Shafter may be high, as there is broad visibility from multiple 

locations and extended exposure to views. In Section 3.16.4, Environmental Consequences, KVP 

1 (Figure 3.16-23) depicts the F-B LGA from the perspective of SR 43 by the Shafter Depot 

Museum. Visitors to the museum would have high sensitivity toward the visual setting around the 

historic architecture of the museum, a moderately high degree of exposure to the HSR alignment 

behind the building, and a high viewer response.
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-10 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-11

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.16-1 Overview of Landscape Units
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-12 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.16-2 Shafter Town Landscape Unit 
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-13

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

SR-a. Single-family residence, looking south along Walker Street 

SR-b. Multifamily apartments southeast of Walker and State Streets

Figure 3.16-3 Shafter Town Landscape Unit: Representative Residential Views
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-14 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

SC-a. Alignment at vacant business park along BNSF Railway, looking south

SC-b. Central Avenue in downtown Shafter, looking southwest from SR 43

SC-c. Alignment at mural on Floyd’s General Store, looking south across Central Avenue

Figure 3.16-4 Shafter Town Landscape Unit: Representative Commercial and

Industrial Uses
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-15

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

SA-a. Agricultural property and residence on Poplar Avenue, looking in direction of 

proposed alignment 0.20 mile to the north

SA-b. Orchards at northern end of proposed alignment, looking north from Poplar Avenue and BNSF Railway

Figure 3.16-5 Shafter Town Landscape Unit: Representative Agricultural Views
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-16 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-17

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Rural San Joaquin Valley Landscape Unit and Key Viewpoints 

The Rural San Joaquin Valley landscape unit is located partially inside the city limits of Shafter

and partially in unincorporated Kern County, southeast of urbanized Shafter but northwest of 

Bakersfield. 

Figure 3.16-6 shows the locations of representative and key views in the area. This landscape 

unit consists predominantly of orchards and vineyards on flat land, interspersed with scattered 

rural residences and agro-industrial areas (Figure 3.16-7). Public viewpoints in the area are 

limited to widely spaced two-lane roads on a grid system through large blocks of agricultural land.

Pages 3.16-12 through 3.16-59 in Section 3.16.4.2 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014a) provide a discussion of the visual quality of existing views 

and the principal sensitive viewers in this landscape unit, which are similar for the F-B LGA

except for the lack of suburban-style rural residential developments between urban Shafter and 

metropolitan Bakersfield in the F-B LGA. Visual quality is predominantly moderate but ranges 

from moderately low to moderately high depending on specific local circumstances. Although 

generally of moderate intactness and unity, the landscape often lacks variety and vividness. 

Views of mountains or natural riparian corridors are few and of limited prominence. Agroindustrial developments are typically of a highly utilitarian visual character.

Viewers in the Rural San Joaquin Valley landscape unit are few, and viewer activities are 

predominantly work-oriented. Viewer sensitivity is moderate for motorists and moderately low for 

workers. However, scattered rural residents within the 0.5-mile foreground distance have high 

visual sensitivity. Viewer exposure of rural residents in the valley varies primarily by distance 

because there is often little to screen or filter views. Overall, viewer exposure in the valley is 

moderated by a low density of viewers.

In Section 3.16.4, Environmental Consequences, KVPs 2 and 3 (Figure 3.16-24 and Figure 

3.16-25) offer views of existing conditions and then simulations of potential HSR effects from the 

perspectives of Burbank Street and Verdugo Lane in the Rural San Joaquin Valley landscape 

unit.

Bakersfield

As shown on Figure 3.16-8, this analysis divides the F-B LGA and its surroundings in the 

metropolitan area of Bakersfield (including areas in the Bakersfield corporate limits and those in 

unincorporated Kern County areas close to the city) into four landscape units, each with a distinct 

visual character. These include North Bakersfield, Kern River, Central Bakersfield, and East 

Bakersfield. While each urban landscape unit, as described below, has a broad common 

character and identity, they also contain a range of land uses and corresponding image types 

with varying levels of visual quality.
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-18 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-19

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.16-6 Rural San Joaquin Valley Landscape Unit
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-20 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

V-a. F-B LGA at agro-industrial property on Riverside Street, looking northwest 

V-b. F-B LGA at orchard on Burbank Street near Driver Road, looking east

V-c. F-B LGA at vineyard and orchard on Burbank Street, looking east

Figure 3.16-7 Rural San Joaquin Valley Landscape Unit: Representative Views
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-21

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.16-8 Landscape Units in Metropolitan Bakersfield
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-22 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-23

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

The North Bakersfield Landscape Unit covers a predominantly industrial and commercial corridor 

along SR 99 and SR 204 from 7th Standard Road southeast to the northern bank of the Kern 

River. Figure 3.16-9 shows the locations of representative and key views in northern Bakersfield.1

This area is typified by commercial warehouses, agro-industrial structures, and retail commercial 

buildings (Figure 3.16-10). The overall visual setting has low vividness because of the generic 

character of the industrial and commercial built environment. The area also has a low degree of 

intactness as a result of the lack of attractive features in the built environment and the presence 

of SR 99, SR 204, and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) as encroaching elements that break up 

the landscape’s continuity. The commercial and industrial components of the landscape do 

cohere to a limited extent, so the degree of unity is moderately low. Commuters on highways and 

arterial roads are the principal viewers in the area and would have moderately low sensitivity to 

the visual effects of F-B LGA features. In addition, industrial and commercial workers at 

businesses in the North Bakersfield Landscape Unit would have moderately low sensitivity. For 

commuters and workers, the exposure as viewers would be high because of the proximity of highvolume roadways and numerous businesses to the proposed alignment. Since the F-B LGA

would be prominent, on an elevated viaduct throughout this landscape unit, it would also generate 

high exposure for the viewers. With moderately low sensitivity and a high degree of exposure, 

these viewers would have a moderate overall response to visual effects.

Although the North Bakersfield Landscape Unit is primarily industrial and commercial, two 

residential areas would have views toward the alignment. Two-story, multifamily residential 

buildings and single-family residences along Norris Road to the west of SR 99 would have direct 

and proximate views of the alignment from as close as 300 feet away (Photo NBR-a of Figure 

3.16-11). Single-family residences along Roberts Lane in Oildale would have partially obstructed 

westward views of the alignment across the UPRR and of industrial uses of low visual quality, 

from a distance of approximately 0.2 mile (Photo NBR-b of Figure 3.16-11). Local residents would 

be highly sensitive to the project because of their concern with visual quality and the alignment’s 

proximity and visual prominence. The exposure of nearby residents along Norris Road would be 

high, while that of more distant residents along Roberts Lane would be moderately low. 

Therefore, the viewer response would be high for nearby residents but moderate for more distant 

residents.

In Section 3.16.4, Environmental Consequences, KVPs 4 through 6 (Figure 3.16-26 through 

Figure 3.16-28) offer views of existing conditions and then simulations of potential HSR effects 

from the perspectives of Coffee Road, Snow Road, and Olive Drive in the North Bakersfield 

Landscape Unit. 

1 The North Bakersfield Landscape Unit includes a small portion of the city of Shafter north of 7th Standard 

Road and unincorporated Kern County.
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-24 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-25

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.16-9 North Bakersfield Landscape Unit
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-26 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

NBC-a. F-B LGA at industrial site, looking northwest from Norris and Snow roads

NBC-b. F-B LGA at commercial site, looking southeast from Olive Drive overcrossing of SR 99

Figure 3.16-10 North Bakersfield Landscape Unit: Representative

Industrial and Commercial Views
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-27

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

NBR-a. View of F-B LGA north of multifamily residences on Norris Road

NBR-b. Westward view from residences on Roberts Lane in Oildale, about 0.25 mile from F-B LGA

Figure 3.16-11 North Bakersfield Landscape Unit: Representative Residential Views
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-28 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-29

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

In the vicinity of the F-B LGA, the Kern River, where it traverses the city of Bakersfield, has a

wide channel that runs dry and appears barren for portions of the year, with riparian grassland 

and woodland in the floodplain. Figure 3.16-12 shows the locations of representative and key 

views, and Figure 3.16-13 offers images of the channel from several points of view. The paved 

Kern River Parkway Bike Trail traverses the southern bank and is elevated above the river

channel except when it dips down at an undercrossing of the SR 204 bridge over the Kern River. 

To the immediate northeast of this bridge, an earthen berm obstructs views to the southeast 

toward the proposed Bakersfield F Street Station site. To the southwest of the bridge, an adjacent 

concrete-lined flood-control channel and residences with landscaping are visible from the trail.

This area has a high degree of vividness because the scenic riparian environment of the Kern 

River is a rare, natural visual element in the greater urbanized landscape of Bakersfield. In 

addition, the dual SR 204 and UPRR railway crossings of the Kern River Parkway Bike Trail 

contribute to the memorability of the area. The intactness and unity of the Kern River landscape 

unit are, however, moderately low. Even though the Kern River is a natural riparian corridor, the 

highway and railway crossings break up the landscape, obstruct views of natural elements, and 

do not cohere with an otherwise natural area. The overall visual quality of the landscape unit 

varies from moderately low near the SR 204 bridge to moderately high on either side.

Recreational users of the trail, such as bicyclists and runners, are the key sensitive viewers in this 

area and would be highly sensitive to visual effects. Although active recreational users playing 

sports are not typically focused on scenery, bicyclists and runners on a trail in an open-space

area would have more concern for aesthetics. Their exposure to the F-B LGA would be high 

because the alignment would cross the trail on an elevated viaduct between the existing SR 204 

and UPRR railway bridges. Therefore, the visual response of recreational users would be high. In

Section 3.16.4, Environmental Consequences, KVP 7 (Figure 3.16-29) depicts the existing view 

of the alignment from the perspective of trail users.

Commuters on SR 204 also would have views of the F-B LGA alignment to the immediate 

northeast of the Kern River crossing. These viewers would have moderate sensitivity to 

aesthetics. Motorists’ exposure would be moderately low because of the brief amount of time they 

would see the alignment when traveling at highway speeds. Overall, commuters’ viewer response 

would be moderately low.
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-30 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-31

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.16-12 Kern River Landscape Unit
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-32 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

KR-a. Kern River Parkway Bike Trail, looking north toward SR 204 bridge over Kern River

KR-b. F-B LGA at Kern River, looking west from Kern River Parkway Bike Trail

KR-c. Kern River Parkway Bike Trail looking north, with Stine Canal and residential neighborhood in 

Central Bakersfield to the east

Figure 3.16-13 Kern River Landscape Unit: Representative Views
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-33

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

In the Central Bakersfield Landscape Unit, which stretches from the Kern River southeast to 

Union Avenue in Bakersfield, the F-B LGA would run parallel to SR 204 in the northeast and 

along the western portion of Sumner Street. Figure 3.16-14 shows the locations of representative 

and key views. The landscape consists of a mix of retail commercial uses, office buildings, vacant 

lots, surface parking lots, residential neighborhoods, and institutional buildings (Figure 3.16-15

through Figure 3.16-18). Highway-oriented billboards also line SR 204, a four- to six-lane divided

highway in this area.

The quality of existing views toward the F-B LGA from locations in the Central Bakersfield 

Landscape Unit ranges from low to moderately low. As the landscape is similar in character to 

many other automobile-oriented, commercial areas along highways in Bakersfield, it has an 

overall low degree of vividness. The Chester Avenue corridor north of Garces Circle, however,

has a distinct visual character. The segment of Chester Avenue between Garces Circle and the 

UPRR undercrossing has moderate visual quality, with some topographic diversity at the UPRR 

undercrossing, a median paved with rounded bricks, and prominent roadside trees. To the north 

of the UPRR undercrossing, the Chester Avenue corridor has a moderately high degree of 

vividness and visual quality because of the distinctive architecture of the historic Kern County 

Museum building and Beale Memorial Clock Tower. The museum, located adjacent to and 

directly north of the F-B LGA, is influenced by the Beaux Arts and Mission Revival styles (City of 

Bakersfield 2015). Nevertheless, the overall Central Bakersfield Landscape Unit has a 

moderately low degree of intactness because of the predominance of expansive surface parking

lots and generic commercial and governmental architecture. Considering the diversity of the built 

environment, this landscape unit has a low degree of visual coherence or compositional harmony.

Commuters on SR 204, Sumner Street, and cross-streets would have views of the F-B LGA. As 

they would largely be in moving vehicles, these viewers would have moderate sensitivity to 

aesthetics. Their exposure would be moderately high because the F-B LGA would run on an 

elevated viaduct adjacent to the highway through most of the Central Bakersfield Landscape Unit

and on top of Sumner Street. Overall, commuters’ viewer response would be moderately high.

Workers in the area would have moderately low sensitivity. People at their workplace become 

accustomed to the visual character of their surroundings. Because of this familiarity and their 

focus principally on work, they are typically not highly concerned with the quality of the aesthetics 

and visual resources of the immediate surroundings of their workplaces. Workers’ high exposure 

to nearby visual effects would, however, result in a moderate overall viewer response. Visitors to 

the historic Kern County Museum would have high sensitivity and high exposure to adjacent 

construction activities associated with the F-B LGA. Museum visitors would, therefore, have a 

high viewer response. 

Residents would have a high sensitivity to visual effects. The exposure of residents located 

across SR 204 from the proposed Bakersfield F Street Station location would be moderately high. 

In addition, residents located north of the alignment near Q Street and SR 178 would have direct 

and proximate views from as close as 350 feet away. Residents’ overall exposure would be 

moderately high. 

In Section 3.16.4, Environmental Consequences, KVPs 8 through 10 (Figure 3.16-30 through

Figure 3.16-32) offer views of existing conditions and then simulations of potential HSR effects in 

the vicinity of the proposed Bakersfield F Street Station site, Garces Circle, and SR 178 in the 

Central Bakersfield Landscape Unit. 
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-34 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-35

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.16-14 Central Bakersfield Landscape Unit
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-36 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

CBC-a. Statue in front of military store on Chester Avenue near proposed 34th Street entrance to the

Bakersfield F Street Station

CBC-b. Vacant commercial property at the proposed Bakersfield F Street Station site looking northeast

from SR 204

Figure 3.16-15 Central Bakersfield Landscape Unit: Representative Commercial Views
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-37

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

CBC-c. Commercial facilities to the northwest of Union Avenue overpass of BNSF Railway with

 F-B LGA to the left

CBC-d. Existing northward view of commercial development on proposed Bakersfield F Street Station site

Figure 3.16-16 Central Bakersfield Landscape Unit: Representative Commercial Views
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-38 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

CBI-a. Kern County Museum on Chester Avenue to north of proposed 34th Street entrance

to Bakersfield F Street Station, looking west

CBI-b. Kern County Veterans Service Department looking northwest from SR 204 

toward F-B LGA

Figure 3.16-17 Central Bakersfield Landscape Unit: Representative Institutional Views
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-39

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

CBR-a. SR 204 on berm to east of Elm Street residences, looking east with the 

proposed Bakersfield F Street Station to the left

CBR-b. Single-family residences on 28th Street near San Dimas Street, looking southwest

Figure 3.16-18 Central Bakersfield Landscape Unit: Representative Residential Views
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-40 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-41

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

East of Union Avenue, the F-B LGA would continue to the southeast as an elevated viaduct 

above Sumner Street and Edison Highway, paralleling freight rail lines located to the north, until 

the eastern terminus of this alignment. Figure 3.16-19 shows the locations of representative and 

key views. The East Bakersfield Landscape Unit is primarily an industrial zone in Bakersfield

typified by warehouses, employee parking, material storage, and vacant lots. The Edison 

Highway corridor is dominated by open material and equipment storage, parking, and a general 

lack of attention to visual order. Localized areas in the greater landscape unit have distinct, 

nonindustrial visual characteristics. For example, two-story retail commercial uses are clustered 

on the south side of Sumner Street by Baker Street, and the Mercado Latino Tianguis is a colorful 

retail and cultural center that re-creates the feel of a Mexican village market at Edison Highway 

and Chamberlain Avenue (Figure 3.16-20). Isolated civic uses, such as The Mission at Kern 

County, add diversity to the overall industrial character of the landscape unit (Figure 3.16-21). 

This corridor is also characterized by prominent bridges crossing over Sumner Street at Beale 

Avenue and Union Avenue and Edison Highway at Mt. Vernon Avenue and Oswell Street (Figure 

3.16-21).

The overall East Bakersfield landscape has a low degree of vividness because of its light 

industrial character. The visual obstruction caused by multiple overpasses of Sumner Street and 

Edison Highway as well as the presence of large vacant lots results in a landscape with a low 

degree of visual unity and intactness. On the whole, the visual quality of this area is low.

Industrial workers in the workplace would be the principal viewers in this area and would have low 

sensitivity to the visual effects of the project. Commuters on Sumner Street and Edison Highway 

would have high exposure to the F-B LGA, which would be on an overhead guideway, but 

moderately low sensitivity because of the low visual quality of this primarily industrial corridor.

Single-family residents along Quantico and E California avenues would have direct views of a 

HSR construction laydown area at an existing vacant lot (Figure 3.16-22). Both the viewer 

sensitivity and exposure of these residents would be high due to their very close proximity to the 

alignment. Views of the F-B LGA itself from residences to the south would generally be filtered by 

intervening industrial land uses of low visual quality. The residents at a three-story apartment 

building located adjacent and to the north of the UPRR would, however, have unobstructed views 

of the elevated HSR guideway above Edison Highway (Figure 3.16-22). Their sensitivity and 

exposure as viewers would be high. Single-family residences on the north side of the UPRR

would also have partially obstructed views of the alignment on Edison Highway. These viewers 

would have high sensitivity, moderate exposure, and a moderately high viewer response. At the 

Mercado Latino Tianguis, visitors would be exposed to the elevated viaduct for brief periods of 

time while entering and exiting the market. However, considering the cultural importance of the 

market to the Latino community, visitors would have moderately high viewer sensitivity and a 

moderately high viewer response. 

In Section 3.16.4, Environmental Consequences, KVPs 11 and 12 (Figure 3.16-33 and Figure 

3.16-34) depict simulations of potential F-B LGA effects at Baker Street and the Mercado Latino 

Tianguis in the East Bakersfield Landscape Unit. 
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-42 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-43

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.16-19 East Bakersfield Landscape Unit
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-44 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

EBC-a. The Pyrenees Basque Restaurant looking eastward at the F-B LGA

on Sumner Street

EBC-b. Outdoor plaza at the Mercado Latino Tianguis along Chamberlain Avenue

south of the F-B LGA, looking northwest

Figure 3.16-20 East Bakersfield Landscape Unit: Representative Commercial Views
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-45

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

EBI-a. The Mission at Kern County on King Street looking north toward F-B LGA

on Sumner Street

EBI-b. F-B LGA along Edison Highway looking west toward Oswell Street bridge

Figure 3.16-21 East Bakersfield Landscape Unit: Representative Infrastructure and

Civic Views
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-46 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

EBR-a. F-B LGA at Edison Highway looking northwest toward 

UPRR railway and multifamily residences 

EBR-b. Vacant lot proposed for HSR construction laydown area, looking west from

single-family residences on Quantico Avenue

Figure 3.16-22 East Bakersfield Landscape Unit: Representative Residential Views
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-47

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Scenic Vistas and Highways

No formally designated scenic vistas or vista points were identified in the F-B LGA study area. 

However, a scenic vista that is not formally designated in the study area is the view of the Kern 

River and Greenhorn Mountains by recreational visitors in the Kern River Parkway in Bakersfield. 

For recreational users of the parkway, views of the river and mountains are among its principal 

attractions.

In California, state scenic highways are designated by Caltrans. To be designated scenic, a 

highway must traverse an area of outstanding scenic quality—one containing striking views, flora, 

geology, or other unique natural attributes. The project study area contains no state or local 

designated scenic highways (Caltrans 2015). 

3.16.4 Environmental Consequences

This section provides the impact analysis for the aesthetics and visual quality of the F-B LGA. 

Impacts are identified based on project-related changes in visual quality of the existing landscape 

unit setting, prevailing viewer sensitivity, project visibility, and anticipated viewer response.

3.16.4.1 Summary of Analysis for the May 2014 Project

This section provides a summary of those effects of the May 2014 Project using information from 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014a). The Final EIR/EIS

(Section 3.16.5.3, page 3.16-67) concluded that the introduction of new sources of light and glare 

during construction of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section, including the May 2014 Project, would 

cause aesthetic effects that are of negligible intensity, localized, and temporary. New sources of 

temporary night lighting during construction would adversely affect nighttime views, resulting in a 

significant impact, but mitigation to shield and direct lighting downward would reduce impacts to a 

less than significant level. Operational lighting for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section, including the

May 2014 Project, was determined to have less than significant impacts, as the HSR station 

would be designed to direct lighting downward, guideways would not have overhead lights, and 

train lights would be directed toward the guideway.

With regard to visual quality, the Fresno to Bakersfield Section, including the May 2014 Project, 

would have adverse effects resulting from blocked views or visual intrusion of the HSR guideway 

and associated road crossings near historic resources or residential areas with high-sensitivity 

viewers. In Shafter and Bakersfield, long-term significant impacts on visual quality under CEQA

were found to occur because of the close proximity of sensitive viewers. As detailed in Appendix 

8-A, in the San Joaquin Valley Rural/Agricultural landscape unit, the elevated viaduct would have 

a significant impact on rural residences that are within 0.5 mile of the viaduct and not adjacent to 

agro-industrial facilities. In the Rural Towns landscape unit, the elevated viaduct would degrade 

visual quality from moderate to moderately low or low from the perspective of nearby residents, 

park users, and visitors to the central business district in Shafter, and the at-grade alignment 

would degrade the visual quality of rural residences at 7th Standard Road, resulting in a 

significant impact. In the Rosedale/Greenacres landscape unit, where residents were determined 

to have a moderately high viewer response, the elevated viaduct would create very strong 

declines in intactness and unity at a foreground distance, creating a significant impact. At the 

Kern River Parkway in Bakersfield, the May 2014 Project would cause a substantial decline in 

visual quality for viewers, generating a significant impact on a scenic vista. In the Central 

Bakersfield Landscape Unit, the elevated viaduct would pass within 140 feet of residences, 

decreasing visual quality, resulting in a significant impact. In the East Bakersfield Landscape Unit, 

the alignment would run adjacent to residences located to the east of Union Avenue near Truxtun 

Avenue, resulting in a significant impact to these residences. Residual impacts would be 

significant under CEQA because the effectiveness of site-specific mitigation measures was 

uncertain. At the HSR station, however, the improvements to visual quality in downtown urban 

centers would represent beneficial effects. 
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-48 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.16.4.2 Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

A complete definition of the F-B LGA is provided in Chapter 2 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. 

Table 3.16-2 on pages 3.16-61 through 3.16-64 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014a) provides a summary of the physical characteristics of typical 

HSR components. For the F-B LGA, the primary components would be elevated viaducts, and 

embankment fill/at-grade tracks. Elevated viaducts would be constructed atop columns that are 

typically about 10 feet in diameter at the ground. The beam on which elevated viaducts sit would 

have a minimum clearance of approximately 16.5 feet over roadways and 24 feet over railways. 

At-grade profiles would be built on compacted soil and ballast material. An overhead catenary 

system (OCS) of poles and wires lining the guideway would be up to 23 feet in height above the 

track. 

The following sections discuss temporary construction impacts and permanent impacts potentially 

resulting from the F-B LGA. 

Table 3.16-1 presents a summary of the range of impacts from the F-B LGA at KVPs in each 

landscape unit. The change in visual quality at each KVP in the landscape units is detailed further 

in the discussion that follows.

Table 3.16-1 Summary of Aesthetic Impacts at F-B LGA Key Viewpoints

Landscape Unit CEQA Impacts

Shafter Town Significant

Rural San Joaquin Valley Significant

North Bakersfield Less than significant to significant

Kern River Significant

Central Bakersfield Less than significant

East Bakersfield Less than significant to significant

Construction-Period Impacts

Project construction is expected to be completed within six years from the beginning of the first 

phase of construction and through operational testing of the HSR system, not including property 

acquisition or permitting. Heavy construction activities (e.g., grading, excavating, and laying the 

HSR railbed and trackway) are expected to be accomplished in a four-year period. 

Impact AVR #1 – Construction Impacts on Scenic Vistas

As indicated in Section 3.16.3.5, the project’s visual study area contains a scenic vista where the 

F-B LGA would cross the Kern River. Construction of an elevated viaduct across the Kern River

would introduce new lines, forms, and colors, causing a decrease in the visual unity and 

intactness of the scenic vista of the Kern River and the foothills of the southern Sierra Nevada 

Mountains from the Kern River Parkway Bike Trail. In addition, the use of large construction 

equipment, such as cranes to build the proposed Bakersfield F Street Station immediately to the 

southeast, may intrude on scenic vistas available to trail users. It is judged that this would 

decrease the visual quality of the vista from moderately high to moderate. This impact would be 

temporary, lasting up to five years. Because construction would decrease the visual quality rating

by one level and viewers would have moderately high sensitivity to construction-period visual 

changes, it is considered to have a less than significant impact under CEQA. 

Impact AVR #2 – Construction Impacts on Existing Visual Quality

Similar to the May 2014 Project, and as discussed on page 3.16-67 in Section 3.16 of the Fresno 

to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014a), clearing, earthmoving, and the

erection of project facilities would introduce new lines, forms, and colors that would typically 

contrast with the existing landscape forms and patterns in urban and rural areas, causing a 
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-49

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

decrease in the visual unity and intactness of most existing views. This would be most noticeable 

in rural areas between urban Shafter and metropolitan Bakersfield, especially near a construction 

staging area by Burbank Street and Driver Road, where largely undeveloped landscapes would 

be disturbed by intensive construction activities, causing a reduction in the visual quality rating of 

landscapes by one to two levels, depending on the setting.

Construction of the proposed MOIF in an agricultural area of northern Shafter would have similar 

impacts on visual quality. This construction activity would be visible to nearby residential 

neighborhoods located across SR 43 to the west in northern Shafter. In urban areas such as 

Shafter and Bakersfield, because the F-B LGA would typically be located in commercial and 

industrial areas related to freight rail, the contrast introduced by project construction would be 

less noticeable and would not decrease the visual quality of the landscape. However, singlefamily residents along Quantico and East California Avenues in the East Bakersfield Landscape 

Unit would have direct views of a 24-acre construction laydown area in an adjacent vacant lot. 

Most construction activities would cease in one to two years at any given location. The exception 

to this would be concrete batch plants used to fabricate project components and some 

construction laydown areas that would be used for up to five years. Because construction could 

reduce the visual quality rating of a landscape unit by one or two levels depending on the setting, 

and viewer sensitivity would often be moderate or, in some cases, high, the impact of project 

construction on existing visual quality in the study area could be significant under CEQA. 

Impact AVR #3 – Construction Impacts from Light and Glare

For the F-B LGA, construction impacts associated with the creation of new sources of light and 

glare would be identical to those discussed for the May 2014 Project on page 3.16-67 in Section 

3.16 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014a). Although 

construction would not occur at night at all times, lighting associated with construction may be an 

annoyance to viewers, especially in rural areas. Similar to the May 2014 Project, lighting would 

reduce visual quality by one level and viewer sensitivity would often be moderate or, in some 

cases, high. The impact would be significant under CEQA. 

Project-Period Impacts

As described in Section 3.16.2, aesthetic and visual impacts on each landscape unit in the study 

area were assessed by examining changes to visual quality at KVPs in each landscape unit using 

the FHWA visual quality analysis system that was applied in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014). In most cases, photo simulations were prepared to 

support the impact analysis and are shown in the analysis of impacts on visual quality. Existing 

views were compared to photo simulations, considering changes in visual quality and character 

and taking into account viewer response, which includes viewer sensitivity and exposure. KVPs 

studied include one identified scenic vista, the view of the Kern River from the adjoining Kern 

River Parkway. The FHWA method was then applied to the applicable visual impact criteria of 

CEQA. 

Common Aesthetics and Visual Quality Impacts 

This section discusses impacts to aesthetics and visual quality that would be common across all 

landscape units. Similar to the May 2014 Project, and as discussed generally on pages 3.16-68 

and 3.16-69 in Section 3.16 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and 

FRA 2014a), the proposed F-B LGA would result in permanent changes to areas adjacent to or in 

viewing range of the HSR. These visual changes would occur with the introduction of new 

features to the environment, including both elevated and non-elevated portions of the HSR 

guideways, guideway support columns, contact power system, bridges, and roadway grade 

separations. They would also include a variety of HSR infrastructure, such as traction power

supply stations, HSR alignment fencing, required sound walls up to 14 feet high in some 

locations, and the HSR trains. New utility towers to serve the HSR would generally replace 

existing towers on the same pads and may be 20 to 50 feet taller than existing towers. The 

average height of the F-B LGA above existing ground level would be 60 feet, which would 

obstruct views, cast shadows, and loom over surrounding development. The HSR guideway and 
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-50 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

other features would be incompatible and out of scale with the existing visual character in many 

locations where viewer sensitivity and exposure are high.

In addition, the F-B LGA could cause visual intrusion and potential blocking of views from the use 

of sound barriers where these are required. Typically, the style of sound barriers is selected with 

input from the local jurisdiction to reduce adverse visual effects on adjacent land uses. Sound 

barriers could be solid or transparent, and made of various colors, materials, and surface 

treatments. The F-B LGA would involve construction of sound barriers in the following locations:

• Southbound track from south of Madera Avenue to north of E Ash Avenue (11,930 feet)

• Northbound track from north of Venable Lane to south of E Ash Avenue (8,425 feet)

• Southbound track from north of Fruitvale Avenue to Olive Drive (9,925 feet)

• Northbound track from Norris Road to north of Elm Street (12,460 feet)

• Southbound track from north of Elm Street to Oswell Street (26,220 feet)

• North of H Street to Oswell Street (23,275 feet)

For comparison, the May 2014 Project would involve construction of sound barriers in the 

following potential locations between Poplar Avenue in Shafter and Oswell Street in Bakersfield, 

pursuant to Mitigation Measure N&V-MM#3:

• Southbound track from Poplar Avenue to E Ash Avenue (8,560 feet)

• Northbound track from south of Fresno Avenue to north of E Lerdo Highway (7,205 feet)

• Southbound track from Hageman Road to north of Palm Avenue (12,043 feet)

• Southbound track from north of Palm Avenue to west of Mohawk Street (15,353 feet)

• Southbound track from west of F Street to Oswell Street (22,733 feet)

• Northbound track from north of Jomani Drive to south of Palm Road (10,720 feet)

• Northbound track from south of Palm Avenue to east of Coffee Road (10,180 feet)

• Northbound track from east of SR 99 to west of Eye Street (6,950 feet)

• Northbound track from west of S Street to Oswell Street (18,500 feet)

A general description of the potential visual quality impacts from sound barriers is provided on 

pages 3.16-68 and 3.16-69 in Section 3.16 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS

(Authority and FRA 2014a).

The F-B LGA also would introduce new sources of light at the site of the proposed Bakersfield F 

Street Station, along the HSR guideway, and on trains. Lighting at the Bakersfield F Street 

Station is discussed below in Impact AVR#4. As with the May 2014 Project, no overhead lights on 

the HSR guideway are proposed, and train lights would be directed toward the guideway. These 

design features would minimize spillover of light to surrounding areas.

Because no officially designated state scenic highways exist near the F-B LGA, no impacts on 

such resources exist, and they are not discussed further.

Impact AVR#4–Change to Visual Quality

Table 3.16-2 provides viewpoint-specific impact summaries for KVPs in each landscape unit. The

table lists the changes the F-B LGA would have on the existing visual quality rating at each KVP 

according to the evaluation methodology, and classifies these impacts on aesthetics and visual 

resources according to CEQA criteria. This table provides details for comparing the relative 

changes that the F-B LGA would have in each landscape unit and was used to help develop the 

impact determinations shown in Table 3.16-1. 
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-51

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.16-2 Summary of Visual Quality Changes and Impacts at Key Viewpoints

KVP Location KVP # Visual Quality 

Rating – 

Existing

Visual Quality 

Rating – With 

Project

Viewer 

Response

CEQA Impact

Shafter Town Landscape Unit

Shafter Depot Museum KVP 1 Moderately high Moderate High Significant

Rural San Joaquin Valley Landscape Unit

Burbank Street KVP 2 Moderately high Moderately low High Significant

Verdugo Lane KVP 3 Moderately low Low High Significant

North Bakersfield Landscape Unit

Coffee Road KVP 4 Moderately Low Low Moderately low Less than 

significant

Snow Road at 

Creemore Street

KVP 5 Moderately low Moderately low High Less than 

significant

Norris Road west of 

99

SR N/A Moderately low Low High Significant

Olive Drive at 

Drive

Knudsen KVP 6 Moderately low Moderately low Moderately low Less than 

significant

Kern River Landscape Unit

Kern River

Bike Trail

Parkway KVP 7 Moderately high Moderate High Significant

Central Bakersfield Landscape Unit

SR 204 South Frontage 

Road, looking toward F 

Street Station Site

KVP 8 Low Moderate Moderately high 

to high

No impact

Garces Circle KVP 9 Moderate Moderately low Moderate Less than 

significant

San Dimas Street at 

Homaker Place

KVP 10 Moderately low Moderately low Moderately high Less than 

significant

East Bakersfield Landscape Unit

Sumner Street at Baker 

Street

KVP 11 Moderate Low Moderate Significant

Mercado Latino 

Tianguis

KVP 12 Moderately low Low Moderately low 

to moderately 

high

Less than 

significant
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-52 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

The F-B LGA would run on a northwest-southeast axis through urban Shafter, with the HSR

alignment adjacent and parallel to the east side of the existing BNSF right-of-way (ROW). From

its northern terminus south to Tulare Avenue, the HSR alignment would have an embankment fill 

profile. South of Tulare Avenue, the embankment fill would be retained on the east side to allow 

Walker Street to remain in place. The retained fill section would continue down to E Lerdo 

Highway. Bridge openings would be provided in four locations: Fresno Avenue, a relocated 

Shafter Avenue, Central Avenue, and E Lerdo Highway. The existing, at-grade BNSF would be 

converted to an embankment profile with retaining walls from the northern terminus of the F-B 

LGA south to Ash Avenue. The area between the BNSF and the HSR guideway would be 

constructed as an embankment fill section. Poplar Avenue would be reconfigured from its existing 

at-grade intersections with SR 43 and the BNSF to an overcrossing, and a new connecting spur

road would be constructed to re-establish access between Poplar Avenue and SR 43.

As shown by the representative photos of Shafter in Figure 3.16-3 through Figure 3.16-5, the F-B 

LGA would pass through a mixture of commercial, residential, industrial, and agricultural areas. In 

central Shafter, the alignment would run adjacent and to the east of the Shafter Depot Museum, 

which this analysis identifies as a KVP. On Figure 3.16-23, KVP 1 shows existing and simulated 

conditions at the Shafter Depot Museum, looking southeast from the perspective of SR 43. The 

Shafter Depot Museum is listed on the National Register of Historic Properties and is an historic 

property under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. It is also an historical 

resource under CEQA. The two-story museum building has distinctive architecture, restored to its 

original appearance, with yellow ochre, horizontal wooden siding and brown window frames. 

Palm trees line the frontage with SR 43. When viewing this site from the south on SR 43, the 

BNSF crossing at Shafter Avenue is visible behind the museum. Although the depot building has 

been moved from its original location, its setting remains largely intact because it is located 

adjacent to the at-grade railway. Under the F-B LGA, the BNSF would be elevated on an 

embankment with a retaining wall adjacent to the northeast of the museum, while a raised HSR

embankment would be constructed adjacent and parallel to the northeast of the BNSF. The BNSF 

embankment would be a prominent industrial structure immediately behind the historic site that

contrasts with the historic wood-frame architecture of the Shafter Depot Museum, degrading the 

visual unity of the site. 

Moreover, the conversion of the existing, at-grade BNSF to a raised embankment with a retaining 

wall would degrade the intactness of views from the historic museum, which originally served as a 

depot for an at-grade railway. Because of the loss of visual unity and intactness, visual quality 

would decline one level, from moderately high to moderate. Furthermore, visitors to the museum 

would have a high viewer response to the change in the property’s visual landscape, which is an 

important part of the viewer experience. The visual impact of the project would, therefore, be 

significant under CEQA. 
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-53

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

KVP 1. Existing view of Shafter Depot Museum from SR 43 looking southeast

KVP 1. Simulated view of Shafter Depot Museum from SR 43 looking southeast

Figure 3.16-23 KVP 1 Existing and Simulated Views at the Shafter Depot Museum
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-54 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-55

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

The retained HSR and BNSF embankments south of Tulare Avenue also would be visible to 

visitors in the historic part of downtown Shafter along Central Avenue. The following structures

would be located in the foreground distance of the downtown center: the BNSF embankment, 

which would be located approximately 175 feet away from the northeastern edge of the 

downtown center at SR 43, and the HSR embankment, which would be located approximately 

350 feet away. Currently, as shown by Photo SC-B in Figure 3.16-4, the downtown center is 

characterized by one- and two-story commercial retail buildings and visually prominent street 

trees. Because of the central location of the retained BNSF and HSR embankments in Shafter 

and their proximity to the downtown center, they would exert a strong influence on the image and 

character of the town, altering the prevailing scale and introducing a strongly contrasting urban 

and industrial character. The introduction of a pair of visually dominant embankments with an 

urban, industrial character would adversely affect the visual intactness and unity of the small-town 

setting of Shafter. However, street trees on Central Avenue and one- and two-story commercial 

buildings next to Central Avenue between SR 43 and the BNSF ROW would limit the 

embankments’ visibility from the perspective of visitor to the town center. Visitors, who have a 

moderately high viewer response, would experience a decline in visual quality from moderate to 

moderately low. This decline of one level in visual quality would represent a significant impact 

under CEQA.

The F-B LGA would be visible to several residential areas in Shafter. Residences located to the 

east of the alignment would primarily be exposed to a retained HSR embankment to the south of 

Tulare Avenue and to HSR embankment fill to the north of Tulare Avenue. Residents located to 

the west of the alignment would primarily be exposed to the retained BNSF embankment 

throughout the urban area of Shafter. Existing residences would be located 120 feet east of the 

retained HSR embankment along Walker Street, 150 feet west of the BNSF embankment to the

north of Fresno Avenue and west of SR 43, 170 feet west of the BNSF embankment along 

W Tulare Avenue and SR 43, and 500 feet west of the BNSF embankment to the south of E Lerdo 

Highway. Due to the scale and height of the HSR and BNSF embankments, these structures

would be prominent in sight lines down perpendicular streets in the foreground distance of 0.25

mile and sometimes visible above nearby rooftops to high numbers of residential viewers. 

In northern Shafter, the MOIF and associated roadway reconfigurations would be visible to 

residential neighborhoods between Poplar Avenue and Klassen Street. The MOIF would convert

an agricultural area with orchards to an industrial site, altering the rural visual character of 

northern Shafter. The reconfiguration of Poplar Avenue from its existing at-grade intersection with 

SR 43 and the BNSF to an overcrossing next to the MOIF also would introduce a visually 

dominant feature. This overcrossing would be visible to residences located approximately 

0.3 mile to the south through intervening orchards. 

The F-B LGA would introduce visually dominant features with an urban, industrial character into a 

small-town setting near Shafter’s downtown center and residential neighborhoods. Residents 

near the HSR structures would experience a decline in visual quality from moderate to 

moderately low or low. In residential areas with a high viewer response, this decline of one to two 

levels in visual quality would represent a significant impact under CEQA. 

From the southern edge of urban Shafter, the F-B LGA would cut eastward across the Rural San 

Joaquin Valley landscape unit toward SR 99. The HSR tracks would run on an embankment from 

urban Shafter to just northwest of Coffee Road near the North Bakersfield Landscape Unit. An 

elevated bridge would be used at three bridge crossings of canals: the Calloway Canal just 

northeast of Burbank Street, the Friant-Kern Canal about 1.5 miles downtrack, and the Lerdo

Canal another 1.5 miles downtrack. On the embankment to the west of Mendota Street, the HSR 

railbed would have a height of approximately 30 feet above ground level, with OCS poles and

wires extending up to approximately 23 feet above the guideway. On the embankment to the east

of Mendota Street, the HSR railbed would have a height of up to 20 feet above-grade, or up to 30 

feet at roadway undercrossings, with OCS poles and wires extending up to approximately 23 feet 

above the railbed. 
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-56 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.16-24 and Figure 3.16-25 (KVP 2 and KVP 3) depict typical views in the Rural San 

Joaquin Valley landscape unit and simulations of the F-B LGA. KVP 2 provides a close-up view of 

the embankment fill profile on the north side of Burbank Street, across from an orchard, and KVP 

3 shows a view at a distance of approximately 0.4 mile of the embankment fill profile from fallow 

agricultural land along Verdugo Lane. Visual quality is generally moderate in the rural valley, 

where orchards and vineyards predominate, but can be moderately high along narrow roads that 

cut through agricultural land (e.g., KVP2) and moderately low in fallow areas (e.g., KVP 3) and 

agro-industrial sites.

Although generally of moderate intactness and unity, this landscape often lacks variety and 

vividness because of the ubiquity and uniformity of orchards and vineyards. Viewers in this 

landscape are often agricultural workers, rural residents, and motorists on nearby roads. Of 

these, nearby rural residents at single, isolated homes constitute the primary high-sensitivity 

viewer group that would be affected by the F-B LGA. Rural residences would be located as close 

as approximately 130 feet away from HSR facilities and 340 feet from the centerline of the HSR 

alignment.2 The sensitivity of other viewer groups in this landscape unit ranges from moderate to 

low.

In the flat agricultural landscape, the F-B LGA would introduce prominent industrial features that 

contrast with the rural setting, including the elevated bridges, the embankment fill profile with its 

elevated berm, security fencing, OCS poles and wires (up to 23 feet in height), and roadway

undercrossings at Riverside Street, Cherry Avenue, Driver Road, Zachary Avenue, Zerker Road, 

and Verdugo Lane. Within 0.25 mile of the F-B LGA, as shown on Figure 3.16-24, KVP 2, the 

combination of HSR alignment and road crossings would be prominent, resulting in a decline in 

visual intactness and unity, and a corresponding reduction of one to two levels in the visual 

quality rating. Although the overall number of residents in the Rural San Joaquin Valley 

landscape unit is small, they would have high viewer sensitivity to these visual effects. A 

moderate decline in visual quality in an area with high viewer sensitivity would represent a 

significant impact under CEQA. 

At distances beyond 0.25 mile, as shown on Figure 3.16-25, KVP 3, the low horizontal line of the 

HSR railbed would parallel and blend with the dominant horizontal plane of the prevailing terrain, 

with a moderate or moderately low overall effect on existing visual intactness and unity.

Residents would, however, have high viewer sensitivity to visual changes to a distance of 0.5 mile 

from elevated portions of the HSR. Residential viewers who are not near agro-industrial sites 

would experience a decline in visual quality of one level, which represents a significant impact 

under CEQA. 

The F-B LGA also would be visible to motorists in this landscape unit where the alignment 

approaches within 800 feet of SR 99 near the North Bakersfield Landscape Unit. Currently, 

motorists on SR 99 have unobstructed views of agricultural land to the southwest, over the 

adjacent UPRR tracks, until industrial land uses intrude to the north of 7th Standard Road. The 

embankment fill profile in this section would represent a minor intrusion on agricultural views, 

reducing the intactness and unity of the landscape. Visual quality would decline by one level from 

the perspective of motorists. Because this viewer group has moderate sensitivity to visual 

changes, the F-B LGA would have a less than significant impact to motorists under CEQA. 

2 The closest rural residences (approximately 130 feet from the HSR facilities) are those at the eastern end 

of Burbank Street in this landscape unit. 
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-57

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

KVP 2. Existing view of Burbank Street from Heath Road looking west

KVP 2. Simulated view of Burbank Street from Heath Road looking west

Figure 3.16-24 KVP 2 Existing and Simulated Views of Burbank Street from Heath Road,

Looking West
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-58 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

KVP 3. Existing view of Verdugo Lane in rural Shafter looking north

HSR Embankment

at Verdugo Lane

KVP 3. Simulated view of Verdugo Lane in rural Shafter looking north

Figure 3.16-25 KVP 3 Existing and Simulated Views of Verdugo Lane in Rural Shafter,

Looking North
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-59

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

In the North Bakersfield Landscape Unit, the F-B LGA would run parallel to and southwest of the 

UPRR corridor. Southwest of the community of Oil Junction, the F-B LGA would cross over to 

east side of SR 99. Beyond Airport Drive, the F-B LGA would cross over SR 204 and would run 

parallel to and east of the highway. The HSR would be constructed on an elevated viaduct

throughout this landscape unit, which is characterized primarily by commercial and industrial land 

uses, as well as cultivated fields south of 7th Standard Road. Roadway overcrossings of the 

viaduct would be built at 7th Standard Road, Snow Road, SR 99, Olive Drive, State Road, and 

Airport Drive.

Figure 3.16-26, Figure 3.16-27, and Figure 3.16-28 (KVPs 4, 5, and 6), provide simulations of the 

HSR at sites in the North Bakersfield Landscape Unit from the perspective of commuters and 

residents. KVP 4 is representative of visual effects from the F-B LGA overcrossings at highvolume roadways, while KVP 6 is representative of views of the elevated viaduct for motorists. As 

shown in KVP 4, the F-B LGA would be elevated on a viaduct below a new overcrossing for 7th 

Standard Road at the UPRR tracks and SR 99. Because of the height of the viaduct and roadway 

overcrossing above the flat agricultural landscape, these structures would be prominent and

directly in the field of view of motorists on Coffee Road. At this time, KVP 4 has moderately low 

visual quality because of the large expanses of exposed soil on the shoulder of Coffee Road and 

at recently planted orchards, the intrusion of existing roadway and rail infrastructure, and the 

industrial character of buildings adjacent to 7th Standard Road and SR 99. The F-B LGA would 

introduce additional prominent industrial features that would be incompatible with the agricultural

character of the foreground at KVP 4, incrementally degrading visual quality from moderately low, 

to low. However, commuters on Coffee Road would have moderately low sensitivity to these 

visual changes. The F-B LGA would, therefore, have a less than significant impact under CEQA

to commuters at Coffee Road. 

Similar to the elevated viaduct and new roadway overcrossing for 7th Standard Road at KVP 4, 

the elevated viaduct would be a prominent near-range feature at the overcrossing of SR 99 in the 

North Bakersfield Landscape Unit. At SR 99, the elevated viaduct would span the highway at a 

skewed angle for more than 660 feet, with a clearance of approximately 25 feet. Although this 

bridge would be prominent from the perspective of motorists, it would not substantially impair the 

already low visual quality of this industrial corridor. Motorists would have moderately low visual 

sensitivity in this area. The F-B LGA would, therefore, have a less than significant impact under 

CEQA to commuters on SR 99 at the HSR overcrossing.

Figure 3.16-28, KVP 6, features a more distant view of the elevated viaduct in the North 

Bakersfield Landscape Unit from the perspective of motorists in a commercial retail area at Olive 

Drive and Knudsen Drive at a distance of 0.2 mile. This area currently has moderately low visual 

quality because of the dominance of multi-lane roadways and the generic character of retail 

commercial development. The F-B LGA would introduce a linear element in the elevated viaduct, 

which would partially obstruct background views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The concrete 

exterior of the elevated viaduct would, however, be generally compatible with the multi-lane 

paved roads and surface parking lots currently present at commercial uses at KVP 6, and would 

not decrease the intactness or unity of the environment. In addition, only a narrow section of the 

viaduct would be visible between commercial buildings and the Olive Drive overpass of SR 99, 

and it would not be a dominant visual feature from a distance of 0.2 mile. Visual quality at KVP 6 

would remain moderately low. Motorists would have moderately low sensitivity to visual effects. 

The F-B LGA would, therefore, have a less than significant impact under CEQA to commuters at 

Olive Drive and Knudsen Drive.
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-60 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-61

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

KVP 4. Existing view from Coffee Road looking northeast toward SR 99 interchange at 7th Standard Road

KVP 4. Simulated view from Coffee Road looking northeast toward SR 99 interchange at 7th Standard Road (HSR is 

shown crossing under 7th Standard Road)

Figure 3.16-26 KVP 4 Existing and Simulated Views from Coffee Road Looking Northeast 

Toward SR 99 Interchange at 7th Standard Road
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-62 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

KVP 5. Existing view of Snow Road at Creemore Street in north Bakersfield

KVP 5. Simulated view of Snow Road at Creemore Street in north Bakersfield

Figure 3.16-27 KVP 5 Existing and Simulated Views of Snow Road at Creemore Street in 

North Bakersfield, Looking Northeast
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-63

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

KVP 6. Existing view of Olive Drive and Knudsen Drive in North Bakersfield looking northeast

KVP 6. Simulated view of Olive Drive and Knudsen Drive in North Bakersfield looking northeast

Figure 3.16-28 KVP 6 Existing and Simulated Views of Olive Drive and Knudsen Drive in 

North Bakersfield, Looking Northeast
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-64 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-65

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.16-27, KVP 5 shows a representative residential view of the F-B LGA, looking northeast 

from the intersection of Snow Road/Creemore Street at a distance of approximately 0.3 mile from 

the elevated viaduct. This view is currently characterized by single-family residences with 

landscaped yards and an industrial site in the foreground, plus the Sierra Nevada Mountains in 

the background. As at KVP 6, the viaduct would partially obstruct background views of the 

mountains. However, the viaduct would be compatible with the area’s industrial character and 

would not intrude into the foreground of residential views. Visual quality would remain moderately 

low at KVP 5. 

Nevertheless, this KVP is not fully representative of the proximity of residential views in the North 

Bakersfield Landscape Unit. As shown on Figure 3.16-11, the two-story, multifamily residential 

buildings and single-family residences along Norris Road to the west of SR 99 would have much 

closer and more direct views of the F-B LGA from a distance of at least 300 feet. The introduction 

of an elevated viaduct at this distance from residences would increase the industrial character of 

foreground views, contrasting with the residential character of the area and reducing visual 

intactness and unity. Visual quality would decline one level, from moderately low, to low. With the 

high sensitivity of residents to visual effects, the F-B LGA would have a significant impact to these 

residents under CEQA. 

The F-B LGA would cross the Kern River on an elevated viaduct roughly parallel to and between 

SR 204 and the UPRR. On the south side of the river, the alignment would cross over the Kern 

River Parkway Bike Trail. Figure 3.16-29, KVP 7, shows existing conditions and simulated views

on the Kern River Parkway Bike Trail, looking northward across the alignment toward the UPRR

bridge over the Kern River. This location has moderately high visual quality because of the 

predominance of grassland and riparian vegetation, despite the intrusion of urban elements like

the SR 204 and UPRR bridges and towers supporting power lines to the east. 

The F-B LGA would introduce another dominant urban element to the landscape, as shown in 

KVP 7, compatible with the existing bridges to the east and west. The viaduct would, however,

represent a further intrusion of urban features into a riparian area that is in effect a natural oasis 

in the urbanized center of Bakersfield. It also would partially block views of scenic elements from 

the recreational trail, including riparian vegetation, sky, and distant mountains. In addition, the 

proposed Bakersfield F Street Station would likely be visible approximately 650 feet to the 

southeast of the formally designated Kern River Parkway Bike Trail, further intensifying the urban 

character of the built environment. Existing utility towers adjacent to and northwest of the 

Bakersfield F Street Station site also would be relocated slightly northward and may be replaced 

with new towers that are 20 to 50 feet taller, which would be visible from the Kern River Parkway 

Bike Trail. However, changes in utility infrastructure near the station would not substantially alter 

the area’s visual setting because existing towers already intrude into the natural setting.

The introduction of an elevated viaduct and HSR station visible from the Kern River Parkway Bike 

Trail would reduce the intactness of the visual environment, causing a decline of one level in 

visual quality. Because of the high sensitivity of recreational users of the Kern River Parkway Bike 

Trail to visual elements, this decline in visual quality would be a significant impact under CEQA. 

Further impacts to the Kern River Parkway are discussed in Section 3.15.4 of Section 3.15,

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space, in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. 
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-66 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-67

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

KVP 7. Existing view of Kern River Parkway Bike Trail from SR 204 bridge looking north

KVP 7. Simulated view of Kern River Parkway Bike Trail from SR 204 bridge looking north

Figure 3.16-29 KVP 7 Existing and Simulated Views of Kern River Parkway Bike Trail 

toward Alignment
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-68 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-69

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

The elevated viaduct would also be briefly visible to commuters on the SR 204 bridge over the 

Kern River, where its supporting columns would be as close as 150 feet from the existing bridge. 

Eastward views from the bridge of riparian vegetation and grassland in the Kern River channel 

would be largely obstructed, and visual quality would decline from moderately high to moderate. 

Assuming that motorists are driving at 65 miles per hour on the 1,650-foot-long bridge, the 

viaduct would be visible for an estimated 17 seconds. They would have moderate sensitivity to 

visual changes but a limited duration of exposure while traversing the bridge. Impacts on 

motorists in the Kern River landscape unit would, therefore, be less than significant under CEQA. 

The F-B LGA would continue on an elevated viaduct throughout the Central Bakersfield 

Landscape Unit, first running parallel to and east of SR 204, then along Sumner Street. Roadway 

overcrossings of Chester Avenue, 30th Street, M Street, O Street, Q Street, SR 178, 24th Street, 

and Union Avenue would be constructed. As part of the F-B LGA, Bakersfield’s HSR station 

would be located on the north side of SR 204, opposite F Street.

Figure 3.16-30, KVP 8, shows existing views of the proposed Bakersfield F Street Station site and 

simulated views of a conceptual design of the station, looking northward from the SR 204 South 

Frontage Road. This view is typical from the edge of commercial properties adjoining SR 204 in 

the Central Bakersfield Landscape Unit, where expansive surface parking lots and generic 

commercial architecture predominate. Figure 3.16-15 and Figure 3.16-16 offer a close-up view of 

automotive commercial development and a vacant lot at the proposed Bakersfield F Street 

Station site, located immediately north of SR 204 from KVP 8. The current visual quality in this 

area is low. As shown in KVP 8, the station would be a dominant feature to the north of SR 204. 

Regardless of the station’s exact appearance, it would be designed with a distinctive and 

potentially iconic architectural form to create a beneficial change in visual character when viewed 

from adjacent locations in the Central Bakersfield Landscape Unit. 

By introducing a building with distinctive and attractive architecture, the station would 

substantially enhance the area’s vividness as compared to the representative commercial site in 

Image CBC-d on Figure 3.16-16. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#2a, the Authority

would work closely with the City of Bakersfield to develop and refine architectural, site design, 

and landscape treatments for the station and vicinity that enhance the area’s character through 

coherent and unified design and features that provide interest and integrate visually with the

context of nearby commercial and governmental uses. Whereas the existing pedestrian 

environment lacks sidewalks or consistent street tree plantings at SR 204 near F Street, 

extensive streetscape landscaping and improvements associated with the Bakersfield F Street 

Station would increase intactness and provide visual coherence as tree canopies mature. In 

addition, utility towers adjacent to and northwest of the Bakersfield F Street Station site would be 

relocated slightly northward and may be replaced with new towers that are 20 to 50 feet taller. 

Changes in utility tower infrastructure near the station would not substantially alter the area’s 

visual setting relative to existing utility towers.

The proposed Bakersfield F Street Station is also expected to have beneficial indirect effects on 

visual quality in surrounding areas. As discussed on page 3.16-68 in Section 3.16 of the Fresno 

to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, the HSR station would increase the potential for economic 

incentives through new development and redevelopment in nearby areas. This would likely 

influence development patterns near the station and could result in new project and urban design 

improvements that would improve the visual character and quality of these areas over time. In 

residential, railroad, highway, and industrial areas, no indirect effects are anticipated because no 

new development along the alignment is anticipated. The proposed Bakersfield F Street Station 

and anticipated new transit-oriented development would improve visual quality at KVP 8 by two 

levels, from low to moderate. 
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-70 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-71

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

KVP 8. Existing view from SR 204 South Frontage Road looking north toward 

proposed Bakersfield F Street Station site

KVP 8. Simulated view from SR 204 South Frontage Road looking north toward 

proposed Bakersfield F Street Station site

Figure 3.16-30 KVP 8 Existing and Simulated Views from SR 204 South Frontage Road, 

Looking North toward Bakersfield F Street Station Site
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-72 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-73

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Considering the moderately high viewer response of commuters on SR 204 and cross streets, 

and the high viewer sensitivity of residents to the south of SR 204, the station would have no 

adverse impact under CEQA. 

Roadway overcrossings on the F-B LGA also would affect the visual environment of motorists.

Figure 3.16-31, KVP 9, shows a representative site where the elevated guideway would cross 

Chester Avenue just north of Garces Circle. Currently, this segment has moderate visual quality, 

with some topographic diversity at the UPRR undercrossing, a median paved with rounded 

bricks, and prominent roadside trees. The viaduct would introduce a dominant, imposing feature 

at KVP 9 that frames northward views toward the UPRR bridge and the commercial corridor 

beyond. Although the viaduct would be compatible in form with the UPRR bridge to the north and 

the SR 204 bridge over Garces Circle to the south, it would greatly intensify the urban character 

of KVP 9. Visual quality would decline one level to moderately low. Given that commuters in this 

area would have moderate viewer sensitivity, impacts would be less than significant under CEQA. 

To the north of the UPRR overcrossing, the Chester Avenue corridor has a moderately high 

degree of vividness because of the distinctive Beaux Arts and Mission Revival architecture of the 

Kern County Museum. A proposed realignment of Chester Avenue near the Bakersfield F Street 

Station site would occur within approximately 480 feet of the Beale Memorial Clock Tower, and a 

road providing access to the station from Chester Avenue would be constructed approximately 

790 feet to the south. Although roadwork on Chester Avenue would be visible from the Kern 

County Museum property, it would not occur adjacent to the site and would not substantially 

intrude on views of historic architecture available to museum visitors. Furthermore, streetscape 

landscaping and improvements on Chester Avenue would increase intactness and provide visual 

coherence as tree canopies mature. Impacts would, therefore, be less than significant under 

CEQA. Visual impacts on the Valley Oaks Charter School in the Chester Avenue corridor are 

discussed separately in Impact #AVR-5.

Aside from the residences across SR 204 from the proposed Bakersfield F Street Station site, the 

nearest residences to the F-B LGA in the Central Bakersfield Landscape Unit would be located in 

a neighborhood along Q Street, as close as approximately 350 feet northeast of the F-B LGA. 

Figure 3.16-32, KVP 10, shows a representative site in this residential neighborhood at the 

intersection of San Dimas Street and Homaker Place, located within approximately 475 feet of the 

proposed HSR overcrossing of SR 178. The neighborhood has moderately low visual quality as 

the presence of the elevated concrete structure and columns of SR 178, as well as adjacent 

industrial development and warehouses along the UPRR tracks to the south, reduces the 

intactness and unity of the residential streets. The HSR viaduct would be constructed south of the 

UPRR tracks and would cross over an elevated segment of SR 178 east of Q Street, where its 

concrete or steel parapet and concrete columns would be visually compatible in scale and 

character with the SR 178 structure and surrounding industrial development. Because the viaduct 

would not represent a substantial urban intrusion beyond existing industrial development and 

highway infrastructure, visual quality would remain moderately low. Despite the high sensitivity of 

residents to their visual environment, impacts would be less than significant under CEQA. 

In addition to the proposed Bakersfield F Street Station and elevated viaduct, the F-B LGA would 

involve utility improvements at a site with existing power lines and towers to the west of Union 

Avenue and north of 30th Street. The expansion of power lines at this site would not further 

degrade its low visual quality and could represent an improvement if screened from public view 

by landscaping and a wall or fence. These utility improvements would, therefore, have potentially

beneficial effects on visual quality and less than significant impacts under CEQA. 
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-74 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-75

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

KVP 9. Existing view from Garces Circle in central Bakersfield

KVP 9. Simulated view from Garces Circle in central Bakersfield

Figure 3.16-31 KVP 9 Existing and Simulated Views from Garces Circle in Central 

Bakersfield Looking North
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-76 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

KVP 10. Existing view from intersection of San Dimas Street and Homaker Place

KVP 10. Simulated view from intersection of San Dimas Street and Homaker Place

Figure 3.16-32 KVP 10 Existing and Simulated Views at the Intersection of San Dimas 

Street and Homaker Place
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-77

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

The F-B LGA would be constructed on an elevated viaduct between SR 204 and the UPRR, and 

parallel to those transportation corridors, in the primarily industrial East Bakersfield Landscape 

Unit. Most of the viaduct would be supported by straddle bents that span Sumner Street and 

Edison Highway. Although the corridor is mainly industrial, Figure 3.16-33, KVP 11, shows 

existing conditions and the simulated viaduct over a commercial retail segment of Sumner Street 

near Baker Street. This part of Sumner Street has a moderate degree of vividness because of the 

distinct architectural character of two-story retail commercial stores, and moderate visual quality. 

KVP 11 demonstrates that the F-B LGA would transform the area by introducing an elevated 

viaduct on straddle bents that looms over the adjacent commercial stores, shades the 

streetscape, and blocks views of the sky. This overhead railway would exhibit an industrial and 

utilitarian character that degrades the intactness and unity of the commercial corridor, reducing its 

visual quality by two levels, from moderate to low. Considering the moderate viewer sensitivity of 

motorists on Sumner Street and cross-streets, the F-B LGA would have a significant impact under 

CEQA. 

At the Mercado Latino Tianguis, a marketplace and Latino cultural center on the south side of 

Edison Highway, Figure 3.16-34, KVP 12, shows existing conditions and the simulated viaduct. 

As shown in Figure 3.16-20, this site has colorful flagpoles and an outdoor market that enhance 

its vividness, but the surrounding highway and vacant gravel-filled space adjacent to the UPRR

reduce the existing visual quality to a moderately low level. Columns supporting the elevated 

viaduct would displace the northern edge of the Mercado Latino Tianguis, introducing a largescale industrial element that is incompatible with the distinct, nonindustrial character of the 

abutting commercial and cultural site. The viaduct would reduce the intactness and unity of the 

area, decreasing visual quality by one level, from moderately low, to low. Considering the cultural 

importance of the market to the Latino community, an environmental justice population, visitors 

would have moderately high viewer sensitivity. However, the viewer sensitivity of visitors would 

not rise to the high level characteristic of residents who care deeply about the visual quality of 

their neighborhood or recreational trail users with scenic views. Motorists on Edison Highway 

would have moderately low viewer sensitivity in this largely industrial corridor. Based on the 

decline in visual quality and viewer sensitivity, visual impacts to the Mercado Latino Tianguis 

would be less than significant under CEQA. As discussed in Chapter 5 of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS, minority and low-income populations in the East Bakersfield Landscape Unit would bear 

a higher burden than the larger reference community experience from project-period aesthetic 

impacts. 

The elevated viaduct over Edison Highway and ancillary F-B LGA facilities would be constructed 

in view of residential neighborhoods. Residents at a three-story apartment building located 

adjacent to and north of the UPRR would have unobstructed views of the elevated HSR guideway 

above Edison Highway (Figure 3.16-22). In addition, single-family residences on the north side of 

the UPRR also would have partially obstructed views of the alignment on Edison Highway. The 

visual quality of the vacant lot and the HSR alignment is low, in keeping with the overall industrial 

character of the East Bakersfield Landscape Unit. Although the F-B LGA would introduce 

industrial elements at the operations yard and the elevated viaduct, which may be visually 

incompatible with nearby residences, visual quality would remain low. With little change from 

existing visual quality, impacts to residents near Edison Highway would have a less than 

significant impact under CEQA. 
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-78 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-79

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

KVP 11. Existing view to southeast on Sumner Street at Baker Street in east Bakersfield

KVP 11. Simulated view to southeast on Sumner Street at Baker Street in east Bakersfield

Figure 3.16-33 KVP 11 Existing and Simulated Views on Sumner Street at Baker Street

in East Bakersfield
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-80 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

KVP 12. Existing view of the Mercado Latino Tianguis in east Bakersfield looking west from Edison Highway

KVP 12. Simulated view of Mercado Latino Tianguis in east Bakersfield looking west from Edison Highway

Figure 3.16-34 KVP 12 Existing and Simulated Views of the Mercado Latino Tianguis in 

East Bakersfield Looking West from Edison Highway
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-81

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact AVR #5–Visual Quality Effects to Schools

The following schools were identified within 0.25 mile of the F-B LGA. As discussed on page 

3.16-135 in Section 3.16 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA

2014a), schools (or other sensitive receptors) within this 0.25-mile immediate foreground distance

could be impacted by the F-B LGA. At distances greater than approximately 0.25 mile, even 

major project structures in urban areas where schools are located would likely cause little change 

to visual quality and have little visual impact. Within the 0.25-mile zone, potential impacts would 

depend highly on site-specific factors, which are discussed below for the individual schools 

relevant to the F-B LGA. School viewers are not presumed to have universally high viewer 

sensitivity. For example, students engaged in outdoor sports are assumed to be focused on the 

sports activity and not primarily concerned with scenic quality.

This school is located 0.14 mile from the F-B LGA. The elevated viaduct could be visible to a 

limited extent over the top of intervening buildings to the northeast. Primary outdoor use areas 

are located, however, on the west side of the school, where the school buildings would obstruct 

views of the viaduct. Because viewer exposure is low from this site, the project would not 

substantially change the vividness, intactness, or unity of views from the school. With low viewer 

exposure and moderate viewer sensitivity, the viewer response would be moderately low. The 

F-B LGA would, therefore, have a less than significant impact under CEQA. Because of the 

distance of guideways from the primary outdoor use areas and the intervening school buildings, 

shadow impacts would not occur.

This school is located 0.14 mile from the F-B LGA. The elevated viaduct of the F-B LGA would be 

visible from the northeastern corner of the school grounds. The viaduct in this section would be

elevated approximately 16.5 feet above ground level, with OCS poles and wires extending up to 

approximately 23 feet above the guideway. The exposed area with potential views is very limited,

however, consisting of a small parking lot and portions of the school entrance. Views from 

primary outdoor use areas would be blocked by intervening structures. Because viewer exposure 

is low from this site and viewer sensitivity is moderate, viewer response would be moderately low. 

For that reason, and because the project would not change the vividness, intactness, or unity of 

views from the school, the impact would be less than significant under CEQA. 

Although located 0.11 mile from the F-B LGA in Shafter, the Free Will Christian Academy is in an 

area northeast of the ROW in which views of the alignment would be visible behind a foreground 

of industrial land uses and vacant lots with low visual quality. Viewer response in this area is 

considered less sensitive than in the downtown area, and moderate at this site due to lower 

expectations of viewers in the context of the prevailing industrial character of adjacent land uses. 

The elevated viaduct would result in a moderate decline in visual intactness, unity, and overall 

visual quality. Together with moderate viewer response, the impact would be less than significant 

under CEQA. 

This school is located 0.08 mile from the elevated viaduct for the proposed F-B LGA in central 

Bakersfield, across the UPRR tracks, and adjacent to a proposed roadway from the Bakersfield F 

Street Station to Chester Avenue near 34th Street. Construction of this roadway would entail 

demolition of a building on the southern part of the school property and part of an associated 

surface parking lot. To the immediate southwest of the school, the new roadway would cross the 

UPRR railway on an overpass. Primary outdoor use areas at the Valley Oaks Charter School 

would have direct exposure to the concrete columns and guideway of the elevated viaduct and to 

the new roadway. These are all urban elements that would result in a substantial decline in visual 

3 The name of Free Will Christian Academy was misspelled as Freewill Christian Academy on page 3.16-

137 in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014).
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-82 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

intactness, unity, and overall visual quality. Considering the moderate viewer response onsite, the 

F-B LGA would have a significant impact under CEQA. The guideways would be a sufficient 

distance from the primary outdoor use areas at the Valley Oaks Charter School that substantial 

shadow impacts would not be anticipated.

Bethel Christian School would be located 0.10 mile southwest of the F-B LGA at its nearest point. 

The elevated viaduct in this section would be approximately 50 feet above-grade and could be 

partially visible in the distance. Views from the school playgrounds would be limited, however, by 

intervening structures and landscaping. The viaduct would have similar visual character to the 

transportation and commercial facilities viewed from the school. The project would not disrupt the 

unity of the existing views or reduce the intactness and vividness of the landscape as visual 

quality would remain moderately low. The F-B LGA would, therefore, have a less than significant

impact under CEQA. The guideways would be a sufficient distance from the school playgrounds 

that substantial shadow impacts would not be anticipated.

Ramon Garza Elementary and Sierra Middle schools are adjacent to each other in East 

Bakersfield and are about 0.12 mile north of the F-B LGA at their nearest point. The elevated 

viaduct would be visible from the school playfields, primarily behind a visual foreground of nearby 

single-story residences that would filter, but not completely block, views of the viaduct. At this 

distance, the viaduct would be prominent, remaining visible above the rooftops of intervening 

residences. The viaduct would represent an industrial structure of somewhat incompatible 

character, although it would not pass through the center of the neighborhood, and would be seen 

in the backdrop of an existing setting of low existing visual intactness and vividness and 

moderately low unity. Introduction of the viaduct would further lower visual unity. This would 

reduce visual quality from moderately low to low. Viewers engaged in active recreation are 

typically considered to be focused on their sports activities and not primarily concerned with 

scenic quality. Viewer sensitivity and response in the school playfields is thus considered 

moderate. The reduction in visual quality of one level combined with moderate viewer response

would have a less than significant impact under CEQA. The guideways would be a sufficient 

distance from the schoolyard that substantial shadow impacts would not be anticipated.

3.16.5 Avoidance and Minimization Measures

All of the avoidance and minimization measures for aesthetics and visual resources (referred to 

as project design features in Section 3.16.6 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS

[Authority and FRA 2014]) are applicable to the F-B LGA. The applicable list is provided in 

Technical Appendix 2-G Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Plan. Technical Appendix 2-H 

describes how implementation of these measures would reduce adverse effects on visual 

resources and quality. The following avoidance and minimization measures would be applicable 

to the May 2014 Project as well as the F-B LGA: 

• AVR-IAMM#1: Design Standards: This measure reduces the aesthetic and visual impacts

of the HSR infrastructure components, including stations and elevated guideways, by

applying design approaches to integrate structures in a community and to reduce the

intrusiveness of large, elevated structures. It will also provide some consistency in the HSR

design throughout the program. This action reduces the aesthetic and visual impacts of the

HSR by providing urban design guidelines to be evaluated and applied, increasing the

compatibility of the HSR infrastructure in an existing, specific local design context.

3.16.6 Mitigation Measures

3.16.6.1 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final EIR/EIS

The following mitigation measures were approved under the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Mitigation and Monitoring Enforcement Plan (Authority and FRA 2014:1-51 through 1-57). All of

the mitigation measures listed in Table 3.16-3 are applicable to the F-B LGA. 
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-83

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.16-3 Mitigation Measures Applicable to the F-B LGA

Number Description Applicability to the F-B LGA

AVR-MM#1a Minimize Visual Disruption from 

Construction Activities

Under the F-B LGA, this requirement would be 

implemented to minimize visual disruption during 

construction.

AVR-MM#1b Minimize Light Disturbance during 

Construction

Under the F-B LGA, this requirement to minimize offsite 

spillover of light during construction would be 

implemented.

AVR-MM#2a Incorporate Design Criteria for Elevated 

and Station Elements That Can Adapt to 

Local Context

Under the F-B LGA, these activities and actions would 

be applied to the proposed Bakersfield F Street Station 

design.

AVR-MM#2b Integrate Elevated Guideway into 

Affected Cities, Parks, Trail, and Urban 

Core Designs

Under the F-B LGA, the Authority will work with the City 

of Shafter, Kern County, and the City of Bakersfield to 

develop a project site and landscape design plan for 

the area of disturbance.

AVR-MM#2c Screen At-Grade and Elevated 

Guideways Adjacent to Residential 

Areas

Under the F-B LGA, these measures would be 

implemented to screen at-grade and elevated viaducts 

adjacent to residential areas.

AVR-MM#2d Replant Unused Portions of Lands 

Acquired for the HSR 

Under the F-B LGA, these standards for replanting of 

unused portions of land acquired for the HSR system 

would be implemented to minimize and avoid aesthetic 

effects.

AVR-MM#2e Provide Offsite Landscape Screening 

Where Appropriate

Under the F-B LGA, offsite landscaping screening 

would be provided as appropriate.

AVR-MM#2f Landscape Treatments along the HSR

Project Overcrossings and Retained Fill 

Elements of the HSR

Under the F-B LGA, these landscape treatments would 

be implemented at HSR overcrossings and retained-fill 

elements.

AVR-MM#2g Provide Sound Barrier Treatments Under the F-B LGA, these sound barrier treatments 

would be implemented for visually sensitive areas.

AVR-MM#2h Screen Traction Power Distribution 

Stations and Radio Communication 

Towers

Under the F-B LGA, these screening measures would 

be implemented at the traction power supply station 

and radio communication towers.

Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#1a is intended to minimize visual disruption from construction 

activities. The Authority will ensure that the project contractor will adhere to the construction 

requirements of local jurisdictions regarding visual/aesthetic disruption. Required actions include 

minimizing pre-construction clearing, limiting the removal of buildings, preserving existing 

vegetation where possible, revegetating disturbed areas after construction, and locating staging 

areas outside the immediate foreground distance of high-sensitivity viewers. These requirements 

will minimize changes to visual quality during construction, reducing potential impacts to less than 

significant under CEQA. 

Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#1b addresses light disturbance during construction. Where 

construction lighting will be required during nighttime construction, the Authority will require the

contractor to shield and direct downward light sources such that they are not visible offsite and 

light does not spill over offsite. This measure will avoid intrusive nighttime lighting during 

construction in rural and urban areas, resulting in less than significant impacts under CEQA from 

construction-period light and glare. 

As discussed in Chapter 5 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, Mitigation Measures AVR-MM#1a 

and AVR-MM#1b also would minimize construction-period aesthetic impacts on all populations, 

including for environmental justice communities. Therefore, minorities and low-income 

populations would not experience disproportionately adverse impacts during construction.
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-84 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Mitigation Measures AVR-MM#2a through AVR-MM#2h apply to project-period aesthetic impacts. 

Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#2a addresses design criteria for elevated HSR guideways and 

stations. During the final design phase for elevated guideways and the Bakersfield station, this 

measure requires that the Authority require the project contractor to coordinate with local 

jurisdictions on the design of these facilities so that they fit appropriately with the visual context of 

the areas near them. Actions taken to achieve appropriate design will include, but are not limited 

to, attractive architectural elements at the HSR station, parking structures at the station that 

integrate visually into the surrounding area, and attractive sculptural forms and decorative 

surfaces on elevation guideways and columns. These requirements will minimize impacts on 

visual quality from HSR structures.

Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#2b addresses the design and landscaping of areas disturbed by 

elevated guideways. During the final design phase, the Authority will work with local jurisdictions 

to develop a project site and landscape design plan for areas disturbed by the project. By 

following these plans, the design features identified in Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#2a and PKMM#3 will be implemented. These requirements will minimize impacts on visual quality from atgrade and elevated HSR structures, road overcrossings, sound barriers, and other prominent 

features.

Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#2c addresses the screening of at-grade and elevated guideways 

adjacent to residential areas. Consistent with the design features developed under AVR-MM#2a, 

the Authority will ensure that the project contractor will plant trees along the edges of ROW in 

locations adjacent to residential areas during the construction phase. Trees will be continuously 

maintained in the post-construction phase with appropriate irrigated systems. As for Mitigation 

Measures AVR-MM#2e, AVR-MM#2f, and AVR-MM#2h, the contractor will be responsible for 

implementation until substantial completion of its scope of work, at which time the Authority will 

assume responsibility for landscaping. This measure will help reduce the visual contrast between 

the elevated guideway and residential areas. Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#2c would be amended 

for the F-B LGA to also apply to raised embankments adjacent to rural residences in the Rural 

San Joaquin Valley landscape unit.

Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#2d applies generally where lands are acquired for the HSR project, 

but would remain unused (e.g., shifting roadways). After construction is complete, the Authority

will plant and continuously maintain vegetation on these unused lands. All street trees and other 

visually important vegetation removed in these areas during construction will be replaced with 

similar vegetation. This measure will minimize impacts on visual quality in areas where roadways 

are realigned by replacing roadside vegetation and screening prominent HSR features.

Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#2e will provide offsite landscape screening after construction is 

complete. This offsite screening will apply where onsite screening measures under AVR-MM#2c 

cannot provide effective screening to significantly affected high-sensitivity viewers, if desired by 

affected residential owners. This measure will minimize impacts on visual quality from prominent 

project features, especially in rural residential areas.

Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#2f will provide landscape treatments along HSR overcrossings and 

retained-fill elements. Upon the completion of construction, the Authority will ensure that the

contractor will landscape areas supporting slope-fill overpasses and retained-fill elements with 

vegetation consistent with the surrounding landscape in terms of vegetative type, color, texture, 

and form. During final design, the Authority will consult with the affected local jurisdictions 

regarding this landscaping program. This measure will minimize impacts on visual quality in rural 

and urban areas from HSR overcrossings and retained fill elements.

Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#2g addresses the design of sound barriers. The Authority will 

ensure that the contractor will design a range of sound barrier treatments for visually sensitive 

areas, such as those where residential views of open landscape would change or in urban areas 

where sound barriers would adversely affect visual quality. The Authority will develop the 

treatments and integrate them into the final project design. Design features will minimize impacts 

on visual quality from sound barriers.
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-85

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#2h addresses views of traction power supply stations and radio 

communication towers. Upon completion of these facilities, the Authority will ensure that the

contractor will screen them from public view with context-sensitive landscaping or solid 

walls/fences. This measure will minimize impacts on visual quality from traction power supply 

stations and radio communication towers.

The above mitigation measures require the minimization of visual disruption and light spillover 

during construction, context-sensitive design of HSR structures, and landscape screening. These 

activities will result in negligible adverse impacts on the physical environment when the mitigation 

measures are in place. The secondary impacts of aesthetic mitigation measures would be less 

than significant under CEQA. 

3.16.6.2 Mitigation Measures Specific to the F-B LGA

In addition to mitigation measures approved for the May 2014 Project that would apply as written 

to the F-B LGA, the scope of Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#2c would be expanded to ensure 

screening of raised embankments adjacent to rural residences in the Rural San Joaquin Valley 

landscape unit. Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#2i also would be required to minimize project-period 

impacts to visual quality at the Kern River Parkway Bike Trail. This mitigation measure has been 

developed for consistency with the Urban Design Guidelines: California High-Speed Train Project 

(Authority 2011b) and the Aesthetic Guidelines for Non-Station Structures (Authority 2011a).

Table 3.16-4 lists the mitigation measures that are specific to the F-B LGA, with new additional 

language underlined.

Table 3.16-4 Mitigation Measures Specific to the F-B LGA

Number Description

AVR-MM#2c Screen At-Grade, Raised Embankments, and Elevated Guideways Adjacent to Residential 

Areas. Consistent with the design features developed under AVR-MM#2a, the contractor will 

plant trees along the edges of the rights-of-way in locations adjacent to residential areas. This 

will help reduce the visual contrast between the elevated guideway or raised embankment and 

the residential area. The species of trees to be installed will be selected on the basis of their 

mature size and shape, growth rate, hardiness, and drought tolerance. No species that is 

listed on the Invasive Species Council of California’s list of invasive species will be planted. 

The crowns of trees used should ultimately be tall enough so that upon maturity they will 

partially, or fully, block or screen views of the elevated guideway or raised embankment from 

adjacent at-grade areas. Trees should allow ground-level views under the crowns (with 

pruning if necessary) while not interfering with the 15-foot clearance requirement for the 

guideway. The trees will be continuously maintained and appropriate irrigation systems will be 

installed within the tree planting areas.

AVR-MM#2i Install Decorative Parapet Design at Kern River Crossing. Consistent with Mitigation Measure 

AVR-MM#2a. During final design of the elevated viaduct over the Kern River and the Kern 

River Parkway Bike Trail, the Authority will consult with the City of Bakersfield to design a 

decorative parapet that fits with the viaduct’s visual context. Reveals or recessed surfaces and 

motifs reflecting the natural environment of the Kern River shall be used on the outside 

surface of the parapet. The parapet and box girder shall be designed as a unified visual 

composition.

Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#2c, as amended, is intended to minimize changes to visual quality 

from the introduction of raised embankments as well as from elevated viaducts adjacent to 

residences. As discussed with respect to KVPs 2 and 3 in Section 3.16.4.2, the embankment fill 

profile with its elevated berm, security fencing, and OCS poles and wires would degrade visual 

quality in the flat agricultural landscape between Shafter and northern Bakersfield. Rural 

residences in this area would be located as close as approximately 130 feet away from HSR

facilities and 340 feet from the centerline of raised embankments. Landscape screening would 

reduce the exposure of nearby rural residents to these prominent industrial structures. Offsite 
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-86 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

landscape screening would further minimize exposure to HSR structures. However, it is uncertain 

if screening would completely obstruct residential views of embankments, viaducts, and 

associated structures. Trees planted for screening purposes could also obstruct desired 

residential views of existing features in the natural or cultural environment. Therefore, landscape 

screening would not necessarily ensure that residual impacts after mitigation would be less than 

significant under CEQA. 

Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#2i is appropriate at the Kern River Parkway Bike Trail because it 

would soften the industrial character of the prominent elevated viaduct without further obstructing 

trail users’ scenic views of the natural environment. Alternatively, landscape screening could 

minimize views of the viaduct where it crosses the trail, but such mitigation would have the 

unintended effect of blocking scenic views of riparian habitat. While decorative parapets would be 

the most feasible option for mitigation at KVP 7, they would not fully compensate for the 

introduction of a dominant urban structure in a natural riparian area or for the obstruction of views 

of scenic elements from the recreational trail. The viaduct would still cause a decline in visual

quality resulting in a significant impact under CEQA. 

With implementation of Mitigation Measures AVR-MM#1a through AVR-MM#2i, adverse effects 

associated with construction activities and the introduction of prominent HSR structures would be 

mitigated to the extent feasible. These mitigation measures identify responsible parties (the 

project contractor and the Authority) for each phase of the project (pre-construction, construction, 

and post-construction/operation) to ensure that the requirements are appropriately implemented.

Nevertheless, mitigation measures for context-sensitive design of HSR structures, landscape 

screening, and decorative treatments would not substantially minimize adverse project-period 

impacts to visual quality from the introduction of permanent physical infrastructure, particularly 

HSR guideways with elevated structures, raised embankments, and retaining walls, and 

associated overpasses. Even after the implementation of project-period mitigation measures, 

changes to visual quality at certain sensitive viewpoints from the introduction of prominent 

infrastructure would result in significant impacts under CEQA. As discussed in Chapter 5 of this 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, because these mitigation measures do not eliminate adverse 

impacts in areas containing minority and low-income populations, and because these 

communities would bear a higher burden from these impacts when compared to the larger 

reference community, project operation would have disproportionately high and adverse effects 

on minority and low-income populations in the Shafter Town, Kern River, and East Bakersfield 

landscape units. 

Table 3.16-5 summarizes construction-period and project-period impacts before mitigation and 

after mitigation, and lists the specific mitigation measures that would apply to each significant 

impact.

Table 3.16-5 Summary of Visual Resources Impacts after Mitigation

Location KVP # Level of Significance Before 

Mitigation

Mitigation 

Measure(s)

Level of Significance After 

Mitigation

Construction-Period Impacts

Impact AVR #1. Construction Impacts on Scenic Vistas

All All Less than Significant n/a Less than Significant

Impact AVR #2. Construction Impacts on Existing Visual Quality

All All Potentially Significant AVR-MM#1a Less than Significant

Impact AVR #3. Construction Impacts from Light and Glare

All All Potentially Significant AVR-MM#1b Less than Significant
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.16-87

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Location KVP # Level of Significance Before 

Mitigation

Mitigation 

Measure(s)

Level of Significance After 

Mitigation

Project-Period Impacts

Impact AVR #4. Change to Visual Quality

Shafter Town Landscape Unit

Shafter Depot 

Museum

KVP 1 Potentially Significant AVR-MM#2f

AVR-MM#2g

Significant and Unavoidable

Rural San Joaquin Valley Landscape Unit

Burbank Street KVP 2 Potentially Significant AVR-MM#2a

AVR-MM#2b

AVR-MM#2c

AVR-MM#2e

Significant and Unavoidable

Verdugo Lane KVP 3 Potentially Significant AVR-MM#2e Significant and Unavoidable

North Bakersfield Landscape Unit

Coffee Road KVP 4 Less than Significant n/a Less than Significant

Snow Road at 

Creemore Street

KVP 5 Less than Significant n/a Less than Significant

Norris Road west 

of SR 99

N/A Potentially Significant AVR-MM#2a

AVR-MM#2b

AVR-MM#2c

AVR-MM#2e

AVR-MM#2g

Significant and Unavoidable

Olive Drive at 

Knudsen Drive

KVP 6 Less than Significant n/a Less than Significant

Kern River Landscape Unit

Kern River 

Parkway Bike Trail

KVP 7 Potentially Significant AVR-MM#2a

AVR-MM#2b

AVR-MM#2g

AVR-MM#2i

Significant and Unavoidable

Central Bakersfield Landscape Unit

SR 204 South 

Frontage Road, 

looking toward F 

Street Station Site

KVP 8 No Impact n/a No Impact

Garces Circle KVP 9 Less than Significant n/a Less than Significant

San Dimas Street 

at Homaker Place

KVP 10 Less than Significant n/a Less than Significant

East Bakersfield Landscape Unit

Sumner Street at 

Baker Street

KVP 11 Potentially Significant AVR-MM#2a

AVR-MM#2b

AVR-MM#2g

Significant and Unavoidable

Mercado Latino 

Tianguis

KVP 12 Less than Significant n/a Less than Significant

Impact AVR #5. Visual Quality Effects to Schools
Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.16-88 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Location KVP # Level of Significance Before Mitigation Level of Significance After 

Mitigation Measure(s) Mitigation

Richland Junior n/a Less than Significant n/a Less than Significant

High School

Free Will Christian n/a Less than Significant n/a Less than Significant

Academy

Valley Oaks n/a Potentially Significant AVR-MM#2a Significant and Unavoidable

Charter School AVR-MM#2b

AVR-MM#2e

AVR-MM#2f

AVR-MM#2g

Bethel Christian n/a Less than Significant n/a Less than Significant

School

Ramon Garza n/a Less than Significant n/a Less than Significant

Elementary 

School/Sierra 

Middle School