HomeMy WebLinkAboutUntitled
Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Administrative Draft EIR 13.1 ORIGINAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Administrative Draft EIR 13.2 AMENDED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Administrative Draft EIR 13.3 INITIAL STUDY /NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) /NOP RESPONSES
INITIAL STUDY
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 Amended Hillside Ordinance LEAD AGENCY: City of Bakersfield 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield,
CA 93301 Contact: Mr. Marc Gauthier (661) 326-3733 June 2008 JN 60-100489
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Statutory Authority
and Requirements .................................................................................. 1 1.2 Consultation ................................................................................
........................................... 1 1.3 Incorporation by Reference.................................................................................................... 2 2.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Project Location and Setting .................................
................................................................ 2 2.2 Project Background .............................................................................................................
.. 5 2.3 Project Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Project Objectives .................................
............................................................................... 12 2.5 Agreements, Permits and Approvals...............................................................................
..... 13 3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST........................................................................................................ 14 3.1 Background ........................................
................................................................................. 14 3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...................................................................
...... 15 3.3 Lead Agency Determination................................................................................................. 15 3.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts....................
............................................................... 16 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................
......... 25 4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................ 25 4.2 Agricultural Resources
......................................................................................................... 26 4.3 Air Quality...........................................................................
................................................. 27 4.4 Biological Resources............................................................................................................
28 4.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 30 4.6 Geology and Soils .....................................
........................................................................... 31 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.....................................................................................
.. 33 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................... 35 4.9 Land Use and Planning ....................................
................................................................... 38 4.10 Mineral Resources .........................................................................................................
...... 39 4.11 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 39 4.12 Population and Housing
....................................................................................................... 40 4.13 Public Services .......................................................................
............................................. 41 4.14 Recreation ............................................................................................................................
42 4.15 Transportation/Traffic ........................................................................................................... 42 4.16 Utilities and Service Systems.......................
........................................................................ 43 4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................................
.. 45 LIST OF EXHIBITS 1 Regional Vicinity .............................................................................................................................. 3 2 Local Vicinity
................................................................................................................................... 4 3 Hillside Development Zoning Location...........................
.................................................................. 6 4 Hillside Development Zone -West.................................................................................................
.. 9 5 Hillside Development Zone Zone -East.................................................................................................. 10 LIST OF TABLES 1 Amended Hillside Ordinance
Provisions and Regulations............................................................. 11 JN 60-100489 i Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Initial Study (and subsequent EIR) is being prepared in compliance with a writ
of mandate issued by the Kern County Superior Court in a lawsuit entitled DKS Investments, LLC, et. al. v. The City of Bakersfield, et al., Kern County Superior Court Case No. S-1500-CV-259731
KCT (Lawsuit). DKS Investments, LLC, Canyons, LLC, General Holding, Inc., John M. Tarabino and Joseph Tarabino (petitioners) filed the Lawsuit to challenge the adequacy of the Negative
Declaration prepared by the City of Bakersfield for the amendments to the Hillside Development Combining Zone, Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, adopted on November 15, 2006.
The petitioners alleged that the City should have prepared an EIR to evaluate the potential significant impacts of the amendments to the Hillside Ordinance with respect to the potential
for lower density development which may result in the loss of agricultural land, increased air pollution, and increased energy consumption. The Kern County Superior Court agreed and,
on March 21, 2008, entered a judgment requiring the City to prepare an EIR and allowing the Hillside Ordinance to remain in effect while the City performs additional environmental review.
This Initial Study has been prepared to identify the potential significant impacts to be addressed in the EIR required by the judgment. 1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS In accordance
with CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.), this Initial Study has been prepared to analyze the Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance, as amended on November 15,
2006 (Amended Hillside Ordinance) in order to identify any potential significant impacts upon the environment that would result from implementation of the Amended Hillside Ordinance.
The purpose of this Initial Study is to inform the City of Bakersfield decision-makers, affected agencies, and the public of potential environmental impacts associated with implementation
of the Amended Hillside Ordinance. Based upon the potential significant environmental effects associated with the Amended Hillside Ordinance, an EIR will be prepared to further evaluate
issues identified in this Initial Study. Therefore, this Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) serve as part of the scoping process to determine the appropriate environmental
analysis for the proposed Project. The Initial Study and NOP will undergo a 30-day public review period. During this review, comments by the public and responsible agencies on the Project
relative to environmental issues are to be submitted to the City of Bakersfield. The City will review and consider all comments as a part of the Project’s environmental analysis as required
in Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines. The comments received with regard to this NOP and Initial Study will be included in the EIR, for consideration by the City of Bakersfield. 1.2
CONSULTATION As soon as the Lead Agency has determined that an Initial Study would be required for a Project, the Lead Agency is directed to consult informally with all Responsible Agencies
and Trustee Agencies that are responsible for resources affected by the Project, in order to obtain the recommendations of those agencies on the EIR to be prepared for the JN 60-100489
2 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance Project. Following the City of Bakersfield’s receipt of any written comments from those agencies,
the City of Bakersfield would consider any recommendations of those agencies in the formulation of the City of Bakersfield’s preliminary findings. Following preparation of this Initial
Study, the City of Bakersfield would initiate formal consultation with these and other governmental agencies as required under CEQA and its implementing guidelines. 1.2 1.3 INCORPORATION
BY REFERENCE The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study. These documents are available for review at the City of Bakersfield Department of Development
Services located at 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301. Bakersfield Housing Element of the General Plan, January 2003. CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, Office of Planning and
Research, 2007. CEQA Implementation Procedures, City of Bakersfield. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, December 2002. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Environmental Impact
Report, June 26, 2002. Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, August 1994. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of amendments to the Hillside Development Combining
Zone, Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, which were adopted on November 15, 2006 (Amended Hillside Ordinance). The Amended Hillside Ordinance is intended to define and implement
the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as they relate to the preservation and maintenance of hillsides as a scenic resource of the City and to protect the
public from the threat of wildfire, hillside instability and landslides. The Amended Hillside Ordinance is a resource protection measure that amended the HD zone by creating slope and
viewshed protection areas that restrict development on steep slopes and ridgelines. 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING The City of Bakersfield lies near the southern end of the San Joaquin
Valley, with the southern tip of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east (refer to Exhibit 1, REGIONAL VICINTY). The City limits extend to the Sequoia National Forest, at the foot of
the Greenhorn Mountain Range, and at the entrance to the Kern Canyon. To the south lies the Tehachapi Mountains. To the west is the Temblor Range, which features the Carrizo Plain National
Monument and the San Andreas Fault, approximately 35 miles across the valley floor. The Hillside Development Combining Zone is located in the northeastern portion of the City of Bakersfield
(refer to Exhibit 2, LOCAL VICINITY). In northeast Bakersfield, the topography has been shaped by the Sierra Nevada Mountains drainage patterns and the uplifting geological forces that
created the mountains. The result of these geological actions are that Northeast Bakersfield has dramatic bluffs along the Kern River Valley, and hills that are unique within the City
of Bakersfield. JN 60-100489 3 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
Not to scale Regional Vicinity Delano Ducor Glenville Woody Alta Sierra California Hot Springs Miracle Hot Springs May FairEdison Oildale Bakersfield Lamont DiGiorgio Arvin Tehachapi
Greenfield Old RiverKern City Rosedale Shafter Button Willow Tupman Dustin Acres Valley Acres Taft Maricopa Grapevine Lebec Wasco McFarland KINGS COUNTY TULARE COUNTY TULARE COUNTY KERN
COUNTY KERN COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTY KERN COUNTY SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SAN LUISOPISPO COUNTY VENTURA COUNTY 5 5 99 33 58 58 65 58 43 166 223 184 178 178 155 155 119 99
5/28/08 JN 60-100489 Local Vicinity City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Exhibit 2 8 9 3 2 6 5 1 5 2 1 4 4 3 2 1 5 7 4 3 3 1 2 6 8 4 6 5 5 11 9 11 7 30 31
31 30 32 19 33 16 15 13 12 17 30 14 25 24 36 19 10 31 29 12 23 18 34 24 36 33 32 33 22 13 34 26 35 25 27 30 35 29 32 33 34 23 34 26 17 21 27 29 27 14 20 16 22 28 20 21 28 15 25 18 27
35 35 28 26 10 26 31 29 32 25 36 28 36 PROPOSED HWY 178 178 HWY E 58 HWY W 58 HWY NILES ST EDISON HWY FAIRFAX RD BRECKENRIDGE RD 178 E FWY E BRUNDAGE LN 178 W FWY PANORAMA DR ROUND MOUNTAIN
RD ALFRED HARRELL HWY COMANCHE DR RANCHERIA RD HALEY ST PIONEER DR BERNARD ST VIRGINIA AVE COLUMBUS ST MOUNT VERNON AVE AUBURN ST PALADINO DR UNIVERSITY AVE BAKER ST FLOWER ST E CALIFORNIA
AVE KERN CANYON RD EDISON RD ALTA VISTA DR ZEPHYR LN SUMNER ST CHINA GRADE LOOP RIVER BLVD BEALE AVE E TRUXTUN AVE MORNING DR MONICA ST MIRAMONTE DR COLLEGE AVE WEEDPATCH HWY E 4TH ST
VINELAND RD STERLING RD CHASE AVE MILLS DR AMAYA CT JAUNT AVE PANORAMA DR VINELAND RD MORNING DR MORNING DR PIONEER DR COLLEGE AVE DATE: 6-6-08 KD HILLSIDE_ZONE_AERIAL 2,100 1,050 0
2,100 4,200 Feet Legend HILLSIDE ORDINANCE BOUNDARY City Limits Vicinity
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance The area covered by the original HD zone consisted of approximately 6,220 acres generally located
north of State Highway 178 (SR-178) to the Kern River, south of SR-178 east of Miramonte Drive, and north of the Kern River on both sides of Commanche Drive. The Amended Hillside Ordinance
currently covers 6,530.7 acres (refer to Exhibit 3, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONING LOCATION). The increase in acreage is attributable to several project approvals and annexations in the
Metropolitan Northeast that have occurred since 2006. Existing Land Uses The Amended Hillside Ordinance is an overlay zone that applies to hillsides in the northeast portion of the City
that have a natural slope of 8% or more. As an overlay zone, the Amended Hillside Ordinance does not change the density or intensity of uses allowed in the underlying zone. The regulations
established by the Amended Hillside Ordinance on the development of property in hillside areas are in addition to the uses allowed and the regulations applicable in the base zone. Surrounding
Land Uses The Kern River generally forms the northern boundary of the HD zone. Areas north of the Kern River adjacent to the HD zone are largely undeveloped with heavy petroleum extraction
activities occurring in areas to the northwest. Immediately south of the Kern River are several rural residential uses, Lake Ming and other various recreational uses, including golf
courses. East of the HD zone lies vast areas of open space, including Kern Canyon. Although much of the area south of the HD zone is undeveloped, several residential subdivisions have
been recently completed or are in construction. Larger residential communities and supporting commercial centers lie to the west and southwest of the area. 2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND Annexed
to the City of Bakersfield in 1977, Northeast Bakersfield has experienced significant Public Works infrastructure investment since that time to enhance the quality of life for the citizens
who locate in the area and to provide housing opportunities which do not consume prime agricultural land. In 1993, the Northeast Sewer District was formed and a sewer trunk line built
to provide the Northeast with sewer service. The City provided additional water resources to the Northeast prior to the Cal Water Treatment Plant coming on line in 2003 by dedicating
a surface water supply for the Northeast, building the intake structures on the Kern River and constructing the water reservoirs. Northeast Bakersfield’s natural resources have been
emphasized in the Open Space Element and the Kern River Plan Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, the Northeast Bakersfield Open Space Area (NBOSA) policies and the
Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield. Through the efforts of the City with these Public Works projects and the fore-mentioned policies and plans, development has
been encouraged and planned for in Bakersfield in tandem with recognition of its natural resources. JN 60-100489 6 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
5/28/08 JN 60-100489 Hillside Development Zoning Location City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Exhibit 3 8 9 3 2 6 5 1 5 2 1 4 4 3 2 1 5 7 4 3 3 1 2 6 8
4 6 5 5 11 9 11 7 30 31 31 30 32 19 33 16 15 13 12 17 30 14 25 24 36 19 10 31 29 12 23 18 34 24 36 33 32 33 22 13 34 26 35 25 27 30 35 29 32 33 34 23 34 26 17 21 27 29 27 14 20 16 22
28 20 21 28 15 25 18 27 35 35 28 26 10 26 31 29 32 25 36 28 36 PROPOSED HWY 178 178 HWY E 58 HWY W 58 HWY NILES ST EDISON HWY FAIRFAX RD BRECKENRIDGE RD 178 E FWY E BRUNDAGE LN 178 W
FWY PANORAMA DR ROUND MOUNTAIN RD ALFRED HARRELL HWY COMANCHE DR RANCHERIA RD HALEY ST PIONEER DR BERNARD ST VIRGINIA AVE COLUMBUS ST MOUNT VERNON AVE AUBURN ST PALADINO DR UNIVERSITY
AVE BAKER ST FLOWER ST E CALIFORNIA AVE KERN CANYON RD EDISON RD ALTA VISTA DR ZEPHYR LN SUMNER ST CHINA GRADE LOOP RIVER BLVD BEALE AVE E TRUXTUN AVE MORNING DR MONICA ST MIRAMONTE
DR COLLEGE AVE WEEDPATCH HWY E 4TH ST VINELAND RD STERLING RD CHASE AVE MILLS DR AMAYA CT JAUNT AVE PANORAMA PANORAMA DR VINELAND RD MORNING DR MORNING DR PIONEER DR COLLEGE AVE DATE:
6-6-08 KD HILLSIDE_ZONE 2,100 1,050 0 2,100 4,200 Feet Legend HILLSIDE ORDINANCE BOUNDARY City Limits Location
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance The City of Bakersfield’s original Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance (Bakersfield Municipal
Code 17.66) was adopted August 11, 1999. The original ordinance has its origin in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, originally called the “2010 General Plan”, adopted on March
7, 1990 and updated in 2002. In Chapter VI – Open Space Element, two significant issues listed were: • The aesthetic value of open space areas and the impact of development on public
viewsheds should be considered; and • Cut-and-fill grading techniques employed to accommodate development alter the natural topography and ridgelines. To address the issues, a goal was
established to “Conserve and enhance the unique aspects of open space within the planning area.” To that end, four of the ten policies adopted in the General Plan’s Open Space Element
address hillside development: Policy 2: Development of the ridgelines within the planning area should consider natural aesthetic value and topographic constrains. Policy 3: Hillside
development should exhibit sensitivity and be complementary to the natural topography. Policy 4: Require the use of grading techniques in hillside areas that preserve the form of the
natural topography and ridgelines. Policy 6: Development on or adjacent to bluff areas should complement the aesthetic integrity of such areas. The Implementation Measure in the Open
Space Element that corresponds to these policies is: Implementation 2: Hillside Management Ordinance for the City of Bakersfield regulates development in areas of excessive slope in
Northeast Bakersfield. Kern County’s exiting ordinance will be augmented as necessary. During the two year development period of the original Hillside Ordinance, many proposals for what
the ordinance should or should not include were discussed. Participants in the discussion included Building Industry Association, members of the public, engineers, individual developers
representing large large property owners, and Planning staff. The items that could be agreed on by consensus resulted in the Hillside Ordinance adopted August 11, 1999. The original
Hillside Ordinance established the Hillside Zone Overlay areas contained technical elements that address, in part, the policies of the General Plan and included: • Maximum grades of
streets based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. • Fire protection standards including defensible space around buildings. •
Grading requirements to contour to conform with natural slopes. • Additional application requirements for development within the Hillside Zone Overlay area. JN 60-100489 8 Initial Study/Environmental
Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance The portions of the General Plan Open Space Element that were not addressed in the original Hillside
Ordinance resurfaced as development pressure mounted in the hillside areas of the Northeast. In 2003, City Council directed City Planning staff to examine the potential long-term effects
of development along the bluffs in Northeast Bakersfield. In March of 2005, City Council requested that staff recommend ways to clarify and strengthen the original Hillside Ordinance.
The Planning and Development Committee of the City Council proposed changes concerning hillside stability, lot and fence setbacks, and the use of landscaping. The first draft of the
Amended Hillside Ordinance was available for public comment in May 2005 and input on the draft was heard at a City of Bakersfield Planning Commission Public Hearing on June 2, 2005.
In response to comments and additional information gained from the City’s consultant team and review of additional ordinances from other jurisdictions, clarifications and changes were
incorporated into the Amended Hillside Ordinance. The City of Bakersfield filed a Notice of Exemption for the Amended Hillside Ordinance with the California Office of Planning and Research
on May 13, 2005. However in response from comments heard in the public hearing for the Amended Ordinance on whether an Environmental Impact Report was required, City staff prepared an
Initial Study. Based on the initial environmental assessment, staff determined the Amended Hillside Ordinance would not significantly affect the environment, and therefore, a Negative
Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review from May 17, 2006 through July 6, 2006. The Negative Declaration and the Amended Hillside Ordinance was adopted by the City
of Bakersfield on November 15, 2006. Opponents to the Amended Hillside Ordinance filed a lawsuit entitled DKS Investments, LLC, et. al. v. The City of Bakersfield, et al., Kern County
Superior Court Case No. S-1500-CV-259731 KCT, alleging that the City should have prepared an EIR to evaluate the potential significant impacts of the Amended Hillside Ordinance with
respect to the potential for lower density development which may result in the loss of agricultural land, increased air pollution, and increased energy consumption. The Kern County Superior
Court agreed and, on March 21, 2008, entered a judgment requiring the City to prepare an EIR and allowing the Amended Hillside Ordinance to remain in effect while the City performs additional
environmental review. 2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The Amended Hillside Ordinance is intended to apply to areas zoned HD (Hillside Development). The HD zone district is an overlay zone.
The regulations established by the HD district are in addition to those uses allowed and the regulations of the base zone district. This overlay zone will generally be applicable to
those larger contiguous areas generally having natural slopes of 8% or more. The Amended Hillside Ordinance provides additional requirements beyond the original Hillside Ordinance’s
focus on grading, street grades and fire protection. In following the direction of the General Plan policies, the Amended Hillside Ordinance addressed protection from hillside instability
and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the HD zone. The changes to the original Hillside Ordinance include the following: • Identifies “Visual
Resources Areas” along ridgelines for protection (Exhibits 4 and 5). JN 60-100489 9 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
5/28/08 JN 60-100489 Hillside Development Zone -West City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Exhibit 4 !C!C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C
!C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C!C !C!C!C !C !C!C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C!C!C!C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C!C!C !C !C !C !C !C !C!C!C Exhibit "B-1" Hillside Development
Zone -West Visual Resources, Viewsheds and Protection Areas 0 1,250 2,500 5,000 Feet Legend !C Viewshed Observation Points City Limits Water Courses Lakes ! ! ! Slope Protection Area
Class I -Visual Resource Area class II -Visual Resource Area N
5/28/08 JN 60-100489 Hillside Development Zone -East City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Exhibit 5 !C !C !C !C !C !C !C!C!C!C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C C!
C! !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C !C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C !C!C !C!C !C !C !C!C!C!C !C!C Exhibit "B-2" Hillside Development Zone
-East Vi sual Resources, Vi ewsheds and Protectio n Areas 0 1,150 2,300 4,600 Feet Legend !C Viewshed Observation Points ! ! ! Slope Protection Area Class I -Visual Resource Area class
II -Visual Resource Area City Limits Water Courses Lakes N
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance • Identifies “Primary and Secondary Viewsheds” which, in tandem with visual resource areas limit the
view of structures from major roadways. • Identifies Slope Protection Areas which have unique visual characteristics and slope constraints. • Requires erosion control measures and setbacks
for property line, fences and structures adjacent to open space areas. • Requires 25-foot setback from open space areas not governed by visual resource/viewshed criteria. • Protects
visual resources on the perimeter of development visible from major roadways. Amended Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance The Amended Hillside Ordinance adds additional requirements
in identified hillside areas that address protection from hillside instability and landslides, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the HD zone. As stated
previously, the Amended Hillside Ordinance seeks to fulfill the implementation measures of the Open Space Element of the General Plan. Table 1, AMENDED HILLSIDE ORDINANCE PROVISIONS
AND REGULATIONS, outlines the relevant provisions and regulations of the Amended Hillside Ordinance and resultant benefits. Table 1 Amended Hillside Ordinance Provisions and Regulations
Provisions and Regulations Resultant Impact • Protect views by identifying primary and secondary viewsheds, visual resource areas, and slope protection areas within the HD zone. • Ensures
that visual resources are protected to enhance the aesthetic beauty of the hillsides. • Encourage grading techniques that blend with the natural terrain, minimize earthmoving activities,
minimize visual impacts of large cut and fill slopes, prevent erosion due to drainage and provide for the preservation of unique and significant natural landforms and ridgelines. • Ensures
that the natural landscape of the hillsides is preserved. • Ensures geologic stability. • Decreases potential for erosion. • Reduce water in slope replanting and retention by encouraging
grading design that minimizes manufactured slopes. • Reduces potential for erosion. • Maintains natural landscape. • Reduces water consumption. • Maintain integrity and natural characteristics
of major landforms, hydrologic features, scenic qualities, and open space. • Promotes open space preservation. • Reduces permanent changes to major landform features. • Preparation of
a Preliminary Grading Plan. • Promotes grading techniques to conform with natural topography. • Ensures geologic
stability. • In instances where roads traverse natural drainage channels, design shall include natural materials and bank protection. • Reduces potential for natural habitat disturbance.
• Retains natural landscape. • Provides thematic treatments for bridge crossings. • Preparation of Geotechnical and Geology Reports. • Ensures geologic stability. JN 60-100489 12 Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance Provisions and Regulations Resultant Impact • Areas identified as slope protection areas will be designated
as lettered nonbuildable lots. • Ensures the natural landscape of specifically identified steep slopes is preserved. • Ensures geologic stability. • Minimum rear yard setback is 25 feet.
• Ensures that scenic views are not impeded by buildings. • Adds fire protection for structures. • Adds defensible fire fighting space. • Emergency secondary access roads • Reduces potential
for inadequate emergency access. • Roofs for buildings in visual resource areas will be earth tone. • Enables homes to blend in with the natural surroundings as much as possible. • Property
owners must use fire resistant plant materials. • Provides protection of persons and property against the intrusion of fire. • Landscaped areas must use native trees and plants. • Ensures
the natural beauty of the hillsides is maintained. • Provides alternative to heavily maintain landscape treatments. General Plan policies and the Amended Hillside Ordinance would serve
to mitigate future erosion and aesthetic impacts and safety concerns such as structures on the edge or cantilevered over ridgelines, development on steep slopes, angular manufactured
slopes, significant grading and erosion due to irrigation practices and broken pipes. The Amended Hillside Ordinance would accomplish this through the use of viewshed setbacks, property
line and fence location standards, revegetation requests, slope protection areas, and additional application requirements. 2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objectives for the Amended Hillside
Ordinance include the following: • Define and implement the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as they relate to the preservation and maintenance of hillsides
as a scenic resource; • Allow for orderly and sensitive development at a density that respects and is reflective of the natural terrain; • Encourage grading techniques that blend with
the natural terrain, minimize earthmoving activities, minimize visual impacts of large cut and fill slopes, prevent erosion on the face of slopes due to drainage and provide for the
preservation of unique and significant natural landforms and ridgelines; • Reduce water use in slope replanting and retention by encouraging grading design that minimizes manufactured
slopes; • Maximize the positive impacts of site design, grading, landscaping, and building design consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan; • Maintain the integrity
and natural characteristics of major landform, vegetation and wildlife communities, hydrologic features, scenic qualities, and open space; JN 60-100489 13 Initial Study/Environmental
Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance • Protect the general public from the threat of wildfire; and • Protect the general public from hillside
instability. 2.5 AGREEMENTS, PERMITS AND APPROVALS The City of Bakersfield is the Lead Agency for the Amended Hillside Ordinance and has discretionary authority over the Project. • Certification
of the Final EIR JN 60-100489 14 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance 3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 3.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside
Ordinance 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Bakersfield 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr. Marc Gauthier – Principal Planner (661)
326-3733 (661) 852-2136 (fax) 4. Project Location: The area covered by the original HD zone consisted of approximately 6,220 acres generally located north of State Highway 178 (SR-178)
to the Kern River, south of SR-178 east of Miramonte Drive, and north of the Kern River on both sides of Commanche Drive. The Amended Hillside Ordinance currently covers 6,530.7 acres.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Bakersfield 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 6. General Plan Designations: Various 7. Zoning: Hillside Development (HD) 8. Description
of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to, later phases of the Project, and any secondary support or off-site features necessary for its implementation.)
The Amended Hillside Ordinance is intended to apply to areas zoned HD (Hillside Development). The HD zone district is an overlay zone. The regulations established by the HD district
are in addition to those uses allowed and the regulations of the base zone district. This overlay zone will generally be applicable to those larger contiguous areas generally having
natural slopes of 8% or more. The Amended Hillside Ordinance provides additional requirements beyond the original Hillside Ordinance’s focus on protection from hillside instability,
landslides and wildland fires, and includes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the Hillside Development zone. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Project area
is primarily surrounded by undeveloped land to the north, east, and south, with some rural residential uses located throughout the City’s hillsides. Larger residential communities lie
to the southwest of the Project area. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement). Not Applicable JN 60-100489
15 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially
affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,” as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages. X Aesthetics Land Use and Planning X Agriculture Resources Mineral Resources X Air Quality Noise Biological Resources X Population and Housing Cultural Resources Public
Services X Geology and Soils Recreation Hazards & Hazardous Materials Transportation/Traffic X Hydrology & Water Quality X Utilities & Service Systems X Mandatory Findings of Significance
3.3 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared. ______ I find that although the proposal could have a significant effect effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described in Section 5.0 have been added. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. __ I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X_ I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect
is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed. ______ City of Bakersfield Agency Marc Gauthier/Principal Planner June 11, 2008 Printed Name/Title Date JN 60-100489 16 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance 3.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts
associated with the Amended Hillside Ordinance. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include: ● Aesthetics ● Land Use and Planning ● Agriculture Resources ● Mineral Resources
● Air Quality ● Noise ● Biological Resources ● Population and Housing ● Cultural Resources ● Public Services ● Geology and Soils ● Recreation ● Hazards and Hazardous Materials ● Transportation/Traffi
c ● Hydrology and Water Quality ● Utilities and Service Systems The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines
and used by the City of Bakersfield in its environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study’s preparation, a determination
that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more more fully analyze the development’s impacts and to identify mitigation. For the evaluation of potential
impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the
long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses: ● No Impact. The Project will not have any measurable environmental
impact on the environment. ● Less Than Significant Impact. The Project will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds
that are considered to be significant. ● Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated. The Project will have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant
effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development’s physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than
significant. ● Potentially Significant Impact. The Project will have impacts which are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that
could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be avoided
or reduced to insignificant levels. JN 60-100489 17 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact 4.1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X 4.2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural
use? X b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? X 4.3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
X b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors)? X d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X JN 60-100489
18 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact 4.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X 4.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? X b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? X c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d. Disturb
any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X JN 60-100489 19 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact 4.6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? X 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
X 4) Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X 4.7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X JN 60-100489 20 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? X h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands? X 4.8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b. Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X c. Substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on-or off-site? X d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? X e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X JN 60-100489 21 Initial Study/Environmental
Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
X h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X 4.9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X c. Conflict with
any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X 4.10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X b. Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X 4.11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels? X c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d. A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X JN 60-100489 22 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X 4.12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X 4.13.
PUBLIC SERVICES. a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1) Fire protection? X 2) Police protection? X 3) Schools? X 4) Parks? X 5) Other public facilities? X 4.14. RECREATION.
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated? X b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment? X JN 60-100489 23 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact 4.15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? X b. Exceed, either individually
or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g. Conflict
with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X 4.16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. Exceed
wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project
that that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? X JN 60-100489 24 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? X 4.17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? X c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X JN 60-100489 25 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following is a discussion of potential environmental impacts as identified
in the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. Explanations are provided for each item. 4.1 AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less
Than Significant Impact. The General Plan EIR identifies the foothills and bluffs of northeast Bakersfield as scenic resources. The Amended Hillside Ordinance facilitates sensitive and
safe hillside development through the standards and guidelines that encourage development that is sensitive to the unique characteristic of the hillside areas in the City, which include,
but are not limited to, slopes, land forms, vegetation, and scenic quality. The intent of the Amended Hillside Ordinance is to protect scenic vistas and visual resources and provide
safe hillside development. The Amended Hillside Ordinance includes the preservation of views on on identified hillside areas from specific freeways, expressways, and arterial roadways
in northeast Bakersfield. The amendment also protects views by identifying primary and secondary viewsheds, visual resource
areas, and slope protection areas within the Hillside Development (HD) zone. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the intent of the Amended Hillside Ordinance
is to further preserve scenic vistas and visual resources through standards and guidelines outlined in the Ordinance. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. c) Substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Impact 4.1a. No significant impacts would occur in this regard.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. Light pollution occurs when nighttime
views of the stars and sky are diminished by an over-abundance of light coming from the ground. Light pollution is a potential impact from the operation of any light source at night.
Proper light shields, lighting design, and landscaping are commonly used to reduce light pollution generated from lighting by blocking the conveyance of light upwards. The result is
that the lights are not visible from above; therefore, ambient light is not added to the nighttime sky. Areas of light and glare generally result in nuisance complaints of an area or
building being aesthetically disturbing. The few existing sources of artificial light in the Project area include outdoor decorative and security lighting around residences and city
street lights. JN 60-100489 26 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance The Amended Hillside Ordinance does not include regulations that address light and glare. However,
the General Plan provides goals and policies that would reduce the severity of aesthetic impacts associated with light and glare. Implementation programs include the adoption of community-wide
standards for street lighting and requiring that development projects undergo environmental and design review on a site-specific basis to ensure that light and glare impacts would not
substantially impact adjacent uses. Therefore, with the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan, along with sitespecific environmental and design review by the City, impacts
resulting from light and glare are considered to be less than significant. 4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Potentially Significant Impact. The Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program (FMMP) is a farmland classification system that is administered by the California Department of Conservation. The system classifies agricultural land according to
its soil quality and irrigation status. According to the FMMP, the proposed Project area is designated as having Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Irrigated Farmland, Grazing Land, and
“Other” Land. As defined by the California Land Conservation Act (G.C. Sec 51201), prime agricultural soils include Class I and II soils, storie index 80-100 soils, vineyards and orchards,
and soils soils which yield a minimum of $200 an acre per year. The extent of prime soils in the planning area is substantial, covering a significant portion of the area’s 408 square
miles. Unique Farmland is classified as having lesser quality soils used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include
nonirrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. Irrigated
Farmland is classified as cropped land with a developed irrigation water supply that is dependable and of adequate quality. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production
at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. Grazing land is classified as land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. “Other” Land
is land that is not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable
for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded
on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as “Other” Land. JN 60-100489 27 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance According to the General Plan EIR, the majority of the area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance
contains non-prime agricultural soils. However, the removal of Prime Farmland, along with the conversion of the other land classifications listed above, is considered a potentially significant
impact. In accordance with the Kern County Superior Court’s March 21, 2008 judgment (DKS Investments, LLC, et. al. v. The City of Bakersfield, et al.), the EIR will evaluate the potential
significant impacts of the amendments to the Hillside Ordinance with respect to the potential for lower density development which may result in the loss of agricultural land. b) Conflict
with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract? Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Impact 4.2 (a) above. The EIR will address the potential conflict with
existing zoning for agricultural use and Williamson Act contracts. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Impact 4.2 (a) above. The EIR will address the potential changes in the existing environment that could
result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. 4.3 AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Potentially Significant Impact. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has jurisdiction in eight counties located in the San Joaquin Valley, including Kern County
and the Bakersfield area. Kern County is in nonattainment for ozone and particulate matter (PM10). In addition, the City of Bakersfield is in nonattainment of the Federal standard for
carbon monoxide (CO). The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires that all reasonable stationary and mobile source control measures be implemented in non-attainment areas to help achieve
a mandated, five percent per year reduction in ozone precursors, and to reduce population exposure. Fugitive construction emissions have the potential to cause a significant impact on
air quality. Actual emissions would depend on the level of activity and the type of control being used. Control measures required and enforced by the SJVAPCD under Regulation VIII would
reduce these short-term construction emissions to a level that is considered less than significant if a limited acreage is disturbed at any one time. The effects of the Amended Hillside
Ordinance on air quality and its compliance with the Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) will require further analysis in the EIR. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation? JN 60-100489 28 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance Potentially Significant Impact. The greatest potential for air quality impacts from the Amended Hillside
Ordinance could potentially be attributed to mobile source emissions and the potential displacement of residential uses and lower density developments within the Metropolitan Bakersfield
Plan area. The Amended Hillside Ordinance’s potential air quality impacts on a local and regional level require an evaluation pursuant to the SJVAPCD and California Air Resources Board
(CARB) requirements and methodology. The EIR will quantify potential air quality impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures that would be effective in reducing pollutant emissions.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone ozone precursors)? Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.3(a) and 4.3(b). d) Expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.3(a) and 4.3(b). e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended Hillside Ordinance is an overlay zone that regulates development in hillside areas, but does not otherwise affect development
in the underlying zone. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive biological resources are defined as species under study for classification as threatened,
endangered, or have low population densities or a highly restricted range. Both native and non-native habitats within the project site are expected to provide nesting, foraging, and
denning opportunities for wildlife species. The removal or altering of native and non-native habitats within the project site would result in the displacement of small mammals, reptiles,
amphibians, and other animals. According to the General Plan EIR, the area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance could potentially contain species classified as Threatened or Endangered
(listed as federally endangered and as threatened by the State). The City of Bakersfield adopted the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) in 1994. The MBHCP is
designed to offset impacts resulting from loss of habitat due to development. The goal of the MBHCP is to acquire, preserve, and enhance native habitats that support endangered and sensitive
species while allowing urban development to continue. The MBHCP and implementing agreements and ordinances provide a method of collecting funds for the acquisition and enhancement of
habitat land for purposes of creating preserves. All development projects within the City of Bakersfield are required to pay mitigation fees that are used to buy habitat lands. JN 60-100489
29 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance Impacts to special status species and habitats would be mitigated on a project-by-project basis. Nothing
in the scope of the Amended Hillside Ordinance would negatively impact special status species within the hillside zone because the purpose of the document is to regulate development
to reduce impacts on the hillside area. Therefore, impacts associated with the implementation of the Amended Hillside Ordinance would be less than significant. b) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. Future development allowed under the Amended Hillside Ordinance may alter existing habitat. Refer to Response 4.4 (a),
above. The Amended Hillside Ordinance includes encourages development design that will maintain the the integrity and natural characteristics of wildlife communities and open space.
No significant impacts would occur in this regard. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less Than Significant Impact. No federally protected wetlands
are known to occur within the area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant
Impact. The Amended Hillside Ordinance lies within the MBHCP. The Amended Hillside Ordinance includes a provision to encourage development design that will maintain the integrity and
natural characteristics of wildlife communities and open space. All future development under the Amended Hillside Ordinance would be required to pay impact mitigation fees as required
by the MBHCP in order to offset impacts associated with interference of wildlife movement. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended Hillside Ordinance is a regulatory document that serves as
an implementation tool to allow safe and attractive development in the City’s hillsides. The Amended Hillside Ordinance would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The MBHCP is the regional conservation plan that addresses the effect of urban growth
on federally and State protected plant and animal JN 60-100489 30 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance species within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan area. The MBHCP is a joint program of the
City of Bakersfield and Kern County that was undertaken to assist urban development applicants in complying with State and federal endangered species laws. The MBHCP utilizes avoidance
measures and a mitigation fee paid by applicants for grading or building permits to fund the purchase and maintenance of habitat land to compensate for the effects of urban development
on endangered species habitat. If a project is developed on land within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, payment of a onetime MBHCP habitat mitigation fee of $2,145 per gross acre
is required. Future development within the area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance would be required to comply with the provisions of the MBHCP. No significant impacts would occur
in this regard. 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. The absence or presence of historic resources within the area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance are not entirely known at this time; however, it
is likely that Native American peoples historically traversed the general region. Potential impacts to historic resources would be site specific and an evaluation would be conducted
on a project-by-project basis. Nothing in the scope of the Amended Hillside Ordinance would negatively impact historic resources within the hillside zone because the purpose of the document
is to regulate development to reduce impacts on the hillside area. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan EIR, Hokan speaking Indians and Yokuts Indians were known to
live within northeast northeast Bakersfield. Therefore, artifacts from these tribes may be present. However, potential impacts to archaeological resources would be site specific and
an evaluation would be conducted on a project-byproject basis. Nothing in the scope of the Amended Hillside Ordinance would negatively impact archaeological resources within the hillside
zone because the purpose of the document is to regulate development to reduce impacts on the hillside area. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. c) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan EIR, the area covered by the Amended Hillside
Ordinance is underlain by sediments and rocks of the Quaternary age (1.8 million years to present). Deposits are from the Kern River, related streams, and possibly lakes that have existed
in the region during the past 1.6 million years. The most important paleontological resource producing formation in the Metropolitan Bakersfield Planning area is known as the Shark Tooth
Hill Bonebed, referred to by geologists as part of the “Round Mountain Silt Formation.” JN 60-100489 31 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance The absence or presence of paleontological resources within the area covered by the Amended Hillside
Ordinance are not entirely known at this time. However, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be site specific and an evaluation would be conducted on a project-by-project
basis. Nothing in the scope of the Amended Hillside Ordinance would negatively impact paleontological resources within the hillside zone because the purpose of the document is to regulate
development to reduce impacts on the hillside area. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no known formal gravesites within the area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance, but the possibility still remains that human remains could
be encountered during grading. California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 requires that if human remains are found and are of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage
Commission must be contacted within 24 hours of the discovery. The descendents from the deceased Native Americans recommend to the project proponent a means of treating or disposing
of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. By contacting the appropriate parties and allowing affected parties to determine alternate locations of
remains, this public resources code ensures that proper measures have been implemented to protect these resources. This provides the City of Bakersfield with a mechanism for regulating
the protection of these resources. Compliance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 would reduce potential impacts. No significant impacts would occur in this regard.
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture
of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Bakersfield is located within a seismically active area. According
to the General Plan, major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley, with the San Andreas Fault being the most prominent. Other fault systems occur
in the Bakersfield area and include the Garlock Fault, White Wolf Fault, Breckenridge-Kern Canyon Fault System, Pond-Poso Creek Fault, Sierra Nevada Fault, Big Pine Fault, Pleito Fault,
Santa Ynez Fault, and the San Gabriel Fault. As illustrated in Figure VIII-2 of the General Plan, Geologic Hazards, Earthquake Fault Zones have been designated for the northeast portion
of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Plan area (i.e., locations of surface rupture during the 1952 White Wolf earthquake). However, active faults may potentially exist outside these zones.
The impact of earthquakes within the area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance depends on several factors including the particular fault, fault location, distance from the site,
and magnitude of the earthquake. Each of these factors can help determine the JN 60-100489 32 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance degree of shaking that could occur within a given area. The two nearest fault systems to the area
are the Kern Canyon and Breckenridge Faults. Future structures within area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance would be required by State law and City ordinance to be constructed
in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (seismic zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake
construction standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. In addition, nothing in the scope of the Amended Hillside Ordinance would increase the exposure of structures
or people to hazards related to rupture of a known earthquake fault because the purpose of the ordinance is to regulate development in the hillside areas. No significant impacts would
occur in this regard. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.6(a)(1), above. 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less
Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction potential is a combination of unconsolidated soil type and high groundwater combined with high potential seismic activity. Liquefaction is caused
by a sudden temporary increase in pore water pressure due to seismic densification or other displacement of submerged granular soils. Liquefaction often occurs in areas underlain by
young alluvium where the groundwater table is higher than 50 feet below the ground surface. According to the General Plan EIR, high groundwater is known to occur only in the southern
and southeastern portions of the City, and therefore, not in the City’s hillsides located in the northeast. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. 4) Landslides? Less Than
Significant Impact. According to the General Plan EIR, slopes subject to failure are predominantly found along river terraces, bluffs, and foothills in the east and northeastern portions
of the City. One purpose of the Amended Hillside Ordinance is to reduce the risk of landslides though various development standards, which would reduce impacts. The Amended Hillside
Ordinance would also serve to mitigate future safety concerns such as structures on the edge or cantilevered over ridgelines, development on steep slopes, angular manufactured slopes,
significant grading and erosion due to irrigation practices and broken pipes. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Soil erosion is defined as the detachment and movement of soil particles by the erosive forces of wind or water. According to the General Plan
EIR, soils with high erodability are located in the northeastern portion of the City. The Amended Hillside Ordinance includes provisions that encourage grading techniques that blend
with the natural terrain, minimize earthmoving activities, and prevent erosion on the face of slopes due to drainage. JN 60-100489 33 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance The area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance would also be subject to the City ordinances and
standards relative to soils and geology. Standard compliance requirements include soils and grading reports prior to issuance of building permits and adherence to applicable building
codes in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. Based on these programs and requirements, impacts associated with soil erosion are considered less than significant. c) Be located
on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.6(a)(1) and 4.6(a)(3). d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan EIR, the area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance
is not known to be comprised of soils with a high potential for soil expansion. Compliance with the City Municipal Code and the California Building Code would reduce potential site-specific
impacts to a level of less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? Less Than Significant Impact. Some homes in the City in the northeastern area use on-site septic tanks. However, all new development is required
to be connected to City sewer systems. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. 4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Typical sources of contamination within the largely residential
hillside area may include oil and gas wells, underground and aboveground storage tanks, hazardous substances and petroleum products, and electrical transformers. However, the likelihood
that these contaminants are located within the hillside area is unlikely. Grading and construction activities of future development within areas governed by the Amended Hillside Ordinance
may involve the limited transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or demolition debris. However, these activities would be minimal, short-term, or one-time in nature
and would be subject to federal, state, and local health and safety requirements. If hazardous materials were present, they would be subject to local, State, and federal regulations.
Based on surrounding land uses and existing regulations, the normal use, storage, disposal and transport of hazardous materials is considered a less than significant impact. JN 60-100489
34 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.7 (a) above. The Amended Hillside Ordinance
would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the release of hazardous materials. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. c) Emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. Seven schools are currently
located within a ¼-mile of the HD zone, principally located west of Fairfax Road. Based on the proposed conditions for the future development, the Amended Hillside Ordinance is
not anticipated to result in emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
No significant impacts would occur in this regard. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance is not known
to be included on a list of sites containing hazardous materials and would not otherwise be expected to create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Standard construction
practices would include appropriate monitoring and remedial measures, should any hazardous materials be uncovered during site preparation. No significant impacts would occur in this
regard. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance is not located within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport. No impacts would occur in this regard. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impacts would occur
in this regard. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended Hillside
Ordinance includes emergency secondary access provisions that are required when it is determined that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain,
or other factors that could limit ingress and egress. In addition, all roads subject to fire department apparatus are required to have a minimum width and minimum height clearance. The
JN 60-100489 35 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance Amended Hillside Ordinance is a regulatory document that provides standards for development of the
City’s hillsides. Therefore, nothing in the Amended Hillside Ordinance would impair or interfere with the City’s emergency evacuation and support service procedures in the event of a
natural disaster. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended Hillside Ordinance area contains and is adjacent
to wildlands, creating the potential for exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Additionally, the type of ground cover,
the steep slope of the ground, and the difficulty of access by fire crews and engines contribute to wildland fire potential. However, there are many fire prevention requirements in the
Amended Hillside Ordinance that would reduce potential wildfire hazards. The Amended Hillside Ordinance includes emergency secondary access provisions that are required when it is determined
that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, or other factors that could limit ingress and egress. In addition, all roads subject to fire
department apparatus are required to have a minimum width and minimum height clearance. In addition, the Amended Hillside Ordinance includes building construction requirements that limit
the potential for wildfire hazards, including setbacks, fire resistant eaves, fascias, roof coverings, and the use of fire resistant plant materials. Compliance with the foregoing provisions
and requirements and continued cooperation with the other jurisdictions that participate in the mutual and automatic aid contracts would ensure that any future wildland fires near the
project area would be controlled to the greatest extent feasible. Potential impacts associated with wildland fires would be reduced to having no significant impacts through compliance
with the provisions of the Amended Hillside Ordinance. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended Hillside Ordinance encourages grading techniques that blend with the natural terrain, minimize earthmoving
activities, minimize visual impacts of large cut and fill slopes. Prevent erosion the face of slopes due to drainage and provides for the preservation of unique and significant natural
landforms and ridgelines. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit requirements
within the Project area. All future projects would be required to implement structural and and nonstructural, non-point source pollution control measures known as Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to limit urban pollutants to the maximum extent practical. Furthermore, the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would reduce short-term construction
impacts to less than significant levels. JN 60-100489 36 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact. The subject area is located within the California Water
Service Company’s (Cal Water) Bakersfield District boundary. Cal Water is the largest investor owned water utility in the western United States. Until 2030, Cal Water anticipates using
groundwater, treated Kern River water from its northeast Bakersfield water treatment plant, and purchased treated surface water (Kern River water and State Project Water) from Kern County
Water Agency’s (KCWA) Improvement District No. 4 (ID-4) water treatment plant to meet its forecasted water demands. The primary element of the City’s drought management plan is its reserved
groundwater. Because much of the groundwater supply has been reserved, the underground reservoir can be pumped during future dry years without causing a groundwater overdraft problem.
With continuation of on going recharge efforts, as well as continued compliance with the drought management plans and goals and policies outlined in the General Plan, no significant
impacts would occur in this regard. It should be noted that the Amended Hillside Ordinance encourages development design that reduces water use in slope replanting and promotes grading
that minimizes manufactured slopes. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended Hillside Ordinance requires that a drainage concept report be
prepared for all development within the hillsides that includes the hydrologic conditions on the area, possible flood inundation, downstream flood hazards, natural drainage courses,
conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of hydrologic conditions on the proposed developments, opinions and recommendations covering the adequacy of the sites to be developed,
and design criteria to mitigate any identified hydrologic hazards consistent with these regulations. In addition, the Amended Hillside Ordinance includes requirements that all proposed
drainage facilities shall respect the natural terrain, preserve existing major drainage channels in their natural state or enhance them to create riparian type systems that provide for
drainage and for diversification of plant and animal life and be designed in such a manner as to minimize soil erosion and to otherwise preserve the public health, safety and welfare.
No significant impacts would occur in this regard. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.8
(c), above. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? JN 60-100489 37 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended Hillside Ordinance requires that a drainage concept report
be prepared for all development within the hillsides that would account for all runoff and debris from tributary areas and would provide consideration for each lot or dwelling unit site
in a proposed development. This provision effectively regulates hillside development so as to prevent the generation of stormwater at quantities that would exceed storm drainage system
capacities. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Stormwater quality is generally affected
by the length of time since the last rainfall, intensity of rainfall, urban uses of the area, and the quantity of transported sediment. Typical urban water quality pollutants usually
result from motor vehicle operations, oil and grease residues, and careless material storage and handling. The majority of pollutant loads are usually washed away during the first flush
of the storm occurring after the dry-season period. With implementation of an approved and permitted SWPPP and completion of the drainage concept report required by the Amended Hillside
Ordinance, this impact would be reduced to less than significant. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Less Than Significant Impact. The area subject to the Amended Hillside Ordinance is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. Less
than significant impacts are anticipated in this regard. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact.
Refer to Response 4.8(g), above. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? Less Than Significant Impact. The area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance is situated above the Kern River Flood Plain and at elevations higher than the area surrounding
the City of Bakersfield. Isabella Dam, which is located approximately forty miles northeast of Bakersfield, has a capacity to hold 570,000 acre-feet of water. If an earthquake were to
occur in the vicinity, it could result in a break in the dam. This could, under certain conditions, cause the entire lake storage to be released, which would result in flooding 60 square
miles of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. As a result of the possible dangers associated with Isabella Dam, the City of Bakersfield entered the Regular Phase of the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) as administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on May 1, 1985. Compliance with the NFIP and FEMA would result in less than significant impacts.
In addition, due to the elevation of lands subject to the Amended Hillside Ordinance, the area is not anticipated to be flooded in a dam failure event. No significant impacts would occur.
JN 60-100489 38 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Significant Impact. The Kern River is located
to the north of the proposed of the area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance; however, it is unlikely that the River would result in seiche or tsunami hazards due to the river’s
shallowness. Hazards involving tsunamis and/or seiche, are not expected to affect the development. A mudslide, or mud or debris flow, involves only the top few feet of soil but sometimes
can occur with startling speed. It happens when a barren or sparsely planted hillside, often comprised of lightly compacted or clay-like topsoil, becomes saturated with water. The load
becomes too much for the earth to bear and the soil flows downhill. The Amended Hillside Ordinance includes provisions that encourage grading techniques that blend with the natural terrain,
minimize earthmoving activities, and prevent erosion on the face of slopes due to drainage. These grading techniques would eliminate erosion, and thus, the potential for mudflow. No
significant impacts would occur in this regard. 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant Impact. An example
of a project that has a potential to divide an established community is the construction of a new freeway or highway through an established neighborhood. The Amended Hillside Ordinance
would not divide the physical arrangement of a community, as the Amended Hillside Ordinance is a regulatory document that contains provisions for hillside development that is consistent
with surrounding residential land uses. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended Hillside Ordinance is required to be consistent with the General Plan and is an amendment to the existing City of Bakersfield Zoning
Ordinance. There are no identified conflicts or inconsistencies with City policies or zoning regulations. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. c) Conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance is within the MBHCP area. Future development
in accordance with the Amended Hillside Ordinance would be required to pay impact fees, which are placed in an account and which can only be used for habitat acquisition and management.
Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard. JN 60-100489 39 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance 4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Less Than Significant Impact. The City is considered a major oil-producing area, with fourteen of the County’s
oil fields located entirely or partially within the City of Bakersfield. Bakersfield is a major contributor to Kern County’s status as the nation’s leading petroleum-producing County.
In the past, oil production activities have were located on the outskirts of the City of Bakersfield’s developed area. However, with urbanization, oil-producing fields are converging
with urban areas. The Amended Hillside Ordinance provides additional requirements in identified hillside areas that address protection from hillside instability and landslides, and includes
provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the HD zone. The amendment does not result in the loss of mineral resources. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.10(a), above. No significant
impacts would occur in this regard. 4.11 NOISE Would the Project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. The existing noise environment of the hillside area is characterized by occasional automobile
traffic and noises typical of single-family residential uses. The City’s noise ordinance (Chapter 9.22 of the Municipal Code) seeks to protect the citizens of the City from excessive,
unnecessary and unreasonable noises, and contains policies to control the adverse effect of noises and sources. Enforcement of the Noise Ordinance includes requiring proposed development
projects to show compliance with the ordinance, as well as compliance during the construction phase. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur in this regard. b) Exposure of persons
to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Short-term construction related activities have the potential to generate
excessive groundborne vibration and noise. However, nothing in the scope of the Amended Hillside Ordinance would increase the exposure of people to excessive groundbourne vibration.
No significant impacts would occur in this regard. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less
Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.11(a), above. JN 60-100489 40 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.11(a), above. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact.
The Amended Hillside Ordinance is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, the Amended Hillside Ordinance
would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Amended Hillside Ordinance is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The Amended Hillside Ordinance
would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels. 4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Potentially Significant Impact.
Buildout of the City’s hillsides have been previously addressed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts regarding population and housing
and found no significant environmental impacts in regard to population and housing. The Amended Hillside Ordinance was developed for the purpose of further reducing the environmental
impacts of hillside development and enhanced safety for future residents. The Amendment provides changes that fine-tune the regulatory performance of the previous ordinance. While it
is expected that the impacts of buildout of the City’s hillside will remain as discussed in the General Plan EIR, the Amended Hillside Ordinance EIR will evaluate potential impacts of
the amendments to the original Hillside Ordinance with respect to the potential for lower density development which may result in the loss of agricultural land. b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The Amended Hillside Ordinance would affect vacant, undeveloped land. No homes
would be displaced. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No
Impact. Refer to Response 4.12(b), above. JN 60-100489 41 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance 4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1) Fire protection? Less Than Significant
Impact. The City of Bakersfield Fire Department and the Kern County Fire Department (under a Joint Powers Agreement) are responsible for fire protection services within Metropolitan
Bakersfield. The Amended Hillside Ordinance provides additional requirements beyond the original Hillside Ordinance’s focus on grading, safe street grades, and fire protection. Nothing
in the scope of the Amended Hillside Ordinance would increase the demand on fire protection services because the purpose of the document is to regulate development in order to reduce
environmental impacts on the hillside area. The Amended Hillside Ordinance requires developments to maintain defensible apace around and adjacent to buildings/structures through the
removal and clearing away all flammable vegetation or other combustible growth a minimum of 30 feet on each side thereof or to the property line (whichever is nearer). No significant
impacts would occur in this regard. 2) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Bakersfield Police Department provides law enforcement and public safety services
for the entire City. Nothing in the scope of the Amended Hillside Ordinance would increase the demand on police protection services because the purpose of the document is to regulate
development in order to reduce environmental impacts on the hillside area. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. 3) Schools? Less Than Significant Impact. Nothing in the
scope of the Amended Hillside Ordinance would increase the demand on school services because the purpose of the document is to regulate development in order to reduce environmental impacts
on the hillside area. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. 4) Parks? Less Than Significant Impact. Nothing in the scope of the Amended Hillside Ordinance would increase
the demand on park services because the purpose of the document is to regulate development in order to reduce environmental impacts on the hillside area. No significant impacts would
occur in this regard. JN 60-100489 42 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance 5) Other public facilities? Potentially Significant Impact. The Amended Hillside Ordinance may result
in the potential increase in energy consumption as a result of development within the hillsides. Further analysis will be conducted as part of the EIR. 4.14 RECREATION. a) Would the
project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.13(a)(4), above. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.13(a)(4), above.
No significant impacts would occur in this regard. 4.15 TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Nothing in the scope of the Amended Hillside Ordinance would cause an increase in traffic because the purpose of the document is to regulate development
to reduce impacts on the hillside area. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.15(a), above. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The boundary of the Amended Hillside Ordinance is not within
the vicinity of any public airports or airstrips. In addition, the HD zone is not located within the approach or takeoff paths and will not affect its operations. No changes to air traffic
patterns would occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than
Significant Impact. Future development of the area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance would result in more vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians, however, development would not
change the density or intensity of uses allowed in the JN 60-100489 43 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance underlying zone. Development would be subject to the design and safety standards of the City of Bakersfield.
Therefore, the likelihood of design feature hazards or incompatible uses would be reduced to a less than significant level. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant
Impact. The Amended Hillside Ordinance includes emergency secondary access provisions that are required when it is determined that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle
congestion, condition of terrain, or other factors that could limit ingress and egress. In addition, all roads subject to fire department apparatus are required to have a minimum width
and minimum height clearance. The City has standard review procedures for emergency access that are required prior to issuance of grading permits. No significant impacts would occur
in this regard. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant Impact. All future development would be required to meet City parking standards. No significant parking
impacts specific to the Amended Hillside Ordinance have been identified. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended Hillside Ordinance would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. No significant
impacts would occur. 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than
Significant Impact. The City of Bakersfield Public Works Department, Wastewater Division, provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal service for the City. The City owns
and operates a wastewater collection system and transmission system, which is comprised of sewer collectors, trunk sewers, lift stations, and force mains. The City’s Public Works Department
is responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the system and is funded by sewer service
charges and connection fees. Nothing in the scope of the Amended Hillside Ordinance would cause an increase the amount of wastewater produced in the hillside area because the purpose
of the document is to regulate development in order to reduce environmental impacts on the hillside area. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. b) Require or result in the
construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant
Impact. The City of Bakersfield Public Works Department, Wastewater Division, includes two wastewater treatment plants and a JN 60-100489 44 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance Pretreatment/Revenue program, which regulates the industrial and commercial wastewater discharges
and establishes and collects annual sewer fees. Nothing in the scope of the Amended Hillside Ordinance would cause an increase the amount of wastewater produced in the hillside area
because the purpose of the document is to regulate development in order to reduce environmental impacts on the hillside area. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. c) Require
or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less
Than Significant Impact. The City of Bakersfield owns and maintains storm drainage facilities within the City. Because there are a limited number of available storm drainage disposal
points within the Bakersfield area, the City accepts on site runoff into its drainage system as long as as adequate downstream facilities are in place. Nothing in the scope of the Amended
Hillside Ordinance would cause an increase the amount of wastewater produced in the hillside area because the purpose of the document is to regulate development in order to reduce environmental
impacts on the hillside area. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.8(b), above. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer
to Response 4.16(a), above. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s
City’s Solid Waste Division provides solid waste collection services for residential uses within the City of Bakersfield. All solid waste generated in the City is disposed of in County
operated landfills. Future development anticipated within the area covered by the Amended Hillside Ordinance is not expected to significantly affect existing facilities. No significant
impacts would occur in this regard. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. Nothing in the scope of the
Amended Hillside Ordinance would inhibit compliance with Federal, State, and local solid waste regulations because the purpose of the document is to regulate development in order to
reduce environmental impacts on the hillside area. However, all future development would be required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes relative to solid waste. No significant
impacts would occur in this regard. JN 60-100489 45 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE Ordinance No. 4391 – Amended Hillside Ordinance 4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.4(a), above. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Potentially Significant Impact. A review of cumulative impacts for each issue area that
has been identified as potentially significant will be required pursuant to Section 15130 of CEQA. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact. As stated in various sections of this Initial Study, the Amended Hillside Ordinance has the potential
to result in significant impacts on the environment. The EIR will include a comprehensive review of existing conditions, potential impacts, and will recommend mitigation measures to
reduce the level of significance related to short-term construction and long-term operations, as necessary. JN 60-100489 46 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP)
NOTICE OF PREPARATION To: Interested Agencies and Organizations (Agency) Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: Consulting Firm: Agency Name:
City of Bakersfield Firm Name: RBF Consulting Street Address: 1715 Chester Avenue Street Address: 2101 Arena Boulevard, Suite 250 City/State/Zip: Bakersfield, California 93301 City/State/Zip:
Sacramento, California 95834 Contact: Marc Gauthier, Principal Planner Contact: Bruce R. Grove Jr., REA The City of Bakersfield is the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact
report for the project identified below in accordance with a writ of mandate issued by the Kern County Superior Court in a lawsuit entitled DKS Investments, LLC, et. al. v. The City
of Bakersfield, et al., Kern County Superior Court Case No. S-1500-CV-259731 KCT (Lawsuit). We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental
information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering
your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial
Study is is not attached. Public Review Period: June 12, 2008 to July 11, 2008 Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date
but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Mr. Marc Gauthier, Principal Planner at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact
person in your agency. Project Title: Hillside Development Combining Zone – Amended Hillside Ordinance EIR Project Location: City of Bakersfield Kern City (nearest) County Project Description:
(brief) The project consists of amendments to the Hillside Development Combining Zone, Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, which were adopted on November 15, 2006 (Amended Amended
Hillside Ordinance). The Amended Hillside Ordinance is intended to define and implement the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as they relate to the preservation
and maintenance of hillsides as a scenic resource of the City and to protect the public from the threat of wildfire, hillside instability and landslides. The Amended Hillside Ordinance
is a resource protection measure that amended the HD zone by creating slope and viewshed protection areas that restrict development on steep slopes and ridgelines. Public Scoping Meeting:
A public scoping meeting will be held at 9:00 am, Thursday, July 10, 2008, at the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department Building, Conference Room, second floor, located
at 1715 Chester Avenue. All parties are welcome to attend and present environmental information that they believe should be addressed in the EIR. Date: June 11, 2008 Name: Marc Gauthier
Title: Principal Planner Telephone: (661) 326-3733 Reference: California Code of Regulations, Title 14, (CEQA Guidelines) Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375. Revised October 1989
NOTICE OF PREPARATION To: Interested Parties (Agency) Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: Consulting Firm: Agency Name: City of Bakersfield
Firm Name: RBF Consulting Street Address: 1715 Chester Avenue Street Address: 2101 Arena Boulevard, Suite 250 City/State/Zip: Bakersfield, California 93301 City/State/Zip: Sacramento,
California 95834 Contact: Marc Gauthier, Principal Planner Contact: Bruce R. Grove Jr., REA The City of Bakersfield is the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report
for the project identified below in accordance with a writ of mandate issued by the Kern County Superior Court in a lawsuit entitled DKS Investments, LLC, et. al. v. The City of Bakersfield,
et al., Kern County Superior Court Case No. S-1500-CV-259731 KCT (Lawsuit). The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials.
A copy of the Initial Study is is not attached. Public Review Period: June 12, 2008 to July 11, 2008 Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest
possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Mr. Marc Gauthier, Principal Planner at the address shown above. We will need the
name for a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Hillside Development Combining Zone – Amended Hillside Ordinance EIR Project Location: City of Bakersfield Kern City (nearest)
County Project Description: (brief) The project consists of amendments to the Hillside Development Combining Zone, Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, which were adopted on November
15, 2006 (Amended Hillside Ordinance). The Amended Hillside Ordinance is intended to define and implement the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as they
relate to the preservation and maintenance of hillsides as a scenic resource of the City and to protect the public from the threat of wildfire, hillside instability and landslides. The
Amended Hillside Ordinance is a resource protection measure that amended the HD zone by creating slope and viewshed protection areas that restrict development on steep slopes and ridgelines.
Public Scoping Meeting: A public scoping meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 am, Thursday, July 10, 2008, at the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department Building, Conference
Room, second floor, located at 1715 Chester Avenue. All parties are welcome to attend and present environmental information that they believe should be addressed in the EIR. Date: June
11, 2008 Name: Marc Gauthier Title: Principal Planner Telephone: (661) 326-3733 Reference: California Code of Regulations, Title 14, (CEQA Guidelines) Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375.
Revised October 1989
NOP RESPONSES
PUBLIC SERVICES RESPONSES
Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Administrative Draft EIR 13.4 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Administrative Draft EIR 13.5 ANALYSIS OF SLOPE AND VISUAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA POTENTIAL HOUSING YIELD
Analysis of Slope and Visual Resource Protection Area Potential Housing Yield. Zone 1 Slope 2 Acres (Gross) 3 Development Density Per Acre If Zero Slope Assumed 4 Expected Percent Build
out 5 Estimated Unit Yield 6 A 0 to 15% 0.53 0.05 100.00% 0.03 A 15% to 25% 6.19 0.05 62.50% 0.19 A 25% to 35% 2.57 0.05 37.50% 0.05 A 35% Plus 1.59 0.05 25.00% 0.02 A -TOTAL 10.89 0.29
A-20A-HD 0 to 15% 0.37 0.05 100.00% 0.02 A-20A-HD 15% to 25% 1.14 0.05 62.50% 0.04 A-20A-HD 25% to 35% 2.49 0.05 37.50% 0.05 A-20A-HD 35% Plus 9.52 0.05 25.00% 0.12 A-20A-HD -TOTAL 13.52
0.22 A-FP-S-HD 0 to 15% 0.02 0.05 100.00% 0.00 A-FP-S-HD 15% to 25% 0.06 0.05 62.50% 0.00 A-FP-S-HD 25% to 35% 0.03 0.05 37.50% 0.00 A-FP-S-HD 35% Plus 0.05 0.05 25.00% 0.00 A-FP-S-HD
-TOTAL 0.17 0.00 A-HD 0 to 15% 13.95 0.05 100.00% 0.70 A-HD 15% to 25% 58.61 0.05 62.50% 1.83 A-HD 25% to 35% 68.31 0.05 37.50% 1.28 A-HD 35% Plus 193.88 0.05 25.00% 2.42 A-HD -TOTAL
334.74 6.23 E 0 to 15% 0.14 2.75 100.00% 0.38 E 15% to 25% 0.73 2.75 62.50% 1.25 E 25% to 35% 0.22 2.75 37.50% 0.23 E 35% Plus 0.01 2.75 25.00% 0.00 E -TOTAL 1.09 1.86 E-HD 0 to 15%
0.73 2.75 100.00% 2.01 E-HD 15% to 25% 2.22 2.75 62.50% 3.82 E-HD 25% to 35% 1.64 2.75 37.50% 1.69 E-HD 35% Plus 0.44 2.75 25.00% 0.31 E-HD -TOTAL 5.04 7.83 FP-P 0 to 15% 0.01 0.00 100.00%
0.00 FP-P 15% to 25% 0.07 0.00 62.50% 0.00 FP-P 25% to 35% 0.02 0.00 37.50% 0.00 FP-P 35% Plus 0.12 0.00 25.00% 0.00 FP-P -TOTAL 0.23 0.00 R-1 0 to 15% 1.51 4.00 100.00% 6.02 R-1 15%
to 25% 16.26 4.00 62.50% 40.65 R-1 25% to 35% 5.66 4.00 37.50% 8.49 R-1 35% Plus 3.27 4.00 25.00% 3.27 R-1 -TOTAL 25.19 52.41 R-1-HD 0 to 15% 26.40 4.00 100.00% 105.59 R-1-HD 15% to
25% 123.47 4.00 62.50% 308.67 R-1-HD 25% to 35% 179.04 4.00 37.50% 268.56 R-1-HD 35% Plus 327.22 4.00 25.00% 327.22
ZONE 1 SLOPE 2 ACRES (GROSS) 3 Development Density Per Acre If Zero Slope Assumed 4 Expected Percent Build out 5 Estimated Unit Yield 6 R-1-HD -TOTAL 656.12 1,010.03 R-2 0 to 15% 0.56
12.50 100.00% 7.05 R-2 15% to 25% 4.53 12.50 62.50% 35.41 R-2 25% to 35% 0.23 12.50 37.50% 1.05 R-2 -TOTAL 5.32 43.51 R-3 0 to 15% 0.12 20.00 100.00% 2.48 R-3 15% to 25% 0.32 20.00 62.50%
4.05 R-3 25% to 35% 0.55 20.00 37.50% 4.12 R-3 35% Plus 1.47 20.00 25.00% 7.35 R-3 -TOTAL 2.47 17.99 R-S-10A-HD 0 to 15% 0.89 0.10 100.00% 0.09 R-S-10A-HD 15% to 25% 1.78 0.10 62.50%
0.11 R-S-10A-HD 25% to 35% 2.98 0.10 37.50% 0.11 R-S-10A-HD 35% Plus 17.78 0.10 25.00% 0.44 R-S-10A-HD -TOTAL 23.44 0.76 R-S-2.5A-HD 0 to 15% 0.06 0.40 100.00% 0.02 R-S-2.5A-HD 15% to
25% 0.29 0.40 62.50% 0.07 R-S-2.5A-HD 25% to 35% 0.14 0.40 37.50% 0.02 R-S-2.5A-HD 35% Plus 0.19 0.40 25.00% 0.02 R-S-2.5A-HD -TOTAL 0.68 0.14 SUB-TOTAL ACRES 2,158.60 SUB-TOTAL UNITS
2,288.43 Visual Resource Area Total length of Visual Resource Area in linear feet Lot yield assuming 55’ lot width Displaced Lots CLASS I 7 29,306 ft 533 533 CLASS II 8 41,653 ft 757
378 SUB-TOTAL ACRES 1.62 SUB-TOTAL UNITS 911 TOTAL ACRES 2,160.22 TOTAL UNITS 3,199.43
1 Zoning Designations: A Agriculture R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling 6,000 sq. ft. minimum 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 1,250 sq. ft. area/dwelling unit A-20A-HD Agriculture 20-acre minimum
R-S-10A Residential Suburban 10-acre minimum lot size E Estate R-S-2.5A Residential Suburban 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size 2.5-acre minimum lot size R-1 One Family Dwelling HD Hillside
Development 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size Combining Zone R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling FP-P Floodplain Primary 4,500 sq. ft. min. lot size (single family) 6,000 sq. ft. min.
lot size (multifamily) FP-S Floodplain Secondary 2,500 sq. ft. lot area/dwelling unit 2 Slope: The percentage of each Slope Protection Area is measured using the ESRI Spatial Analyst
v9.2, slope analysis function. The slopes were placed in one of four classifications: 0%-15%, 15%-25%, 25%-35%, and greater than 35% slope. 3 Acres (Gross): The “gross” acreage is based
on the total amount of land designated for the corresponding zone cated within lo the Hillside Development Combining Zone overlay. 4 Development Density Per Acre If Zero Slope Assumed:
This figure represents the unit yield per acre based on the historical development averages of units constructed per gross acre on flat land. 5 Expected Percent Buildout: This figure
represents the percentage of buildout expected for each zone classification and slope category based on slope constraints which will limit the density and intensity of development. 6
Estimated Unit Yield: Estimated unit yield based on the physical limitations of each slope category. (Example: 1-acre of land with a zoning designation of R-1 (One Family Dwelling) would
normally be expected to yield 4-units per gross acre. On a 35%+ slope, 1-acre of land would be expected to yield 25% as many dwelling units as flat ground, therefore, 1-acre of land
at a 35%+ slope would be expected to yield 1-unit or less.) 7 CLASS I: “Primary Viewsheds” are those locations identified along freeways, expressways, or arterial roadways from which
no structures or portions thereof are visible on a designated “Class I Visual Resource Area” for a distance of 1/2-mile, except as may be allowed under 17.66.040 P.4. For purposes of
this analysis, staff assumed the loss of one tier of lots adjacent to “Class I” viewsheds. 8 CLASS II: “Secondary Viewsheds” are those locations identified along freeways, expressways
or arterial roadways from which no more than 50% of the height of a structural elevation is visible on a “Class II Visual Resource Area” for a distance of a mile, except as my be allowed
under 17.66.040 P.4. For purposes of this analysis, staff assumed the loss of half the lots adjacent to “Class II” viewsheds. JS:S:\GPA 3rd 2008\Chapter 17.66 (Hillside Ordinance EIR)\Slope
Protection Analysis Truth Table 2.doc
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.