The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutUntitled (2) JN 60-100489.001 LEAD AGENCY: City of Bakersfield PREPARED BY: JANUARY 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Administrative Draft EIR Completed: December 15, 2008 Draft EIR Completed: January 9, 2009 Final EIR Completed: --ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING ZONE ORDINANCE SCH NO. 2008061069 Lead Agency: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Contact: Mr. Martin Ortiz Principal Planner (661) 326-3786 Prepared by: 2101 Arena Boulevard, Suite 250 Sacramento, California 95834-2303 January 2009 JN 60-100489 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 i Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose.............................................................. .................................................................................................................................1.0-1 1.2 Public Participation........................................ .....................................................................................................................1.0-2 1.3 Scope of the EIR ....................................................... .............................................................................................................. 1.0-3 1.4 Use of the EIR................................................................ ............................................................................................................1.0-4 1.5 Organization of the EIR.......................................................... ........................................................................................1.0-4 1.6 Incorporation by Reference .......................................................................... ...............................................................1.0-6 1.7 Preparers of the Draft EIR.................................................................................................... ......................................1.0-9 1.8 Review of the Draft EIR................................................................................................................................ ...................1.0-9 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 Project Summary..................................................................................................................................... .................................2.0-1 2.1.1 Project Location.......................................................................................................................................... .....2.0-1 2.1.2 Project Description .......................................................................................................................................2.0-1 2.2 Environmental Impact Summary ............................................................................................................................... 2.0-2 2.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts........................................................................................................................... 2.0-18 2.4 Summary of Project Alternatives.......................... .............................................................................................. 2.0-18 2.4.1 No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative ................................................. .................. 2.0-19 2.4.2 No Ordinance Alternative .................................................................................................................2.0-20 2.4.3 More Stringent Ordinance Alternative ...................................................................................2.0-21 2.5 Areas of Controversy and Issues To Be Resolved...................... ......................................................2.0-23 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Project Location and Setting ................................................................................. ................................................... 3.0-1 3.1.1 Project Location....................................................................................................................... ........................ 3.0-1 3.1.2 Surrounding Land Uses ...............................................................................................................................3.0-2 3.1.3 Physical Setting ...............................................................................................................................................3.0-2 3.2 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................................................................3.0-3 3.2.1 Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations...............................................................3.0-3 3.2.2 Existing Hillside Ordinance............................................................. .......................................................3.0-4 3.3 Background and History................................................................................................................ .............................. 3.0-13 3.3.1 Project Scoping ........................................................................................................................................... ....3.0-15 3.4 Project Description...........................................................................................................................................................3.0-15 3.4.1 Project Characteristics...........................................................................................................................3.0-15 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update Table of Contents Draft EIR 3.5 Project Objectives ............................................................................................... ............................................................3.0-28 3.6 Intended Uses of the EIR........................................................................................................ .....................................3.0-28 3.7 Required Permits and Approvals........................................................................................................................3 .0-29 4.0 BASIS OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS 4.1 CEQA Requirements .......................................................................................................................................... ..................4.0-1 4.2 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................................................................ ..... 4.0-2 4.2.1 Cumulative Impact Analysis................................................................................................................... 4.0-2 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 5.1 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................................. ........................................ 5.1-1 5.1.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................................... ............ 5.1-1 5.1.2 Significance Criteria......................................................................................................................................5.1-12 5.1.3 Impacts......................................................................................................................................................................... 5.1-13 5.1.4 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................................................................... 5.1-31 5.1.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation..........................................................................................5.1-33 5.2 Agricultural Resources ..................................... .................................................................................................................5.2-1 5.2.1 Existing Conditions....................................................... ..................................................................................5.2-1 5.2.2 Regulation of Agricultural Properties.................................................................... ..................... 5.2-3 5.2.3 Significance Criteria................................................................................................................................... 5.2-12 5.2.4 Impacts.......................................................................................................................................................................5.2-13 5.2.5 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................................................................... 5.2-15 5.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation.........................................................................................5.2-16 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare........................................... ................................................................................................5.3-1 5.3.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................ ..................................................................5.3-1 5.3.2 Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................... ...................................5.3-8 5.3.3 Significance Criteria................................................................................................................................... . 5.3-19 5.3.4 Impacts....................................................................................................................................................................5.3-20 5.3.5 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................................................................5.3-25 5.3.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation....................................................................................... 5.3-27 5.4 Traffic and Circulation ............................................... .......................................................................................................5.4-1 5.4.1 Existing Conditions................................................................. ........................................................................5.4-1 5.4.2 Level of Service Methodology....................................................................................... .......................5.4-8 5.4.3 Transportation Impact Fee Program.............................................................................................5.4-9 5.4.4 Regulatory Setting..........................................................................................................................................5.4-11 5.4.5 Significance Criteria.................... ............................................................................................................... 5.4-14 City of Bakersfield January 2009 ii Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update Table of Contents Draft EIR 5.4.6 Impacts......................................................................................................... ............................................................. 5.4-14 5.4.7 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................................... ...............................5.4-18 5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation.........................................................................................5.4-19 5.5 Noise.................................................................................................................................................................................................. ....5.5-1 5.5.1 Noise Scales and Definitions....................................................................................................................5.5-1 5.5.2 Regulatory Framework.................................................................................................................................5.5-5 5.5.3 Existing Conditions.............................. ........................................................................................................5.5-10 5.5.4 Significance Criteria............................................................. ..........................................................................5.5-11 5.5.5 Impacts......................................................................................................... .................................................................5.5-11 5.5.6 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................................... .................................. 5.5-14 5.5.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation..........................................................................................5.5-15 5.6 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................................................................... 5.6-1 5.6.1 Existing Conditions......................................................................................................................................... 5.6-1 5.6.2 Regulatory Framework...............................................................................................................................5.6-2 5.6.3 Local Ambient Air Quality ......................... ..............................................................................................5.6-11 5.6.4 Analysis Approach and Methodologies......................................................... .........................5.6-23 5.6.5 Sensitive Receptors.....................................................................................................................................5.6-26 5.6.6 Significance Criteria..................................................................................................................................5.6-27 5.6.7 Impacts...................... ................................................................................................................................................. 5.6-31 5.6.8 Cumulative Impacts...................... ................................................................................................................ 5.6-44 5.6.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation................................... ....................................................5.6-48 5.7 Biological Resources.................................................................................................................... .........................................5.7-1 5.7.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... .......................5.7-1 5.7.2 Existing Conditions..........................................................................................................................................5.7-1 5.7.3 Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................................... 5.7-10 5.7.4 Significance Criteria.................................................................................................................................... 5.7-16 5.7.5 Impacts...................................... ................................................................................................................................. 5.7-17 5.7.6 Cumulative Impacts...................................... ................................................................................................. 5.7-23 5.7.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation.................................................. .....................................5.7-24 5.8 Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................................... ............................ 5.8-1 5.8.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. .......... 5.8-1 5.8.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................................................................................... 5.8-1 5.8.3 Regulatory Framework................................................................................................................................5.8-3 5.8.4 Significance Criteria............ ......................................................................................................................... 5.8-6 5.8.5 Impacts.......................................................... ...............................................................................................................5.8-7 5.8.6 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................... ..............................................................................5.8-10 5.8.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation...................................................................... .....................5.8-11 5.9 Public Services and Utilities.......................................................................................................................................... 5.9-1 City of Bakersfield January 2009 iii Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update Table of Contents Draft EIR 5.9.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................. ............................................ 5.9-1 5.9.2 Significance Criteria......................................................................................................................... ...........5.9-14 5.9.3 Impacts........................................................................................................................................................................ 5.9-15 5.9.4 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................................................................... 5.9-24 5.9.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation...................................................................................... 5.9-24 5.10 Geologic Resources and Natural Hazards ............................. .......................................................................5.10-1 5.10.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... ....................................................5.10-1 5.10.2 Existing Conditions.................................................................................................................. .....................5.10-1 5.10.3 Regulatory Setting...................................................................................................................................... 5.10-15 5.10.4 Significance Criteria..................................................................................................................................5.10-16 5.10.5 Impacts........... ..........................................................................................................................................................5.10-18 5.10.6 Cumulative Impacts............ .........................................................................................................................5.10-25 5.10.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation......................... ........................................................... 5.10-26 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................................... ................................5.11-1 5.11.1 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................................... ....5.11-1 5.11.2 Regulatory Setting..........................................................................................................................................5.11-7 5.11.3 Significance Criteria....................................................................................................................................5.11-10 5.11.4 Impacts........................ ............................................................................................................................................... 5.11-12 5.11.5 Cumulative Impacts...................... ....................................................................................................................5.11-15 5.11.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation.............................. ............................................................5.11-16 5.12 Population and Housing........................................................................................................ ...........................................5.12-1 5.12.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. .........................5.12-1 5.12.2 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................................5.12- 1 5.12.3 Significance Criteria................................................................................................................................... 5.12-2 5.12.4 Impacts................ ...................................................................................................................................................... 5.12-2 5.12.5 Cumulative Impacts................ ........................................................................................................................ 5.12-4 5.12.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation.......................... ............................................................... 5.12-5 5.13 Public Health.............................................................................................................. ................................................................. 5.13-1 5.13.1 Definition of Terms.................................................................................................... ....................................... 5.13-1 5.13.2 Transportation of Hazardous Materials................................................................................... 5.13-2 5.13.3 Historic /Existing Conditions........................................................................................................5.13-2 5.13.4 Significance Criteria........................ .............................................................................................................5.13-7 5.13.5 Impacts..................................................................... .................................................................................................. 5.13-8 5.13.6 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................... ....................................................................5.13-16 5.13.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation.............................................................................. ..........5.13-16 City of Bakersfield January 2009 iv Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update Table of Contents Draft EIR 6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6.1 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of Man’s Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity .............................................................................................6.0-1 6.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes That Would Be Involved In The Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented........................................................................................................... ......................................6.0-1 6.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts ............................................................................................................................... .............6.0-2 6.3.1 Regional and Local Setting .................................................................................................................... 6.0-3 6.3.2 Project Impacts.................................................................................................................................................6.0-4 6.3.3 Conclusion......................... .....................................................................................................................................6.0-5 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 7.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................7.0-1 7.2 Alternatives To The Proposed Project ...........................................................................................................7.0-2 7.3 No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative............................................................................................7.0-3 7.3.1 Description of Alternative.......................................................... ...........................................................7.0-3 7.3.2 Impact Comparison to the Proposed Project.....................................................................7.0-3 7.3.3 Ability to Meet Project Objectives .............................................................................................. 7.0-7 7.3.4 Conclusion......................................... .................................................................................................................... 7.0-7 7.4 No Ordinance Alternative................................................ ...........................................................................................7.0-8 7.4.1 Description of Alternative...................................................................... ..............................................7.0-8 7.4.2 Impact Comparison to the Proposed Project....................................................................7.0-8 7.4.3 Ability to Meet Project Objectives ............................................................................................ 7.0-12 7.4.4 Conclusion........................................................ ................................................................................................... 7.0-12 7.5 More Stringent Ordinance Alternative (Environmentally Superior Alternative) ..7.0-13 7.5.1 Description of Alternative....................................................................................................................7.0-13 7.5.2 Impact Comparison to the Proposed Project...................................................................7.0-17 7.5.3 Ability to Meet Project Objectives ............................................................. .............................7.0-20 7.5.4 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... ........ 7.0-21 8.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES.......................................................... 8.0-1 9.0 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 9.1 Nonmitigable Significant Impacts.............................................................................................................................9.0-1 9.2 Mitigable Impacts and Significance After Mitigation...........................................................................9.0-1 9.2.1 Land Use and Planning................................................................................. .................................................9.0-1 9.2.2 Agricultural Resources.................................................................................................................... ............9.0-1 9.2.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare..................................................................................................................9.0-2 City of Bakersfield January 2009 v Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update Table of Contents Draft EIR 9.2.4 Traffic and Circulation..............................................................................................................................9.0-2 9.2.5 Noise............................................................................................................................................................................9.0-2 9.2.6 Air Quality............................................................................................................................................................9.0-2 9.2.7 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................................9.0-2 9.2.8 Cultural Resources................. .......................................................................................................................9.0-2 9.2.9 Public Utilities and Services ...................................... ............................................................................9.0-2 9.2.10 Geologic Resources and Natural Hazards........................................................................ ......9.0-2 9.2.11 Hydrology and Water Quality..........................................................................................................9.0-2 9.2.12 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................................ 9.0-3 9.2.13 Public Health and Safety .................................... ...................................................................................... 9.0-3 10.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 10.1 Aesthetics, Light and Glare................................. ......................................................................................................10.0-1 10.2 Air Quality ......................................................................... ..................................................................................................... 10.0-2 10.3 Biological Resources................................................................. ..................................................................................... 10.0-2 10.4 Cultural Resources................................................................................... ........................................................................ 10.0-4 10.5 Geologic Resources ............................................................................................... .......................................................... 10.0-5 10.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................ .....................10.0-8 10.7 Hydrology and Water Quality.......................................................................................................................... 10.0-10 10.8 Land Use and Relevant Planning.........................................................................................................................10.0-14 10.9 Mineral Resources............................................................................................................................................................10.0-14 10.10 Noise............... ................................................................................................................................................................................10.0-15 10.11 Population and Housing............................................................................................................................................. 10.0-16 10.12 Public Services and Utilities................................................................................................................................... 10.0-17 10.13 Recreation.............. .................................................................................................................................................................. 10.0-18 10.14 Transportation and Circulation........................................................................................................................ 10.0-18 10.15 Utilities and Service Systems.................... ..........................................................................................................10.0-20 11.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 11.1 Lead Agency............................ ......................................................................................................................................................11.0-1 11.2 Preparers of the Environmental Impact Report.........................................................................................11.0-1 11.3 Contributing Consultants............................................................. ..................................................................................11.0-1 11.4 Organizations and Persons Consulted ..................................................................... ....................................... 11.0-2 11.4.1 State of California ............................................................................................................................. ........... 11.0-2 11.4.2 Public Services/Utilities and Organizations Consulted........................................... 11.0-2 11.5 Comments Received .............................................. ................................................................................................................11.0-5 11.5.1 Commenting Agencies...................................................... .............................................................................11.0-5 City of Bakersfield January 2009 vi Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update Table of Contents Draft EIR 11.5.2 Commenting Public.............................................................................................. ............................................11.0-5 11.5.3 Other Comments Received...................................................................................................................... .11.0-6 12.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................12.0-1 13.0 APPENDICES 13.1 Original Hillside Development Ordinance 13.2 Amended Hillside Development Ordinance 13.3 Initial Study /Notice of Preparation (NOP) /NOP Responses 13.4 Air Quality Impact Analysis 13.5 Analysis of Slope and Visual Resource Protection Area Potential Housing Yield LIST OF TABLES 2.0‐1 Environmental Impact Summary...................................................................................2.0‐2 2.0‐2 Comparison of Alternatives..........................................................................................2.0‐18 3.0‐1 Original Hillside Development Ordinance as Compared to the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance.......................................................3.0‐17 3.0‐2 Amended Hillside Development Ordinance Provisions and Regulations ............3.0‐27 4.0‐1 Cumulative Projects List..................................................................................................4.0‐2 5.1‐1 General Plan Policy Analysis............................... .........................................................5.1‐18 5.1‐2 Achievement of RHNA New Construction Goal (2000‐2007)..................................5.1‐27 5.1‐3 Bakersfield Housing Element Achievements (2000‐2007) ........................................5.1‐27 5.1‐4 Housing Units by Year Built ............................................................................. ............5.1‐27 5.1‐5 Zoning Categories and Useable Densities ..................................................................5.1‐28 5.1‐6 Acreage and Units Required to Meet Current RHNA..............................................5.1‐28 5.2‐1 Consistency with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Agricultural Land ........................................ .............................5.2‐9 5.3‐1 Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Aesthetics, Light, and Glare .......................................... ........5.3‐13 5.4‐1 LOS Criteria – Unsignalized Intersections....................................................................5.4‐8 5.4‐2 LOS Criteria – Signalized Intersections.................. .......................................................5.4‐9 5.4‐3 Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Traffic Circulation.......................... .........................................5.4‐12 5.5‐1 Noise Descriptors .............................................................................................................5.5‐2 5.5‐2 California Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments ..............5.5‐6 5.5‐3 Hourly Noise Level Performance Standards – Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.................... .....................................................5.5‐7 City of Bakersfield January 2009 vii Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update Table of Contents Draft EIR 5.5‐4 Changes in Noise Exposure ...................................................................................... ......5.5‐8 5.5‐5 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels .........................................................5.5‐12 5.6‐1 Federal and California Standards – Ambient Air Quality............. .............................5.6‐3 5.6‐2 Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Air Quality ........................................................... ......................5.6‐6 5.6‐3 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status Designations ...............................5.6‐11 5.6‐4 Background Ambient Air Quality Data – Ozone.................. .....................................5.6‐13 5.6‐5 Background Ambient Air Quality Data – CO ............................................................5.6‐14 5.6‐6 Background Ambient Air Quality Data – NOx...........................................................5.6‐16 5.6‐7 Background Ambient Air Quality Data – PM10..........................................................5.6‐1 8 5.6‐8 Background Ambient Air Quality Data – PM2.5 .........................................................5.6‐18 5.6‐9 Background Ambient Air Quality Data – SOx ................................... .........................5.6‐19 5.6‐10 Background Ambient Air Quality Data – Lead..........................................................5.6‐20 5.6‐11 Displaced Residential Units .................. ........................................................................5.6‐24 5.6‐12 Measures of Significance – Ozone (ROG and NOx Emissions)................................5.6‐28 5.6‐13 Measures Based on Ambient Air Quality Impacts (NOx) .........................................5.6‐28 5.6‐14 Measures of Significance – Carbon Monoxide (CO)............................................. .....5.6‐29 5.6‐15 Measures of Significance – Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) .......................................................5.6‐29 5.6‐16 Measures of Significance – Respirable Particulates (PM10).......................................5.6‐30 5.6‐17 Measures of Significance – Respirable Particulates (PM2.5) ......................................5.6‐30 5.6‐18 Measures of Significance – Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) ...................................5.6‐31 5.6‐19 Construction Emissions Without the Amended HD Ordinance .............................5.6‐33 5.6‐20 Construction Emissions with the Amended HD Ordinance....................................5.6‐35 5.6‐21 Incremental Construction Emissions Increase/Decrease With Ordinance.............5.6‐36 5.6‐22 Long‐Term Emissions ....................................................................................................5.6‐38 5.6‐23 Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tons/Year) ....................................5.6‐47 5.7‐1 Sensitive Natural Communities Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring in the Bakersfield Area ............................................ ........................................................5.7‐6 5.7‐2 Sensitive Animal and Plant Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring in the Bakersfield Area ................................ ....................................................................5.7‐9 5.7‐3 Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Biological Resources ...............................................................5.7‐15 5.9‐1 Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Public Services and Utilities ..................................................5.9‐12 5.10‐1 Possible Damage Inducing Faults ................................................................................5.10‐4 City of Bakersfield January 2009 viii Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update Table of Contents Draft EIR 5.10‐2 Consistency with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Geologic and Seismic Hazards............................................5.10‐17 5.11‐1 Consistency with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Hydrology and Water Quality............................ ..................5.11‐9 5.13‐1 Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Public Health and Safety........................................................ 5.13‐6 7.0‐1 Comparison of Alternatives............................................................................................7.0‐2 LIST OF EXHIBITS 3‐1 Regional Vicinity ....................... .......................................................................................3.0‐5 3‐2 Local Vicinity ....................................................................................... .............................3.0‐7 3‐3 Hillside Development Zoning Location........................................................................3.0‐9 3‐4 USGS Map ................................. ......................................................................................3.0‐11 4‐1 Cumulative Projects Study Area ....................................................................... .............4.0‐5 5.1‐1 General Plan Land Use Designations – Northeast Quadrant ....................................5.1‐5 5.1‐2 Zoning Designations ‐Northeast Quadrant............................... ..................................5.1‐9 5.2‐1 Agricultural Zoning Within the Hillside Development (Overlay) Zone..................5.2‐5 5.3‐1 Scenic Resources ........................................ .......................................................................5.3‐5 5.3‐2 Hillside Development Zone – West...............................................................................5.3‐9 5.3‐3 Hillside Development Zone – East ..............................................................................5.3‐11 5.5‐1 Sound Levels and Human Response ..................................... ........................................5.5‐3 5.10‐1 Major Active Faults ........................................................................................................5.10‐5 5.10‐2 Northeast Bakersfield Fire Risk..................................................................................5.10‐11 5.10‐3 Northeast Bakersfield Historic Fires............................ ..............................................5.10‐13 ACRONYMS AND SHORT FORMS § ...................................................................................................................... .................................. Section °F.................................................................................................................................. degrees Fahrenheit A .............................................................................................................................................. Agricultural A‐20A‐HD...................... ............... Agricultural – 20‐acre minimum Hillside Development Overlay AASHTO ..............................American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AB................. .........................................................................................................................Assembly Bill ACHP............................................................ ......................Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ADT..........................................................................................................................Average Daily Traffic AF................................................................................................................................................. Acre‐Feet City of Bakersfield January 2009 ix Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update Table of Contents Draft EIR af/yr ................................................................................................................ ............... Acre‐Feet Per Year A‐FP‐S‐HD................................................ Agricultural – Floodplain ‐Slopes‐Hillside Development A‐HD............................................... ............................... Agricultural – Hillside Development Overlay amsl ...................................................................................................................... ..Above Mean Sea Level APCD..........................................................................................................Air Pollution Control District AQAP............................... ............................................................................Air Quality Attainment Plan AQIA........................................................................................... ................. Air Quality Impact Analysis AQMP.......................................................................................................Air Quality Management Plan AST............... ................................................................................................. Aboveground Storage Tank Basin....................................................................... ..................................... San Joaquin Valley Air Basin BACT.................................................................................................Best Available Control Technology BCSD....................................................................................................... Bakersfield City School District BFD‐PSD................................ ..................Bakersfield Fire Department, Prevention Services Division BIA............................................................................................................. Building Industry Association BMP..................................................................................................................Best Management Practice C&D ....................... ........................................................................................ Construction & Demolition CAA ................................................................................ .........................................Federal Clean Air Act CAAQS................................................................................California Ambient Air Quality Standards Cal Water..........................................................................................California Water Service Company California Register ............................................... ............. California Register of Historical Resources Caltrans.................................................................................. California Department of Transportation CARB ...................................................................................................... California Air Resources Board CBC ........................................................ ............................................................California Building Code CCAA.............................................................................................................. .... California Clean Air Act CCAR................................................................................................ California Climate Action Registry CCR.............................. ............................................................................California Code of Regulations CDFG ..................................................................................... California Department of Fish and Game CEQA...........................................................................................California Environmental Quality Act CESA........................ .........................................................................California Endangered Species Act CFC......................................................................................... .................................... Chlorofluorocarbon CFD ...............................................................................................................Community Facility District CFR............................................................................................................... Code of Federal Regulations CHAPIS ........................................ ...................Community Health Air Pollution Information System CHP................................................................................................................. California Highway Patrol CIP................................................................................................................... Capital Improvement Plan City of Bakersfield January 2009 x Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update Table of Contents Draft EIR City.................................................................................................................. ............. City of Bakersfield CNDDB....................................................................................... California Natural Diversity Database CNEL ............................. .................................................................Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS................................................................................................. .......California Native Plant Society CO ................................................................................................................................. Carbon Monoxide CO2e ..........................................................................................................Carbon Dioxide Equivalencies CSU Bakersfield............................................ ........................ California State University at Bakersfield CWA................................................................................................................................ . Clean Water Act dB...................................................................................................................................................... Decibel dBA .............................................................................................................................A‐weighted Decibel DEIR................................................... ............................................. Draft Environmental Impact Report DOF.................................................................................................. (California) Department of Finance DOGGR ..................................................................... Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources DTSC..................................... .............................. (California) Department of Toxic Substance Control E.................................................................................................................... Estate One Family Dwelling EDR ................................................................................................. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. E‐HD............................... ................. Estate – One Family Dwelling ‐Hillside Development Overlay EIR............................................................................................................. Environmental Impact Report EMT........................................................................................................... Emergency Medical Technical EPA ............................ ................................................United States Environmental Protection Agency ESD...................................................................................................... . Environmental Services Division ESL .......................................................................................................Environmentally Sensitive Lands Extreme OADP.............. .......................................... Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan FCAA............................................................................................................ ...........Federal Clean Air Act FEIR..................................................................................................Final Environmental Impact Report FEMA.......................... .......................................................... Federal Emergency Management Agency FESA.................................................................................................... .. Federal Endangered Species Act FIRM ................................................................................................................Flood Insurance Rate Map FMMP .................. .......................................................... Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program g .................................................................................................. ..................Acceleration Due To Gravity GAMAQI.................................................... Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GC..................................... .........................................................................................General Commercial General Plan................................................................ Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update GET.........................................................................................................................Golden Empire Transit GHG................................................................................................................................. Greenhouse Gas City of Bakersfield January 2009 xi Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update Table of Contents Draft EIR H2O................................................................................................................... .................................. Water H2S..................................................................................................................................Hydrogen Sulfide Handbook..................................................................................................CEQA Air Quality Handbook HAP........................................................ .............................................................Hazardous Air Pollutant HC ............................................................................................................... .........................Hydrocarbons HCFC ............................................................................................................... Hydrochlorofluorocarbon HD.................. ......................................................................................................... Hillside Development HFC..................................................................... ........................................................Hydrofluorocarbon HHWE ........................................................................................Household Hazardous Waste Element HM‐R ...............................................................................................................High‐Medium Residential HVAC ........................................ ........................................ Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning HWMP...........................................................................................Hazardous Waste Management Plan I‐5................................................................................................................................................Interstate 5 ICU ........................................................................................................Intersection Capacity Utilization ISO.................................................... ....................................................................Insurance Service Office ISR ...................................................................................................... ........................ Indirect Source Rule KCAC.....................................................................................Kern County Agricultural Commissioner KCDEHS.................... ...........................Kern County Department of Environmental Health Services KCEHSD............................................................Kern County Emergency Health and Safety Division KCWA...........................................................................................................Kern County Water Agency KCWMD.......................................... .............................Kern County Waste Management Department KernCOG....................................................................................Kern County Council of Governments km.................................................................................................................................................Kilometer lb ........................... ............................................................................................................................. Pound LCP................................................................ ......................................................... Local Coastal Program LD..................................................................................................................... ...Low‐Density Residential Ldn ............................................................................................................................... Day/Night Average LE.................... ..................................................................................................................Land Evaluation Leq.................................................................. ........................................................Equivalent Sound Level LESA ............................................................................................Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Lmax.........................................................................................................................Maximum Sound Level Lmin ............................. ............................................................................................ Minimum Sound Level LMR................................................................................... ................................Low‐Medium Residential LOS.................................................................................................................................... Level of Service LST ......................................................................................................... Localized Significant Threshold City of Bakersfield January 2009 xii Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update Table of Contents Draft EIR LUP .................................................................................................................. ................... Land Use Plan MBHCP.............................................................. Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan MBTA.......................................... .....................................................................Migratory Bird Treaty Act mgd .................................................................................................... ..................Million Gallons Per Day mi........................................................................................................................................................... Mile mm ..............................................................................................................................................Millimeter mph................................... ................................................................................................. Miles Per Hour MPO................................................................................... ............Metropolitan Planning Organization msl ......................................................................................................................................Mean Sea Level N/A..................................................................................................................................... Not Applicable NAAQS................................ .................................................. National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC...................................................................................... Native American Heritage Commission NBOSA .................................................................................... Northeast Bakersfield Open Space Area NDFE .................................... ...................................................................Non‐Disposal Facility Element NFIP ................................................................................................. .National Flood Insurance Program NFPA ............................................................................................. National Fire Protection Association NHPA ........................ ....................................................................... National Historic Preservation Act NO2 ........................................................................................ ......................................... Nitrogen Dioxide NOx...................................................................................................................................Nitrog en Oxides NOC......................................................................................................................... Notice of Completion NOP........................................ .................................................................................. Notice of Preparation NORSD......................................................................................... ... North of the River Sanitary District NPDES.................................................................... National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP................................ ...............................................................National Register of Historic Places NSR ..............................................................................................N on‐Attainment New Source Review O3 ........................................................................................................................................................Ozone OHP...........................................................................................................Office of Historic Preservation OHWM..................................................... .................................................... Ordinary High Water Mark OPR ........................................................................................................Office of Planning and Research ORV.................................................................................................................................Off‐Road Vehicle OS‐HD ................... ......................................................... Open Space – Hillside Development Overlay OS‐P .............................................................................................. .............................. Open Space – Parks OS‐S............................................................................................................................Open Space – Slopes P.U.D..............................................................................................................Planned Unit Development Pb.......................................... ................................................................................................................ Lead City of Bakersfield January 2009 xiii Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update Table of Contents Draft EIR PCB................................................................................................................... . Polychlorinated Biphenyl PFC................................................................................................................................... Perfluorocarbon PG&E ........................................................................................................................Pacific Gas & Electric PM2.5 .................................................. .....................................................................Fine Particulate Matter PM10 ..................................................................................................... .......................... Particulate Matter ppm................................................................................................................................. Parts Per Million PRC.........................................................................................................................Public Resources Code PSD...................................... .......................................................Prevention of Significant Deterioration PSF..................................................................................................... .......... Public Services and Facilities PST .......................................................................................................................... Pacific Standard Time R‐1 .....................................................................................................Residential – One Family Dwelling R‐1‐HD.................................... Residential – One Family Dwelling ‐Hillside Development Overlay R‐2 ......................................Residential – Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone ‐1 unit/2,500 s.f. R‐3 .................. .....................................Residential – Limited Multiple Family Zone – 1 unit/1,250 s.f. RCPG .................................................................................... Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide R‐EA.................................................................................................... Resource – Extensive Agriculture REC.................... .......................................................................... Recognized Environmental Condition RFP ..................................................................................... ..........................Reasonable Further Progress RH ................................................................................................................................ Relative Humidity RHNA.......................................................................................... Regional Housing Needs Assessment R‐IA................................................ .......................................................................... Intensive Agriculture R‐MP.................................................................................................. .......Resource – Mineral Petroleum ROG.......................................................................................................................... Reactive Organic Gas ROW...................................................................................................................................... Right‐of‐Way RR.............................................. ......................................................................................Rural Residential R‐S‐10A‐HD.................. Residential Suburban/10‐acre minimum ‐Hillside Development Overlay R‐S‐2.5A‐HD...............Residential Suburban/2.5‐acre minimum – Hillside Development Overlay RTIF............................................................................................ .....Regional Transportation Impact Fee RTP............................................................................................................. Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB ..................................................................................... Regional Water Quality Control Board s.f. ................................................................. .............................................................................Square Feet SCAG ....................................................................... Southern California Association of Governments SE.......................................................................................................................................Site Assessment SF6 ................................................................................................................................Sulfur hexafluoride SIL................................................ ........................................................................ Significant Impact Level City of Bakersfield January 2009 xiv Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update Table of Contents Draft EIR SIP................................................................................................................... . State Implementation Plan SJVAB.......................................................................................................... San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SJVAPCD....................... .......................................... San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SO2 ...................................................................................................... ................................. Sulfur Dioxide SOx .........................................................................................................................................Sulfur Oxides SOI............................................................................................................................... Sphere of Influence SPRR..................................... ............................................................................. Southern Pacific Railroad SR............................................................................................. .................................................. State Route SR............................................................................................................................. Suburban Residential SRA...........................................................................................................................Source Receptor Area SRRE........................... ............................................................Source Reduction and Recycling Element SUSMP.............................................................................Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan SWANCC .................................................................... Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County SWPPP.......................................... ............................................ Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB .........................................................................................State Water Resources Control Board TAC........................................................................................................................Toxic Air Contaminant TMDL.................... ........................................................................................ Total Maximum Daily Load TRIEPA...........................................U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Toxic Release Inventory TSP ................................................................................................................Total Suspended Particulate USACE......................................................................................United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA.................................................................. ................... United States Department of Agriculture USFWS.......................................................................................United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS.........................................................................................................United States Geologic Survey UST................................................. ............................................................... Underground Storage Tank UV ........................................................................................................... ................................... Ultraviolet V/C ................................................................................................................................. Volume/Capacity VOC.............................................................................................................. Volatile Organic Compound WWTP....................................... ................................................................. Waste Water Treatment Plant μg/m3 ................................................................................................... ..........Microgram Per Cubic Meter City of Bakersfield January 2009 xv Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update Table of Contents Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 xvi Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 1.0-1 Section 1.0 Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared in compliance with the writ of mandate issued by the Kern County Superior Court in an action entitled DKS Investments, LLC v. The City of Bakersfield, et al. (Kern County Superior Court Case No. S‐1500‐CV‐259731 KCT). The purpose of this document is to assess potential environmental effects resulting from the implementation of recent amendments to the Hillside Development Combining Zone, City of Bakersfield Municipal Code (Chapter 17.66). This EIR has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.), California CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementation of CEQA, as adopted by the City. Under the provisions of CEQA, “the purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effect on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided” (Public Resource Code 21002.1(a)). The Amended Hillside Development (HD) Ordinance Project, herein referenced as the “proposed Project,” consists of amendments to the Hillside Development Combining Zone [Chapter 17.66 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code, as adopted on November 15, 2006 (Amended Hillside Ordinance – Ordinance No. 4391)]; refer to Appendix 13.1, Original Hillside Development Ordinance, and Appendix 13.2, Amended Hillside Development Ordinance, of this EIR. The Amended HD 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, wildfire, hillside instability, and landslides. The Amended HD Ordinance is intended as a resource protection measure that amends the HD Zone by creating slope and viewshed protection areas to restrict development on steep slopes and ridgelines. All discretionary projects within the State of California are subject to environmental review under CEQA to determine the potential effects of the proposed action and to ensure consistency with CEQA requirements. A discretionary project is defined as any activity that has the potential to result in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change to the environment. A discretionary project is required to undergo environmental review if a decisionmaking action by a public agency is required; if the project is wholly or partially supported by public agency contracts, grants, subsidies, etc.; or, if an activity requires a public agency to issue a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement. In conformance with §15050 and §15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Bakersfield has been designated the “Lead Agency,” which is defined as the “public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” The City, along with other Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 1.0 Introduction Draft EIR public responsible and trustee agencies, will consider the information in this EIR in the decision‐making and/or permit processes, along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process. Responsible agencies are those agencies that have discretionary approval over one or more actions involved with ultimate development of the proposed Project area. Trustee agencies are State agencies having discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the Project. Section 21102.1 of CEQA requires that a Lead Agency neither approve nor carry out a project as it was initially proposed unless any significant environmental impacts that result from the proposal have been avoided or reduced to the greatest extent feasible (see CEQA Guidelines, §15091 and §15092). Section 21102.1 of CEQA also requires that decision‐makers balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks. If environmental impacts are identified as significant and unavoidable, the Lead Agency may still approve the proposed project if it believes that social, economic, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable impacts. The City would then be required to state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project, based on information in the EIR and other information in the administrative record. The document describing this reasoning is called, per §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a “Statement of Overriding Considerations.” This EIR is intended to inform public agency decision‐makers and the public of significant environmental effects of a project; identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects; and, describe reasonable alternatives to the Project. Mitigation measures are provided as needed that may be adopted as Conditions of Approval to reduce the significance of impacts resulting from the Project. The EIR is intended to serve as the primary reference document in the formulation and implementation of a mitigation monitoring program for the proposed Project, as applicable. 1.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Draft EIR (DEIR) is subject to a 45‐day public review period by responsible and trustee agencies and interested parties. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15085(a) and §15087(a)(1), as amended, the City, serving as the Lead Agency, will (1) publish a notice of availability of a DEIR in the Bakersfield Californian, a newspaper of general circulation; and, (2) prepare and transmit a Notice of Completion (NOC) to the State Clearinghouse (proof of publication is available at the office of the Lead Agency). Written comments from any public agency or members of the public on the DEIR may be submitted during the 45‐day period to the individual identified on the document’s NOC. In addition, the City will hold a regularly scheduled public hearing during the 45‐day review period to allow for oral comment on the DEIR. Following the 45‐day public review period, the City will evaluate and prepare responses to all relevant comments received from both citizens and public agencies. The Final EIR (FEIR) will consist of the DEIR, revisions to the DEIR, responses to comments that address concerns raised by responsible agencies and other reviewing parties, and revisions to City of Bakersfield January 2009 1.0-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 1.0 Introduction Draft EIR the DEIR (if any) made as a result of such comments. Following completion of the FEIR, and at least 10 days prior to certification, a copy of the response to comments will be provided to the respective commenting agencies and other interested parties. 1.3 SCOPE OF THE EIR Pursuant to the provision of CEQA Guidelines §15062, the City of Bakersfield completed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project on June 12, 2008 to identify the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The City of Bakersfield distributed the NOP, which was filed with the State of California Office of Planning and Research on June 12, 2008 (refer to Appendix 13.3, Initial Study /Notice of Preparation [NOP] /NOP Responses). The comment period closed on July 12, 2008, following the State‐mandated 30‐day NOP review period. This EIR evaluates the potential for significant impacts to occur as the result of Project implementation, as determined through preparation of the EIR, and takes into account public and agency comments received on the NOP, as well as comments received from the public during the separate scoping meeting held July 10, 2008. The EIR identifies potential impacts resulting from the proposed Project and provides measures to mitigate potential significant impacts, as applicable. Those impacts that cannot be mitigated to levels less than significant are also identified, as appropriate. In addition to CEQA‐mandated discussions, environmental issues evaluated within this EIR are as follows: • Land Use and Planning; • Agricultural Resources; • Aesthetics, Light and Glare; • Traffic and Circulation; • Noise; • Air Quality; • Biological Resources; • Cultural Resources; • Public Services and Utilities; • Geologic and Seismic Hazards; • Hydrology and Water Quality; • Population and Housing; and, • Public Health and Safety. Based on significance criteria, the effects of the Project have been categorized as either “less than significant” or “potentially potentially significant.” Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts, to avoid or lessen such impacts, as appropriate. In the event the Project results in significant impacts after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the City of Bakersfield January 2009 1.0-3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 1.0 Introduction Draft EIR decision‐makers may approve a project based on a “Statement of Overriding Considerations.” This determination would require the decision‐makers to provide a discussion of how the benefits of the Project outweigh identified unavoidable impacts. The CEQA Guidelines provide in part the following: • CEQA requires that the decision‐maker balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” • Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects that are identified in the Final EIR but are not mitigated, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes the finding under §15091 (a)(2) or (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. • If an agency makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination (§15093 of the CEQA Guidelines). 1.4 USE OF THE EIR This EIR is intended to enable the City of Bakersfield and other responsible agencies and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Amended Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance; refer also to Section 3.8, Required Permits and Approval. This EIR is intended to provide environmental clearance for the Project, such that the City of Bakersfield will be able to utilize the document to satisfy CEQA requirements for project‐related permits and/or approvals. 1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR The DEIR is organized into thirteen sections, as follows: • Section 1.0, Introduction and Purpose, provides CEQA compliance information. • Section 2.0, Executive Summary, provides a brief Project description and summary of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures. • Section 3.0, Project Description, provides a detailed Project description indicating Project location, background, and history; Project characteristics, phasing, and objectives; and the required associated discretionary actions. • Section 4.0, Basis for the Cumulative Analysis, describes the approach and methodology for the cumulative impacts analysis. City of Bakersfield January 2009 1.0-4 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 1.0 Introduction Draft EIR • Section 5.0, Description of Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, contains a detailed environmental analysis of the existing conditions, Project impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and unavoidable adverse impacts, if any. The analysis of each environmental category in Section 5.0 is organized as follows: 􀂃 “Existing Conditions” describes the physical conditions that exist at this time and that may influence or affect the issue under investigation. 􀂃 “Significance Criteria” provides the thresholds that are the basis of conclusions of significance, for which the primary source is Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. 􀂃 “Project Impacts” describes potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur if the proposed Project is implemented. – A designation of “no impact” is given when no adverse changes in the environment are expected. – A “less than significant impact” would cause no substantial adverse change in the environment. – A “less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated” avoids substantial adverse impacts on the environment through mitigation. – A “significant and unavoidable impact” would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment, and feasible mitigation measures are not available to reduce the impact to a less than significant impact. 􀂃 “Cumulative Impacts” describes potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur with the proposed Project, together with all past, present and other reasonably foreseeable projects. 􀂃 “Mitigation Measures” are those specific measures that may be required of the Project to avoid a significant adverse impact; minimize a significant adverse impact; rectify a significant adverse impact by restoration; reduce or eliminate a significant adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; or compensate for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environment. 􀂃 “Level of Significance After Mitigation” discusses whether the Project and the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts can be reduced to levels that are considered less than significant. City of Bakersfield January 2009 1.0-5 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 1.0 Introduction Draft EIR • Section 6.0, Long‐Term Implications of the Proposed Project, discusses significant environmental changes that would result from the proposed action, should it be implemented, and discusses growth‐inducing impacts of the proposed Project. • Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project or to the location of the Project that could feasibly attain the basic Project objectives. • Section 8.0, Inventory of Mitigation Measures, lists mitigation measures proposed to minimize the significant impacts of the Project, as applicable. • Section 9.0, Inventory of Significance After Mitigation, describes those Project impacts that remain significant following mitigation, as applicable. • Section 10.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, explains potential Project impacts that have been determined not to be significant. • Section 11.0, Organizations and Persons Consulted, identifies all Federal, State, or local agencies, other organizations, and individuals consulted in the preparation of the EIR. • Section 12.0, Bibliography, identifies reference sources for the EIR. • Section 13.0, Appendices, contains the complete text of the Amended HD Ordinance and the Original Ordinance, the Notice of Preparation, and technical documentation for the Project. 1.6 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Pertinent documents relating to this EIR have been cited in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15148, which encourages incorporation by reference to minimize redundancy in and the length of environmental reports. The following documents, which are available for public review at the City of Bakerfield’s Development Services Department (located at 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California, 93301), have been incorporated by reference into this EIR. Information contained within these documents has been utilized in preparation of this EIR. A synopsis of the scope and content of each of these documents is provided below. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, adopted December 2002. The General Plan is a policy document designed to give long‐range guidance for decision‐making affecting the future character of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Planning Area. It represents the official statement of the community’s physical development as well as its economic, social, and environmental goals. The General Plan has the following elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, Public Services and Facilities, and Parks. The Kern River Plan Element helps to define goals and policies for issues unique to the Kern River Corridor. The General Plan was utilized throughout this EIR as the fundamental planning document governing development of the Project area. Background information and policy information from the General Plan is cited in several sections of the EIR. City of Bakersfield January 2009 1.0-6 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 1.0 Introduction Draft EIR Bakersfield Housing Element of the General Plan, January 2003. California State law mandates that a city or county General Plan include a Housing Element as one of the seven elements to be included in the General Plan. The Housing Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan provides an assessment of existing and future housing demands within the City and establishes goals, policies, and objectives to achieve a diversity of future housing opportunities for varying housing needs with regard to type and cost. The Element provides an analysis of population trends, household characteristics, and special housing needs, while taking stock of land that is both available and suitable for residential development. Anticipated funding sources and implementation schedules are also discussed. Bakersfield Draft Housing Element of the General Plan – Update, April 2008. The Update to the General Plan Housing Element is intended “to provide an understanding of the existing and projected housing needs within the community and set forth policies and schedules which promote preservation, improvement and development of diverse types and costs of housing throughout Bakersfield.” Consistent with State General Plan law pertaining to Housing Elements, the Update serves as a guide for providing housing within the City for the Years 2008‐2013 to ensure that adequate resources continue to be available for the City’s expanding population over the next five years, while a high standard of living is maintained. Kern River Plan Element, adopted August 19, 1985. The Kern River provides a variety of resource, recreational, and open space uses within the Bakersfield area. The Kern River Plan Element is part of the General Plan and considers the primary and secondary floodways of the Kern River, which cover an estimated 14,250 acres of land. The Element discusses the relationship of the proposed uses within the primary and secondary floodways with those uses that already exist or are shown on the existing general plans of the City and County and identifies the intent of both the City and the County with regard to future land uses within the Kern River Planning Area. Measures are set forth to ensure the long‐term preservation and maintenance of the primary floodway channel. Measures for management of the secondary channel, in which resource, recreational, residential, and other uses are allowed are also provided. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report, certified December 11, 2002. The General Plan Update EIR provides basic analysis of the potentially significant effects on the human and natural environment that may occur with buildout of the General Plan. The General Planʹs implementation program incorporates mitigation measures; however, project‐specific impacts are assessed at the application stage. The General Plan Update EIR provides a fundamental base for environmental review. Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), August 10, 1994 (date the Implementing Agreements were approved). The MBHCP and implementing agreements and ordinances provide a method of collecting funds for the acquisition and perpetual management City of Bakersfield January 2009 1.0-7 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 1.0 Introduction Draft EIR of habitat land for the purpose of creating preserves.1 Development projects within Metropolitan Bakersfield pay mitigation fees, which are used to buy habitat lands. These lands are managed by wildlife agencies or by entities approved by wildlife agencies. Measures to avoid taking of a protected species are also listed in the MBHCP. The amount of habitat preserved must always be greater than what is being developed. The boundaries of the MBHCP study area match the boundaries of the General Plan, which consists of approximately 408 square miles. City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance (Bakersfield Municipal Code, Title 17). The City’s Municipal Code provides the regulations that must be followed by all projects within the City’s jurisdictional area. The Municipal Code establishes land use districts in which specific regulations apply, such as density, structure, height and size, and development character. The Ordinance consists of two primary parts: (1) a map that delineates the boundaries of the zoning district; and, (2) text that explains the purpose of the district, specifies permitted and conditional uses, and establishes development and performance standards. Information within the Municipal Code was utilized in various sections of this EIR and helped to identify additional constraints and requirements that govern development. Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield, adopted March 6, 1996. The purpose of the Specific Parks and Trails Plan is to implement the policies of the Kern River Plan Element and other elements of the General Plan such as the Land Use, Circulation, and Open Space Elements. The Specific Parks and Trails Plan identifies trail alignments and support facilities and provides for acquiring land dedications, improvements, maintenance, and development standards for multiple use trails. Multi‐use trails include use by pedestrians, hikers, equestrians, and bicyclists. Support facilities provide public public parking areas to access trails. Policies of the Specific Parks and Trails Plan require that new residential development provide parks and trails consistent with the Plan. Developers adjacent to the River are subject to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the General Plan and are required to dedicate the River access trail and support facilities. Project Environmental Studies. As part of the preparation of this EIR, the following studies, which are included in the Technical Appendices, were prepared or utilized to develop baseline information and Project‐related impact discussions: • Air Quality Impact Assessment, October 2008, prepared by Insight Environmental: Assesses both long‐term and short‐term impacts on air quality that would result from the Project, and provides mitigation measures, as appropriate, to minimize potential impacts. 1.0-8 1 The MBHCP and associated implementing ordinances and agreements are available through the Kern County Planning Department. The Plan provides descriptions of species of concern and habitat areas within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 1.0 Introduction Draft EIR 1.7 PREPARERS OF THE DRAFT EIR The City of Bakersfield is the lead agency in the preparation of this EIR. RBF Consulting is the environmental consultant hired by the City for the proposed Project. The names and contact information of the consultants who prepared the technical studies that are a part of this EIR are provided in Section 11.0, Organizations and Persons Consulted. Lead Agency...................................City of Bakersfield 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Environmental Consultant...........RBF Consulting 2101 Arena Boulevard, Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95834 1.8 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR This DEIR will be distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, County of Kern, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the DEIR in accordance with PRC 21092 (b)(3). The NOC of the DEIR will also be distributed as required by CEQA. During the 45‐day public review period, the DEIR, including technical appendices, is available for review at the following locations: City of Bakersfield Development Services – Planning Division 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Beale Memorial Library 701 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Southwest Library 8301 Ming Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93311 Law Library 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 City of Bakersfield January 2009 1.0-9 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 1.0 Introduction Draft EIR Written comments on the DEIR should be addressed to: Mr. Martin Ortiz City of Bakersfield Development Services – Planning Division 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Upon completion of the 45‐day public review period, written responses to all substantive environmental issues raised will be prepared and available for review prior to the public hearing before the Bakersfield City Council at which the certification of the FEIR will be considered. These environmental comments and their responses, as well as any proposed changes in the DEIR based on the comments, will be included in the Final EIR as part of the environmental record for consideration by decision‐makers for the proposed Project. City of Bakersfield January 2009 1.0-10 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-1 Section 2.0 Executive Summary 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 PROJECT SUMMARY 2.1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed Project area is located within the west central portion of Kern County, California in the City of Bakersfield (City). The limits of the City generally extend to the Sequoia National Forest at the foot of the Greenhorn Mountain Range and at the entrance to Kern Canyon. The Project area lies near the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, with the southern tip of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east. To the south lie the Tehachapi Mountains; to the west is the Temblor Range, which features the Carrizo Plain National Monument and the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 35 miles across the Valley floor. 2.1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The area affected by the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance (Amended HD Ordinance) is located in the northeastern portion of the City of Bakersfield; refer to Figure 3‐2, LOCAL VICINITY and Figure 3‐3, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONING LOCATION. The area affected by the HD Zone covers approximately 6,531 acres. The Amended HD Ordinance applies to areas within the City zoned HD (Hillside Development). The intent of the Project is to allow for amendments to the City of Bakersfield’s original Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance (Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66), adopted August 11, 1999. The Amended HD 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 general public from the threat of wildfire, hillside instability and landslides.”1 In particular, the Amended HD Ordinance seeks to fulfill the implementation measures of the Open Space Element of the General Plan. The HD Zone district serves as an overlay zone and, as such, regulations set forth by the Amended HD Ordinance are in addition to those uses allowed by, and the regulations of, the base zone district. The overlay zone would generally apply to those larger contiguous areas along the City’s hillsides having natural slopes of 8% or more. The Amended HD Ordinance provides additional requirements, in addition to those given in the original Hillside Development Ordinance, to protect views and to regulate grading, roadway grades, and wildfire prevention efforts. In support of the established General Plan policies, the Amended HD 1 City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. Chapter 17.66, HD (Hillside Development) Combining Zone. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR Ordinance addresses prevention of hillside instability and landslides, and includes measures for preserving identified scenic viewsheds within the land area affected by the Ordinance. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY This EIR provides an assessment of potentially significant effects of the proposed Project with respect to the following issue areas: Land Use and Planning; Agricultural Resources; Aesthetics, Light and Glare; Traffic and Circulation; Noise; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Public Services and Utilities; Geologic and Seismic Hazards; Hydrology and Water Quality; Population and Housing; and, Public Health and Safety. These issue areas are analyzed and discussed more fully in Chapter 5.0, Description of Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, of this EIR to determine whether significant impacts would occur with Project implementation. It was found through preparation of the EIR that no significant impacts would occur as the result of the Project. Table 2.0‐1, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY, below provides a summary of potential Project impacts, determination of significance, and identification of mitigation measures. Table 2.0-1 Environmental Impact Summary IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE 5.1 Land Use and Planning Division of an Established Community 5.1‐1 Implementation of the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance would not result in the physical division of an established community. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Conflict with Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations 5.1‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not conflict with an 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). The proposed Project has been reviewed for consistency with the goals and policies set forth in the City’s General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR Table 2.0-1, Environmental Impact Summary, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-3 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE Conflict with Regional Plans 5.1‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Cumulative Impacts 5.1‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not physically divide an established community, conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, or conflict with any applicable habitat or natural community conservation plan. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. 5.2 Agricultural Resources Loss of Agricultural Land 5.2‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not 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 uses. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Conversion of Land Under Williamson Act Contract 5.2‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not require the cancellation of an existing Williamson Act Contract. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Conflicts Between Proposed Urban Uses and Agricultural Activities 5.2‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR Table 2.0-1, Environmental Impact Summary, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-4 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE Cumulative Impacts 5.2‐4 Implementation of the Project, considered with other future development projects, would not result in the cumulative loss of farmland. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Short‐Term Aesthetic Impacts: Construction Activities 5.3‐1 Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in grading or construction activities within the HD Zone that would temporarily alter the visual appearance of the proposed Project area. . Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Long‐Term Aesthetic Impacts to Scenic Resources 5.3‐2 Project implementation would not permanently alter views to designated scenic resources. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Long‐Term Visual Character 5.3‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not permanently alter views of and across the site, thus potentially degrading the character/quality of the area. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Light and Glare 5.3‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Cumulative Impacts 5.3‐5 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, together with cumulative projects, would not result in greater urbanization and the loss of views to scenic resources in undeveloped areas of the northeastern portion of the City of Bakersfield. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR Table 2.0-1, Environmental Impact Summary, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-5 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Traffic Generation 5.4‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not 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). Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Level of Service Standards 5.4‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Design Hazards 5.4‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Emergency Access 5.4‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in inadequate emergency access. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Parking Capacity 5.4‐5 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in inadequate parking capacity. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Alternative Transportation 5.4‐6 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR Table 2.0-1, Environmental Impact Summary, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-6 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE Cumulative Impacts 5.4‐7 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, combined with cumulative project development, would not cause a significant increase in traffic when compared to the traffic capacity of the street system and would not exceed an established LOS standards. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. 5.5 Noise Construction‐Related Noise 5.5‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in grading or construction within the Project area that would result in temporary noise and/or vibration impacts on nearby noise sensitive receptors. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Traffic‐Related Noise 5.5‐2 Traffic generated by implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not significantly contribute to the existing traffic noise levels within the City. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Onsite Noise 5.5‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in an increase in ambient noise levels due to the generation of onsite noise. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Cumulative Impacts 5.5‐4 Implementation of the Project, combined with cumulative projects, would not increase the ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR Table 2.0-1, Environmental Impact Summary, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-7 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE 5.6 Air Quality Construction Emissions (Short‐Term) 5.6‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not create significant temporary construction‐related dust and vehicle emissions during site preparation and project construction. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Long‐Term Impacts (Operational) 5.6‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in an overall increase in the local and regional pollutant load due to direct impacts from vehicle emissions and indirect impacts from electricity and natural gas consumption. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Odors 5.6‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in significant long‐term odor impacts. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Air Quality Management Plan Consistency 5.6‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would be consistent with the applicable air quality attainment plan (AQAP) criteria. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Short‐Term Cumulative Construction Impacts 5.6‐5 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would result in a reduction of short‐term cumulative construction emissions within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR Table 2.0-1, Environmental Impact Summary, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-8 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE Long‐Term Cumulative Impacts 5.6‐6 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in an incremental difference in long‐term area and operational cumulative emissions within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Global Climate Change 5.6‐7 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in an incremental difference in area and operational greenhouse gas emissions to the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. 5.7 Biological Resources Short‐term Impacts (Construction) 5.7‐1 Construction of the proposed Project would not result in temporary impacts on biological resources in the Project area. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Special Status Species 5.7‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not 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. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Natural Communities 5.7‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not have a substantial adverse effect on 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. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR Table 2.0-1, Environmental Impact Summary, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-9 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE Wetlands 5.7‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not 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 the direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Wildlife Corridors 5.7‐5 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not 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. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Conflicts with Local Policies Protecting Biological Resources 5.7‐6 Implementation of the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Conflicts with Adopted Local, Regional, or State Conservation Plans or Policies 5.7‐7 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Cumulative Impacts 5.7‐8 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the cumulative loss of biological resources within the City. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR Table 2.0-1, Environmental Impact Summary, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-10 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE 5.8 Cultural Resources Historical Resources 5.8‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Archaeological Resources 5.8‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Paleontological Resources 5.8‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Disturbance of Human Remains 5.8‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Cumulative Impacts 5.8‐5 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in an adverse cumulative effect on cultural resources. Resources would be evaluated and mitigated on a project‐by‐project basis. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR Table 2.0-1, Environmental Impact Summary, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-11 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Fire Protection 5.9‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the need for additional fire facilities or personnel. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Police Protection 5.9‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the need for additional police facilities or personnel. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Schools 5.9‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not generate additional students beyond existing conditions. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Parks and Recreation 5.9‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not create additional demand on parks and recreation facilities. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Water Resources 5.9‐5 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not require the expansion of existing water distribution or supply facilities within the Project area. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Sewer Services 5.9‐6 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the increase in demand or expansion of sewer services. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR Table 2.0-1, Environmental Impact Summary, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-12 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE Solid Waste/Landfills 5.9‐7 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in increased demand for solid waste services. Short‐term construction impacts resulting from construction debris would increase solid waste on a temporary duration. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Electrical Services 5.9‐8 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not require temporary use of electricity during construction and long‐term electric consumption. Electricity use would not result in excessive power consumption that would cause significant impacts on existing facilities. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Natural Gas 5.9‐9 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in increased demand for natural gas services. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Cumulative Impacts 5.9‐10 Potential cumulative development resulting from the Project and other projects within the vicinity would not increase the demand for services and utilities. An increased demand for services would not be expected for the Bakersfield Police Department, Bakersfield Fire Department, local school districts, and other public services. Increased demand for utilities would not be expected for electricity, natural gas, water, wastewater, and solid waste. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. 5.10 Geologic Resources and Natural Hazards Surface Fault Rupture 5.10‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from surface fault rupture. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR Table 2.0-1, Environmental Impact Summary, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-13 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE Seismic Ground Shaking 5.10‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not expose people or structure to potential substantial adverse effects from seismic ground shaking. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Ground Failure 5.10‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from ground failure, including settlement, collapse, ground lurching, liquefaction, or lateral spreading. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Landslides 5.10‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from landslides or other slope failures. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Soil Erosion 5.10‐5 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, either on‐or off‐site. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Expansive Soils 5.10‐6 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not pose a significant risk to people and structures due to the presence of expansive soils. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Dam Inundation 5.10‐7 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not expose future structures to a significant risk resulting from a seismically‐induced failure of Isabella Dam. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR Table 2.0-1, Environmental Impact Summary, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-14 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE Wildfire Hazards 5.10‐8 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas of where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Cumulative Impacts 5.10‐9 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, combined with future development, would not result in increased short‐term impacts such as erosion and sedimentation, and long‐term seismic‐related impacts within the Project area. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Flow Patterns/Flood Impacts 5.11‐1 Future development onsite would not result in increased surface runoff and would not result in potential flooding impacts offsite. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Groundwater 5.11‐2 The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to the amount of available groundwater or degradation of groundwater quality. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Water Quality 5.11‐3 Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in grading, excavation or construction activities that would cause an increase in urban pollutant discharge, resulting in impacts to water quality. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR Table 2.0-1, Environmental Impact Summary, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-15 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE Cumulative Impacts 5.11‐4 The proposed project, in combination with other cumulative projects, would not result in increased degradation of surface water quality and flooding impacts in the area. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. 5.12 Population and Housing Population Growth 5.12‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Displacement of Housing 5.12‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, and would not necessitate the construction of of replacement housing elsewhere. Significance: No Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Displacement of People 5.12‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not displace substantial numbers of people, and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Cumulative Impacts 5.12‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in significant population growth when considered on a cumulative basis with other planned and future development. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR Table 2.0-1, Environmental Impact Summary, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-16 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE 5.13 Public Health and Safety Short‐Term Impacts (Construction) 5.13‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance construction activities would not have the potential to encounter known hazardous materials or wastes. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Accidental Releases 5.13‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance activities would not have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public through foreseeable upset and accidental conditions. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Oil Production Facilities 5.13‐3 Abandoned dry holes drilled within the Project boundary would not pose a health and safety risk. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Agricultural Use of Property/Adjacent Properties 5.13‐4 As agricultural uses have historically occurred within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance, there is a potential for pesticide residues (including DDT) to be present in shallow soils. However, such substances are not anticipated to result in significant impacts relative to the proposed Project. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Hazardous Materials Users/Facilities 5.13‐5 The potential exists for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to exist in the electrolytic fluids of PG&E‐owned transformers. However, such substances are not anticipated to result in significant impacts relative to the proposed Project. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR Table 2.0-1, Environmental Impact Summary, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-17 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE Emergency Response/Evacuation Plan 5.13‐6 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Wildland Fire Threat 5.13‐7 The proposed Project would not increase the threat of wildland fires. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Long‐Term Maintenance and Operation 5.13‐8 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation measures are necessary. 5.13‐9 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the long‐term use of hazardous substances for the purpose of long‐term maintenance. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Valley Fever 5.13‐10 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in grading activities that would lead to the release of fugitive dust and spores causing Valley Fever. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Cumulative Impacts 5.13‐11 The proposed Project, in combination with other cumulative projects, would not increase public exposure to hazardous substances. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR 2.3 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS Section 15126.2 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to “describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the Project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described.” Through preparation of the EIR, the proposed Project was evaluated against the thresholds given in the Environmental Checklist Form included in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines to determine whether Project implementation would result in significant impacts and if any mitigation proposed, if applicable, could reduce such impacts to less than significant. As a result of this process, no significant unavoidable impacts have been identified for the Project. 2.4 2.4 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The following provides a summary of alternatives to the Project, as further described and evaluated in Chapter 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Action, which contains a detailed discussion. The Project alternatives identified within Table 2.0‐2, COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES, have been designed to alleviate identified environmental impacts, or were specifically requested for consideration during the preparation of the EIR. The Environmentally Superior Alternative is identified as Alternative 3, More Stringent Ordinance Alternative (refer to Section 2.4.3, below). Table 2.0-2 Comparison of Alternatives ISSUE NO PROJECT/ORIGINAL ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE NO ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE MORE STRINGENT ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE Land Use and Planning = = = Agricultural Resources = = > Aesthetics, Light, and Glare > > < Traffic and Circulation > > < Noise > > < Air Quality > > < Biological Resources > > < City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-18 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR Table 2.0-2, Comparison of Alternative, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-19 ISSUE NO PROJECT/ORIGINAL ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE NO ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE MORE STRINGENT ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE Cultural Resources > > < Public Utilities and Services > > < Geologic Resources and Natural Hazards > > < Hydrology and Water Quality > > < Population and Housing = = < Public Health and Safety > > < = Impact is equivalent to impact of project (neither environmentally superior nor inferior). < Impact is less than impact of project (environmentally superior). > Impact is greater than impact of project (environmentally inferior). 2.4.1 NO PROJECT/ORIGINAL ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE The No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative assumes that no changes to the original Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance would occur. Instead, the language in the Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance (Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66) would remain the same as when it was originally adopted by the City on August 11, 1999. The area covered by the original HD Zone consisted of approximately 6,220 acres, generally located north of State Route 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 HD Zone would still act as an overlay zone and would not change the underlying General Plan land use or zoning designations on any affected lands within the City’s hillside areas. To implement this Alternative, the Amended HD Ordinance would need to be repealed, and the Ordinance would revert to its previous form. Implementation of the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative would not fulfill all of the Project’s objectives. This Alternative would not define and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan as they relate to the preservation and maintenance of hillsides as a scenic resource. Although the original HD Ordinance includes some provisions for wildland fire prevention, such as review of landscaping and providing defensible space, they are not as extensive as those proposed with the Project. The No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative would also not meet the objective of maximizing the positive impacts of site design, grading, Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR landscaping, and building design, consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan to the extent that would occur with the proposed Project, as the original HD Ordinance provides limited language to address these elements. In addition, the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative would not provide additional measures to protect the general public from hillside instability and landslides, nor would it promote a reduction in water use in slope replanting and retention by encouraging grading design that minimizes manufactured slopes. As compared to the proposed Project, the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative would result in greater effects in the following areas: Aesthetics, Light, and Glare; Traffic and Circulation; Noise; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources, Public Utilities and Services; Geologic Resources and Natural Hazards; Hydrology and Water Quality; and, Public Health and Safety. Similar effects would occur with regard to Land Use and Planning, Agricultural Resources, and Population and Housing. It should be noted that implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in significant environmental impacts, as the Project would merely regulate future development of the hillsides within the HD Zone. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in the construction of buildings or land development activities within the City’s hillside areas. In addition, the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative would have a number of increased effects as compared to the proposed Project, as identified above, and would not meet all of the objectives of the proposed Project. For these reasons, this Alternative is being rejected. 2.4.2 NO ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE The No Ordinance Alternative assumes that the Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance would no longer exist and Chapter 17.66 would be deleted from the City’s Municipal Code. As such, the Hillside Development overlay district would be removed and would no longer be applied to lands along the City’s hillsides. This Alternative assumes that development along the hillside areas, regardless of slope, would be allowed to develop consistent with that allowed with the existing underlying General Plan land use and zoning designations, other Federal, State, and local development standards, including the California Building Code (CBC), and other environmental regulations, as applicable. As this Alternative would not implement the design measures included in the Amended HD Ordinance, development on individual properties within the HD Zone would be less restricted. The Amended HD Ordinance would reduce the potential number of dwelling units that could be constructed within the HD Zone by an estimated 3,199 units. However, under the No Ordinance Alternative, these units could potentially be constructed, resulting in a greater number of units as compared to that achieved with the Amended HD Ordinance. To implement this Alternative, the Amended HD Ordinance would need to be repealed. Implementation of the No Ordinance Alternative would not fulfill the Project’s objectives. The No Ordinance Alternative would not define and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan as they relate to the preservation and maintenance of the City’s hillsides as a scenic resource. In addition, this Alternative would not encourage grading techniques that blend with the natural terrain, minimize earthmoving activities, minimize visual impacts of large cut and City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-20 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR fill slopes, prevent erosion on the face of slopes due to drainage, or provide for the preservation of unique and significant natural landforms and ridgelines, beyond that required by applicable City policies and goals or applicable plans, or that allowed by the existing underlying land use or zoning designations. The No Ordinance Alternative would not provide specific design measures intended to protect the general public from the threat of wildfire, beyond that required by Federal, State, or local policy, or as otherwise required by the local fire protection agencies. This Alternative would also not provide design measures to protect the general public from hillside instability, beyond that required by Federal, State and local policies and codes, such as the CBC, or those standard requirements given in the General Plan or Municipal Code. The No Ordinance Alternative would not provide specific measures to maintain the integrity or natural characteristics of major landforms, vegetation and wildlife communities, hydrologic features, scenic qualities, or open space beyond existing regulations to ensure that the aesthetic quality of the hillsides is not compromised. Although the No Ordinance Alternative would allow future development to occur on hillside lots consistent with that allowed by the underlying General Plan land use and zoning designations, site design measures aimed at the protection of the hillsides with regard to public safety or as visual resources would be far less restrictive than those proposed with the Project. As compared to the proposed Project, the No Ordinance Alternative would result in greater effects in the following areas: Aesthetics, Light, and Glare; Traffic and Circulation; Noise; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources, Public Utilities and Services; Geologic Resources and Natural Hazards; Hydrology and Water Quality; and, Public Health and Safety. Similar effects would occur with regard to Land Use and Planning, Agricultural Resources, and Population and Housing. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in significant environmental impacts, as the Project would merely regulate future development of the hillsides within the HD Zone. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in the construction of buildings or land development activities within the City’s hillside areas. In summary, this Alternative would have a number of increased effects compared to the proposed Project, as identified above, and would not achieve any of the goals of the proposed Project. For these reasons, this Alternative is being rejected. 2.4.3 MORE STRINGENT ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE The More Stringent Ordinance Alternative assumes that a more stringent Ordinance aimed at the preservation and maintenance of the City’s hillsides as important visual resources and the protection of the general public from the threat of wildfire, hillside instability, and landslides would be implemented. The Ordinance would provide additional and more restrictive site design measures to ensure that future development of the City’s hillsides achieves the City’s goal of protecting such resources for the long‐term. The Ordinance would include more stringent design measures, as compared to that proposed with the Amended HD Ordinance, to further limit future development within hillside areas with regard to such elements as grading, landscaping, setbacks, and preservation of scenic views, and to reduce the potential for City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-21 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR increased risk of damage caused by wildfire, slope failure, landslides, and other geologicrelated occurrences. To implement this Alternative, the Amended HD Ordinance would need to be revised and adopted by the City. The design measures included with this Alternative would be influenced by other similar adopted ordinances within California aimed at limiting hillside development for the purposes of public safety and protection of visual resources, such as those adopted by the Cities of Malibu, San Diego, and Santa Clarita. A brief summary of the design measures included in these hillside development ordinances is provided in Chapter 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Action, of this EIR. Implementation of the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would fulfill the Project’s objectives. The More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would allow for a stricter hillside development ordinance to be prepared in order 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. In addition, this Alternative would allow for orderly and sensitive development at a density that respects and is reflective of the natural terrain, and would 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. The More Restrictive Ordinance Alternative would also provide measures aimed at protecting the general public from the threat of wildfire. Although the Amended HD Ordinance includes provisions for wildland fire damage prevention, more restrictive measures would be provided by the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative. The More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would also provide measures to protect the general public from hillside instability and to maximize the positive impacts of site design, grading, landscaping, and building design, consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. This Alternative could also require that all future development within the HD Zone reduce water use in slope replanting and retention by integrating grading design that minimizes manufactured slopes, and that future development proposals maintain the integrity and natural characteristics of major landform, vegetation and wildlife communities, hydrologic features, scenic qualities, and open space. As compared to the proposed Project, the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would result in lesser environmental effects in the following areas: Aesthetics, Light, and Glare; Traffic and Circulation; Noise; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Public Utilities and Services; Geologic Resources and Natural Hazards; Hydrology and Water Quality; Population and Housing; and Public Health and Safety. Effects relative to Land Use and Planning would be similar to that of the Project. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in significant environmental impacts, as the Project would merely regulate future development of the hillsides within the HD Zone. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in the construction of buildings or land development activities within the City’s hillside areas. As such, although the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would reduce the overall degree of indirect City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-22 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR environmental effects that could result from the proposed Project, it would not actually reduce any significant environmental impacts as compared to those caused by the Project. As such, the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative is rejected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. 2.5 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain a brief summary of the proposed actions and its consequences. Sections 15123(b)(2) and (3) also require that the EIR identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, issues raised by agencies and the public, and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether, or how, to mitigate significant adverse physical impacts. Based on City staff’s review of available information and comments received from the general public and other public agencies in response to the Notice of Preparation and public scoping meetings, the following issues are considered to be either controversial or to require further resolution, prior to making an informed decision on the proposed Project: • The potential conversion of agricultural land to residential uses due to future development being displaced by the development restrictions established by the HD Ordinance; • The potential to cause or contribute to an increase in energy consumption due to future lower density development as the result of the development restrictions of the HD Ordinance; and, • The potential to cause or contribute to an increase in air pollution due to future lower density development as a result of the development restrictions of the HD Ordinance. City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-23 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 2.0-24 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-1 Section 3.0 Project Description 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Section of the EIR is intended to describe the proposed Project in a manner that provides useful and comprehensible information to interested members of the public, affected agencies, and decision‐makers. CEQA Guidelines §15124 requires that the EIR project description include the following elements: (1) a regional map showing the location of the project and a detailed map showing the precise location and boundaries of the project; (2) a statement of objectives sought by the project, including the underlying purpose of the project; (3) a general description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and, (4) a statement briefly describing the intended uses of the EIR, including a list of agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision‐making, a list of permits and other approvals required to implement the project, and a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements required by federal, state, and local laws, regulations or policies. Implementation of the Amended Hillside Development (HD) Ordinance is herein referred to as the “proposed Project” or the “Amended HD Ordinance.” The proposed Project would result in implementation of the additional development restrictions proposed with Chapter 17.66 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code on lands to which the Hillside Development Combining Zone applies. 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING 3.1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed Project area is located within the west central portion of Kern County, California in the City of Bakersfield (City). The limits of the City generally extend to the Sequoia National Forest at the foot of the Greenhorn Mountain Range and at the entrance to the Kern Canyon. The Project area lies near the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, with the southern tip of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east; refer to Figure 3‐1, REGIONAL VICINITY. To the south lie the Tehachapi Mountains. To the west is the Temblor Range, which features the Carrizo Plain National Monument and the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 35 miles across the Valley floor. The area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is located in the northeastern portion of the City of Bakersfield; refer to Figure 3‐2, LOCAL VICINITY, and Figure 3‐3, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONING LOCATION. The area covered by the original HD Zone consisted of approximately 6,220 acres, generally located north of State Route 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 area affected by the Amended HD Zone currently covers approximately 6,530.7 acres; refer to Figure 3‐4, USGS MAP. The increase in acreage is attributable to several project approvals and annexations in Metropolitan Northeast Bakersfield that have occurred since 2006. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR Within the northeast portion of Bakersfield, the topography has been shaped by the drainage patterns of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the uplifting geological forces that created the mountains. The result of these geological actions has created dramatic bluffs along the Kern River Valley that represent a unique natural resource within the City of Bakersfield. According to the City of Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR, the majority of the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance contains non‐prime agricultural soils. Due to the low and infrequent rainfall, predominant vegetation types are mainly grasslands and scrublands. 3.1.2 SURROUNDING LAND USES The Kern River generally forms the northern boundary of the HD Zone. To the north of the Project site, land uses generally consist of undeveloped lands, with heavy petroleum extraction activities present to the northwest. To the south of the Kern River are limited rural residential uses, as well as a number of recreational land uses, such as Lake Ming and several golf courses. To the east of the HD Zone are large areas of undeveloped lands and open space. Kern Canyon also lies to the east of the Project site. To the south of the Project area lies generally undeveloped land, with several intervening residential subdivisions that have been recently constructed or are currently under construction. To the west and southwest lie several larger‐scale residential neighborhoods with supporting commercial uses. 3.1.3 PHYSICAL SETTING The Project site is located at the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley. The Valley is bounded by the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta to the north; the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east; the Tehachapi Mountains to the south; and the Coast Range to the west. The San Joaquin Valley has a Mediterranean type of climate which is represented by cool, moist winters, and hot, dry summers. Daytime temperatures in the summer months often exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with a mean annual temperature of 65°F. Annual rainfall is estimated at six inches, with the majority of precipitation occurring in the months of September through April. Dense, persistent ground fog, referred to as “Tule” fog, frequently fills the Valley during the winter months. The Kern River generally forms the northern boundary of the HD Zone. The River represents a valuable natural resource in the area with regard to scenic value, natural habitat, and recreational opportunities. The River is the most southern of the rivers which drain the Tulare Subbasin. The Kern River flows from the Sierra Nevada Mountains northeast of the City, and flows in a southwesterly direction toward its terminus at Buena Vista Lake. Vegetation along the River varies, but includes riparian vegetation including willow, cottonwood, sycamore, and other grasses and shrubs. The Project area consists of approximately 6,531 acres of land along the hillsides in the northeast portion of Bakersfield, which generally support a mixture of residential, agricultural, and industrial‐type uses. Open space and undeveloped lands are interspersed. The area is characterized by foothill topography and large‐lot residential uses, as well as the Rio Bravo Resort, Lake Ming, and the former Mesa Marin Raceway. City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR Long‐lasting, mild autumns and early springs give the region a unique climate suitable for growing a wide variety of crops. The Bakersfield area is estimated to support more than 200 crops which typically include citrus, potatoes, table grapes, almonds, pistachios, tomatoes, and pomegranates.1 3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Amended HD Zone represents an overlay zone that applies to hillsides in the northeast portion of the City with a natural slope of 8% or more. This area of the City is generally characterized by foothill topography and large‐lot housing. Existing uses within the Project area generally include single‐and multi‐family residential and estate residential uses, mixed with undeveloped lands and open space. Agricultural uses are also present and generally include orchards, vineyards, and plowable arable lands. 3.2.1 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS Due to the scope of the Project, a variety of General Plan designations affect the land within the HD Zone. General Plan land use designations within the HD Zone include, but are not limited to, Low‐Medium Residential (LMR) and Low‐Density Residential (LR) in the north and northwestern portions; Open Space – Slopes (OS‐S), Low‐Density Residential (LR), High‐Medium Residential (HMR), and Open Space – Parks (OS‐P) in the central portion; and Low‐Density Residential, Open Space – Slopes (OS‐S), Suburban Residential (SR), and Intensive Agriculture (R‐IA) in the eastern portion of the Project area. Refer to Figure 5.1‐1, GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS – NORTHEAST QUADRANT. A number of zoning designations occur within the land area affected by the HD Zone. Zoning designations within the HD Zone include, but are not limited to the following: Residential ‐One Family Dwelling (R‐1); Residential – One Family Dwelling ‐Hillside Development Overlay (R‐1‐HD); Residential – Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone ‐1 unit/2,500 s.f. (R‐2); Residential – Limited Multiple Family Zone – 1 unit/1,250 s.f. (R‐3); Residential Suburban/10‐acre minimum ‐Hillside Development Overlay (R‐S‐10A‐HD); Residential Suburban/2.5‐acre minimum – Hillside Development Overlay (R‐S‐2.5A‐HD); Agricultural (A); Agricultural – Hillside Development Overlay (A‐HD); Agricultural – 20‐acre minimum Hillside Development Overlay (A‐20A‐HD); Agricultural – Floodplain ‐Slopes‐Hillside Development (A‐FP‐S‐HD); Open Space – Hillside Development Overlay (OS‐HD); Estate One Family Dwelling (E); and, Estate – One Family Dwelling ‐Hillside Development Overlay (E‐HD). Refer to Figure 5.1‐2, ZONING DESIGNATIONS – NORTHEAST QUADRANT. The Project is an overlay zone which would not require any changes to the existing General Plan Land Use designations or the existing underlying zoning on lands within the Project area, or lands in the surrounding area. The Project would not affect the existing underlying General Plan and zoning designations. The site design restrictions provided by the Amended HD Ordinance 3.0-3 1 http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/Baklife_as/index.htm. Accessed August 2008. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR would instead be in addition to the existing zoning designations. No additional future changes to land use or zoning would occur as a result of the Project. Portions of the Project area lie within the Kern River Plan Element, which is an Element of the General Plan. Within the Kern River Plan Element, the majority of Project lands affected by the Kern River Plan are generally designated as 2.1, Seismic Hazard; 2.5, Flood Hazard; 3.1, Public and Private Recreation Areas; 5.35, Residential (maximum 7.25 units/net acre); 5.6, Residential (minimum 2.5 gross acres/unit); and, 8.5, Resource Management. 3.2.2 EXISTING HILLSIDE ORDINANCE The land area affected by the proposed Project totals approximately 6,531 acres situated along the hillsides in the northeastern portion of the City. The City of Bakersfield’s original Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance (Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66) was adopted on August 11, 1999. The original Hillside Development Ordinance established the Hillside Zone Overlay area and contained technical elements that address, in part, the policies of the General Plan. A copy of the original Hillside Development Ordinance is included in this EIR as Appendix 13.1, ORIGINAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. As stated previously, the HD Zone acts as an overlay zone, and therefore, the existing underlying zoning designations would remain unaffected and would continue to guide the type and character of development allowed. Site design restrictions given in the Amended HD Ordinance would be in addition to the existing zoning designations. The Amended HD Ordinance was adopted on November 15, 2006 to strengthen the original Ordinance relative to the preservation and maintenance of hillsides as a scenic resource of the City and for the protection of the general public from the threat of wildfire, hillside instability and landslides. As such, the regulations given within the Amended HD Ordinance currently apply to lands within the HD Zone. As part of the regulatory setting of the area affected by the proposed Project, landowners within the HD Zone who elect to submit development applications for grading, building permits, parcel maps, tentative tract maps, conditional use permits, zone changes, general plan amendments, and/or site plan review, would be subject to the requirements of the Amended HD Ordinance. Refer also to Table 3.0‐1, ORIGINAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AS COMPARED TO THE AMENDED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, which provides a comparison of the original Hillside Development Ordinance to the Amended HD Ordinance. A detailed history of the Hillside Development Ordinance is also provided in Section 3.3, Background and History. City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-4 9/25/08 JN 60-100489 NOT TO SCALE Regional Vicinity City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance • Draft EIR Figure 3-1 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-6 9/25/08 JN 60-100489 Local Vicinity City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance • Draft EIR Figure 3-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-8 9/25/08 JN 60-100489 Hillside Development Zoning Location City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance • Draft EIR Figure 3-3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-10 9/25/08 JN 60-100489 USGS Map City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance • Draft EIR Figure 3-4 Source: Oil Center, River Bravo Ranch, and Oildale USGS Quadrangles. 1992. FEET 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-12 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR 3.3 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY Northeast Bakersfield was annexed into the City in 1977. This portion of the City has since experienced significant public works infrastructure investment to provide housing opportunities while preserving the area’s prime agricultural lands and to enhance the quality of life for the citizens who chose to reside in the area. In 1993, the Northeast Sewer District was formed and a sewer trunk line was constructed to provide the Northeast portion of the City with sewer service. The City provided additional water resources to the Northeast, prior to the Cal Water Treatment Plant coming online 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 General Plan, the Northeast Bakersfield Open Space Area (NBOSA) policies and the Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield. Through the City’s efforts with these Public Works projects and the fore‐mentioned policies and plans, development has been encouraged and planned for in northeast Bakersfield in tandem with recognition of its natural resources. The City of Bakersfield’s original Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance (Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 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 were identified: • 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 these issues, a goal was established to “Conserve and enhance the unique aspects of open space within the planning area.” Four of the ten policies adopted in the General Plan’s Open Space Element address hillside development and include: • Policy 2: Development of the ridgelines within the planning area should consider natural aesthetic value and topographic constraints. • 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 as follows: City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-13 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR • Implementation 2: Hillside Management Ordinance for the City of Bakersfield regulates development in areas of excessive slope in Northeast Bakersfield. Kern County’s existing 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 (BIA), members of the public, engineers, individual developers representing large property owners, and Planning staff. The items that could be agreed on by consensus resulted in the Hillside Ordinance, which was 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 include the following: • 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. 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 HD Ordinance was available for public comment in May 2005, and input 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 HD Ordinance. The City of Bakersfield filed a Notice of Exemption for the Amended HD Ordinance with the California Office of Planning and Research on May 13, 2005; however, in response to comments heard in the public hearing for the Amended HD Ordinance on whether an EIR was required, City staff prepared an Initial Study. Based on the initial environmental assessment, staff determined the Amended HD 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 HD Ordinance were adopted by the City of Bakersfield on November 15, 2006. In turn, opponents of the Amended HD 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‐CVCity of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-14 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR 259731 KCT, alleging that the City should have prepared an EIR to evaluate the potential significant impacts of the Amended HD Ordinance with respect to the potential for lower density development, which may ultimately result in the loss of agricultural land, increased air pollution, and/or increased energy consumption as development would potentially be indirectly directed to the Valley floor, due to development restrictions on the hillsides. The Kern County Superior Court agreed and, on March 21, 2008, entered a judgment requiring the City to prepare an EIR. In the interim, the Amended HD Ordinance was allowed to remain in effect while the City performs the additional environmental review. 3.3.1 PROJECT SCOPING The City of Bakersfield prepared and distributed the Initial Study and a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR on June 12, 2008 for a 30‐day state‐mandated public review period. The public review period closed on July 11, 2008. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on July 10, 2008, at the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department Building to allow for public input on the environmental issues associated with the Project. Refer to Appendix 13.3, Initial Study /Notice of Preparation (NOP) /NOP Responses, of this EIR. This Environmental Impact Report takes a conservative approach to analyzing potential environmental impacts to ensure that the community is informed about all impacts related to the implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance. 3.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.4.1 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Project addressed in this EIR is the implementation of the Amendments to the Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance (Chapter 17.66 of the Municipal Code). The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to apply to areas zoned HD (Hillside Development). The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to “define and implement the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan as they relate to the preservation and maintenance of hillsides as a scenic resource of the City and to protect the general public from the threat of wildfire, hillside instability and landslides.”2 In particular, the Amended HD Ordinance seeks to fulfill the implementation measures of the Open Space Element of the 2010 General Plan. A copy of the Amended HD Ordinance is included in this EIR as Appendix 13.2. As stated previously, the HD Zone affects approximately 6,531 acres within the northeastern portion of Bakersfield. The HD Zone district serves as an overlay zone and, as such, regulations set forth by the HD Zone are in addition to those uses allowed and the regulations of the base zone district. The overlay zone would generally apply to those larger contiguous areas generally having natural slopes of 8% or more. The Amended HD Ordinance provides additional requirements, in addition to those given in the original Hillside Ordinance, to protect views and to regulate grading, roadway grades, and fire protection. In support of the 3.0-15 2 City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. Chapter 17.66, HD (Hillside Development) Combining Zone. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-16 established General Plan policies, the Amended HD Ordinance addresses prevention of hillside instability and landslides and includes measures for preserving identified scenic viewsheds within the land area affected by the Ordinance. The changes to the original Hillside Ordinance include the following: • Identifies “Visual Resources Areas” along ridgelines for protection. • Identifies “Primary and Secondary Viewsheds” which, in tandem with visual resource areas limit the view of structures from major roadways. • Identifies Slope Protection Areas that 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. Table 3.0‐1, ORIGINAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AS COMPARED TO THE AMENDED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, describes the differences between the original HD Ordinance and the Amended HD Ordinance. The Table generally summarizes the language contained in the original Ordinance and the revisions made as part of the Amended HD Ordinance. The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to amend one of the implementing ordinances of the Open Space Element of the General Plan. The relevant provisions and regulations of the Amended Hillside Ordinance and resultant benefits are given in Table 3.0‐2, AMENDED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE PROVISIONS AND REGULATIONS. In combination with policies in the General Plan, the Amended HD Ordinance would minimize potential impacts of erosion and/or impacts to the existing aesthetic value of the hillsides, as well as address general public safety concerns relative to placement of structures on the edge of (or cantilevered over) ridgelines, development on steep slopes, angular manufactured slopes, significant grading, and erosion due to irrigation practices and broken pipes. The Amended HD Ordinance would accomplish this through the use of viewshed setbacks, property line and fence location standards, landscaping, slope protection areas, and additional application requirements. The requirements set forth in Chapter 17.66, Hillside Development Combining Zone, of the Municipal Code apply to new development on parcels or portions thereof within the Hillside Development Zone. The requirements would apply to all plans associated with planned commercial developments, planned unit developments, conditional use permits, tentative tracts, site plan reviews, and applications for single‐family residential dwellings not reviewed as part of tentative tract maps or parcel maps, located within the HD Zone. All future development projects within the HD Zone would be subject to the City’s environmental and design review process on a project‐by‐project basis, at the time an application is made. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR Table 3.0-1 Original Hillside Development Ordinance as Compared to the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance ORIGINAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED AUGUST 11, 1999) AMENDED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED NOVEMBER 15, 2006) 17.66.010 Purpose and Intent • Defines purpose of the Ordinance as for the implementation of the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan as they relate to the preservation and maintenance of hillsides as scenic resources of the City and to protect the general public from the threat of wildfire. Defines the type of activities the Ordinance applies to (i.e. grading, building permits, parcel maps, zone changes, etc.). • Language added to extend application of the Amended HD Ordinance to include hillside instability and landslides, and that such regulations shall be implemented when the City considers development applications for the land development projects projects previously identified in the original Ordinance. • Language added to encourage development that minimizes erosion and geologic hazards, and provides for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. • Language added to identify and define “Primary” and “Secondary Viewsheds,” “Visual Resource Areas,” and “Slope Protection Areas” within the HD Zone. • Language added to encourage land development that allows for orderly and sensitive development at a density that respects and is reflective of the natural terrain; uses grading techniques that blend with the natural terrain, minimize earthmoving activities, and minimize visual impacts of large cut and fill slopes; reduces water use in slope replanting and retention by minimizing manufactured slopes; maximizes site design, grading, landscaping, and building design consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan; and, maintains the natural characteristics of major landforms, vegetation and wildlife communities, hydrologic features, scenic qualities, and open space. City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-17 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR Table 3.0-1, Original Hillside Development Ordinance as Compared to the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-18 ORIGINAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED AUGUST 11, 1999) AMENDED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED NOVEMBER 15, 2006) 17.66.020 Applicability • States that the overlay district shall apply to areas zoned HD (Hillside Development). • Language added to establish provisions intended for application to lands within the HD Zone and defines the types of projects subject to the regulations given in the Amended HD Ordinance (i.e., building permits, grading plans, parcel maps, tentative tract maps, etc.). • Language added to allow for exceptions to the application of regulations proposed within the Amended HD Ordinance (i.e. lot line adjustments; modifications to yard, height, lot area, and fence/wall regulations; recreational trails; and, fire breaks and fire roads). 17.66.030 Maximum Grade of Access • Requires that the grade of streets, public or private, and other access easements shall be determined in accordance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASHTO). • Reference added to require that grade be determined in accordance with “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” of AASHTO. 17.66.040 Contour Grading • Requires that manufactured cut and fill slopes exceeding 10 feet in height and exposed to any public view be landform graded to resemble a natural slope. This requirement applies to slopes along roadways and slopes adjacent to roadways, schools, open space, parks, and other public facilities. • Section deleted and language moved to Section 17.66.170. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR Table 3.0-1, Original Hillside Development Ordinance as Compared to the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-19 ORIGINAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED AUGUST 11, 1999) AMENDED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED NOVEMBER 15, 2006) 17.66.040 Development Plan Requirements • Requires that all development plans associated with planned commercial developments, planned unit developments, conditional use permits, tentative tracts, site plan reviews, and applications for single‐family dwellings not already reviewed as part of parcel maps or tentative tracts include specific information, including, but not limited to, topography; landscape and vegetation details; water supply system; roof classification of structures; overhead utilities; and, structure location. • Language added to require that additional information be included on development plans, as applicable. This information includes, but is not limited to proposed sewers; drainage concept plan; site plan showing property lines, easements, public rights‐of‐way, and private roads; topographic map showing the site and surrounding areas to 300 feet in distance; slope map; preliminary grading plan; site cross‐sections; slope erosion control/revegetation plan; methods of providing bank protection where roads traverse natural drainages; and, additional information beyond the property boundaries if required for fire safety purposes. Other information may include the following: 1. Geotechnical report to address soils and provide recommendations for grading procedures and corrective design measures; 2. Geology report to address seismic hazards, potential for slope failure, and design criteria to mitigate identified geologic hazards. 3. Drainage concept report to address hydrologic conditions onsite, possible flood inundation, natural drainage courses, downstream flood hazards, recommendations as to the adequacy of the site site to be developed, and design criteria to mitigate identified hydrologic hazards. • Language was added to require structural setbacks from the top of slopes, as applicable, with specific Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR Table 3.0-1, Original Hillside Development Ordinance as Compared to the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-20 ORIGINAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED AUGUST 11, 1999) AMENDED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED NOVEMBER 15, 2006) conditions to determine the appropriate width of the setback. Such conditions include adequate factor of safety; whether the site is identified as a “Visual Resource Area;” adjacency to open space or parks; and/or, exceptions granted by the City Planning Commission. • Language was added to encourage consistent maintenance of slopes for erosion control and aesthetics, requiring property lines to be placed at the top of manufactured or natural slopes to be left as open space, park area, or in a natural state, and shall be located a minimum of five feet back from the top of slope. Additional setbacks may be required for the purposes of of fire safety or provision of trails. 17.66.050 Vicinity Plan • Allows for the Fire Chief to require additional information on the Vicinity Plan beyond the property line relative to slopes, vegetation, fuel breaks, water supply systems, and access ways, as needed. • Section deleted and language moved to Section 17.66.040 M.8. 17.66.060 Key Box Requirements • Requires Fire Department‐approved key boxes for all driveways and access roads with private security gates if structures are 150 feet or more from the gate entrance. • Language added to require that driveways and access roads longer than 150 feet shall meet the requirements of 15.64.320 Section 902.2.4.3 of the City’s Municipal Code. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR Table 3.0-1, Original Hillside Development Ordinance as Compared to the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-21 ORIGINAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED AUGUST 11, 1999) AMENDED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED NOVEMBER 15, 2006) 17.66.070 Driveway Requirements • Addresses minimum width and height clearance requirements for driveways for the purpose of fire apparatus access. • Language added to require that driveways from all private gates to meet the requirements of 15.64.320 Section 902.2.4.3 of the City’s Municipal Code. 17.66.080 Fire Apparatus Access Roads • Addresses minimum width and height requirements for fire department apparatus. • Language added to restrict application of this Section to all roads subject to Fire Department apparatus. • Language added to require that driveways from all private gates to meet the requirements of 15.64.320 Section 902.2.4.3 of the City’s Municipal Code. 17.66.090 Emergency Secondary Access • Requires that emergency secondary access be provided when the Fire Chief determines that certain physical or climactic conditions may impair ingress or egress. Plans for emergency access shall require review and approval by the Fire Chief. • Language added to require that plans for emergency secondary access meet the requirements of 15.64.320 Section 902.2.4.3 of the Municipal Code. 17.66.100 Bridges • Requires posting of vehicle load limits at entrances to bridges on driveways and private roads, as established by the Public Works Director. • No revisions proposed. 17.66.110 Address Markers • Requires posting of addresses on structures readily legible from the public way or at the driveway entrance, as applicable. • No revisions proposed. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR Table 3.0-1, Original Hillside Development Ordinance as Compared to the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-22 ORIGINAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED AUGUST 11, 1999) AMENDED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED NOVEMBER 15, 2006) 17.66.120 Building Construction • Provides requirements for roof coverings and roof assemblies for structures within the HD Zone. • Language added to require that roofs for buildings in Visual Resource Areas be earth toned to blend in with surrounding landscape and not be highly reflective. • Language added to state that construction shall meet Urban and Wildland Interface standards. 17.66.130 Roof Repair or Replacement • Requires replacement of roof coverings to be consistent with Section 17.66.130 of the Municipal Code, with exclusions. • Reference to Municipal Code changed to Section 17.66.120. 17.66.135 Fencing • New Section added as “17.66.135 Fencing” • Language added to require that fencing be earth tone or black on color and allow for visual penetration. Allows for materials such as wrought iron and vinyl, and prohibits the use of wood. Requires that fencing details shall be submitted with development plans for City review. Language added to require that fencing adjacent to parks and open space shall be placed at least five feet back from the top of slope, and that fencing location and design details shall by submitted with development plans for City review. • Language added to state that solid walls may be required adjacent to parks when deemed appropriate by the City. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR Table 3.0-1, Original Hillside Development Ordinance as Compared to the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-23 ORIGINAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED AUGUST 11, 1999) AMENDED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED NOVEMBER 15, 2006) 17.66.140 Fire Scape Plant Selections • Requires that tract and parcel maps contain a condition of approval recommending that property owners use plant materials that are fire resistant, and as identified on the Fire Department’s comprehensive plant list. • No revisions proposed. 17.66.150 Defensible Space • Requires that a firebreak be maintained around and adjacent to all buildings and structures for a distance of 30 feet on each side thereof or to the property line, whichever is nearer, by clearing all flammable vegetation or other combustible growth, with exclusions. • No revisions proposed. 17.66.155 Landscaping • New Section added as “17.66.155 Landscaping” • Language added to specify that landscape areas to be maintained by the City shall provide a mixture of native plantings and boulder clusters and that such landscaping shall be blended into the surrounding area. Language added to state that final plans, including irrigation system design, shall be approved by the Recreation and Parks Department, and that natural flora and site character shall be retained to the extent possible. • Language added to require that “Xeriscape plant selections, as approved by the Recreation and Parks Department, shall be used to revegetate disturbed areas outside of lots, unless City ordinances, resolutions, or conditions of approval state otherwise.” Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR Table 3.0-1, Original Hillside Development Ordinance as Compared to the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-24 ORIGINAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED AUGUST 11, 1999) AMENDED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED NOVEMBER 15, 2006) • Language added to require that “Fire retardant erosion control netting or other material approved by the City Recreation and Parks Department shall be installed as required by the City Recreation and Parks Department to prevent erosion.” • Language added to state that “In order to assist in protecting slopes from soil erosion and to facilitate significant revegetation, an irrigation system approved by the Public Works Department and Recreation and Parks Department shall be installed on all slopes with required planting. Components and operation of the irrigation system shall be designed to maintain slope stability and integrity, and provide the ability to monitor and maintain an irrigation system on a slope. In all cases, the emphasis shall be toward using plant materials that will eventually no need to be irrigated. Water and energy conservation techniques shall be utilized, including but not limited to such items as drip irrigation and alluvial rockscape.” 17.66.160 Drainage • New Section added as “17.66.160 Drainage.” • Language added to specify that existing major drainage channels shall be maintained in their natural state, or shall be enhanced to create riparian type systems that provide for drainage and diversification of plant and animal life, and be designed to minimize soil erosion and preserve public health, safety and welfare. Other requirements pertain to timing of drainage improvements; potential use of Grading Improvement Agreements to secure drainage facility Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR Table 3.0-1, Original Hillside Development Ordinance as Compared to the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-25 ORIGINAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED AUGUST 11, 1999) AMENDED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ADOPTED NOVEMBER 15, 2006) construction; and, the requirement to convey drainage within closed conduits, with exception for street gutters. 17.66.170 Drainage Sumps • States that all drainage sumps shall have direct access to public roads. • Section deleted and replaced with “17.66.170 Grading.” 17.66.170 Grading • Section entitled “17.66.40 Contour Grading” • Requires grading to be contoured to conform to the natural slopes to the greatest degree possible. Gives the Building Director final determination that the final grading plan achieves this requirement. • Section renamed “17.66.170 Grading” • Language added to require all new cut and fill slopes exceeding 10 feet in height on the perimeter of a subdivision adjacent to parks, open space, or arterial and collector streets, or interior to a subdivision adjacent to parks and open space, shall be contour graded to resemble natural slopes, using a combination of slope curvature and variable slope gradients. • Additional language added to establish grading standards with regard to extensive grading, contour grading (following the natural contours), erosion control and landscaping, steepness of manufactured slopes, and maintenance of public rights‐of‐way and/or easements by Recreation and Parks. 17.66.180 Appeals • Provides procedural requirements for the request for appeals to the Ordinance. • Language added to allow modifications from the provisions of the Ordinance if such modifications do not lessen fire protection or other public safety requirements and/or serve to protect views as required by the Ordinance. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR As stated in Section 17.66.020, Applicability, exceptions to the applicability of the Ordinance within the HD Zone are made. These exemptions are given in the Ordinance as follows: “C. Exceptions. This Chapter shall not be applicable to the following activities or projects: 1. Modification of or addition to any pre‐existing single‐family dwelling or accessory structure that predates this Ordinance. This exemption shall not include an increase in the number of units or change in use; 2. Fire breaks and fire roads required by the Bakersfield Fire Department; 3. Recreation trails for pedestrian, equestrian, or multi‐use purposes; 4. Lot‐line adjustments; 5. Landscaping on single‐family parcels; 6. Modifications to yard, height, lot area, and fence/wall regulations; 7. Public works projects determined by the City Council to be necessary for the public health, safety, or welfare which, by implementation of this ordinance, would create an unfair cost to the community. 8. Where it can be demonstrated that the imposition of the standards in this chapter would render an existing parcel (parcel created prior to adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter) of land unbuildable and create a loss of all economic use, or where the development exhibits innovation and/or exceptional community benefits which cannot be realized through imposition of the standards contained in this chapter, development consistent with the General Plan may be allowed, subject to the following provisions: a. The proposed development shall serve the intent and purpose of the HD Zone and General Plan policies regarding hillsides. b. The proposed development shall be subject to the approval of a planned unit development zone, planned commercial development zone, development agreement, optional design subdivision or specific plan (Ord. 4391 §1(Exh. A (part)), 2006).” A large‐scale map delineating the boundaries of the land area within the HD Zone is available at the City’s Planning Department. These resources are intended for public use and knowledge. The proposed Project is a result of the City’s intent to provide for safer hillside development and to conserve some of the topographic features unique to Northeast Bakersfield. The proposed standards have been designed to control future development activities along the City’s hillsides to ensure that development does not occur in a manner that would be detrimental to the community character. The Amended HD Ordinance was prepared to minimize any inconsistencies, gaps, or unclear standards within the former Hillside Ordinance. The purpose of the additional hillside development standards contained within the Amended HD Ordinance is to further improve the environmental protection of the City’s hillsides, with City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-26 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR regard for visual resources, as well as public safety. Table 3.0‐2, AMENDED HILLSIDE ORDINANCE PROVISIONS AND REGULATIONS, illustrates how the Amended HD Ordinance would strengthen environmental protection of the City’s hillsides. Table 3.0-2 Amended Hillside Development Ordinance Provisions and Regulations PROVISIONS AND REGULATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT • 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. preserved. • Ensures geologic stability. • Decreases potential for erosion. • Reduce water in slope replanting and retention by encouraging grading design that minimizes manufactured slopes. Landscape areas maintained by the City with a mixture of native plantings. Integrate xeriscape plant selections for revegetation of disturbed areas outside of lots, unless otherwise approved. • Reduces potential for erosion. • Maintains natural landscape. • Reduces water consumption. • Provides thematic treatment for landscaped areas. • 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. • Documents geologic hazards and ensures geologic stability for new development. City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-27 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR 3.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The Amended HD 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 the hillsides as a scenic resource of the City and to protect the public from the threat of wildfire, hillside instability, and landslides. The Amended HD Ordinance is a resource protection measure that amends the existing HD Zone by creating slope and viewshed protection areas that restrict development on steep slopes and ridgelines. The Amended HD Ordinance affects approximately 6,531 acres of the City’s hillsides, and includes approximately 29,306 linear feet of Class I Visual Resources and 41,653 linear feet of Class II Visual Resources (as defined in Chapter 17.66 of the Municipal Code). Table 3.0‐2, AMENDED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE PROVISIONS AND REGULATIONS, identifies how the Amended Hillside Ordinance further strengthens long‐term environmental protection of the City’s hillsides. The objectives of the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance include the following: • Protect the general public from hillside instability; • 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; • Protect the general public from the threat of wildfire; • 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; and, • Provide thematic treatment of bridge crossings and landscaped areas. 3.6 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR This EIR is an informational document intended to inform public agency decision‐makers and the public of significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. Under the provisions City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-28 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR of CEQA, “the purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effect on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided” (Public Resource Code 21002.1(a)). This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, as amended (Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.), and the California CEQA Guidelines. This report also complies with the rules, regulations and procedures for implementation of CEQA, as adopted by the Bakersfield City Council. 3.7 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS The proposed Project consists of amendments to the Hillside Development Combining Zone, City of Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 17.66, which were adopted on November 15, 2006 (Amended Hillside Ordinance). Information contained in this EIR is intended to fulfill the requirements of the writ of mandate issued by the Kern County Superior Court in an action entitled DKS Investments, LLC v. The City of Bakersfield, et al. (Kern County Superior Court Case No. S‐1500‐CV‐259731 KCT), which allowed the Amended HD Ordinance to remain in effect while the City prepared an EIR. The Planning Commission will review the environmental documentation and make a recommendation to the City Council whether or not to certify the EIR. No other permits or approvals are necessary. City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-29 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 3.0 Project Description Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 3.0-30 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 4.0-1 Section 4.0 Basis for Cumulative Analysis 4.0 BASIS FOR CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS 4.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS Section 15355 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as amended, provides the following definition of cumulative impacts: “Cumulative impacts refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15130(a), cumulative impacts of a project shall be discussed when the project’s effect is cumulatively considerable, as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15065(c). The Initial Study Checklist is provided as Appendix13.3, INITIAL STUDY /NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) /NOP RESPONSES, and indicates that the proposed Project may yield potentially significant cumulative effects. As such, an evaluation of cumulative impacts for each applicable environmental issue is provided in Section 5.0, Description of Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, to identify Project impacts that may occur when considered with other existing, planned, or future development projects. Mitigation measures are proposed, if applicable, to reduce potential impacts to the extent possible. As indicated above, a cumulative impact involves two or more individual effects. Per CEQA Guidelines §15130, the discussion of cumulative impacts shall be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. Per CEQA Guidelines §15130(b), the following elements are necessary in an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts: (1) Either: (a) A list of relevant past, present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the Agency, or, (b) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document or in a prior adopted or certified environmental document that described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact; and, (2) A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available; and, Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 4.0 Basis for Cumulative Analysis Draft EIR (3) A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigation or avoidance of the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative effects. 4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Table 4.0‐1, CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST, identifies related projects and other possible development in the area determined as having the potential to interact with the proposed Project to the extent that a significant cumulative effect may occur. Information integral to the identification process was obtained from the City of Bakersfield. Table 4.0‐1, CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST, identifies the related projects according to project number, acreage of lot, proposed use, number of units or square footage realistically expected to be developed on the subject site, and the existing zoning that applies to the affected property. Refer also to Figure 4‐ 1, CUMULATIVE PROJECTS STUDY AREA, which identifies the discretionary projects considered for the cumulative analysis. The cumulative study area considered is the Northeast Quadrant of the City of Bakersfield (east of SR‐99 and north of SR‐58). 4.2.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS The cumulative impacts associated with each environmental impact area may vary depending on the potential area that would be impacted. For example, cumulative impacts to air quality must be considered for the entire San Joaquin Air Basin, whereas traffic impacts are analyzed for the area surrounding the Project site. Table 4.0-1 Cumulative Projects List PROJECT # ACRES PROPOSED USE UNITS/SQ.FT. ZONING ZC 03‐1514 6.070 Storage Facility 122,000 Sq.Ft. PCD ZC 05‐1575 51.095 General Manufacturing N/A M‐2 GPA/ZC 04‐0434 1.894 Application Withdrawn N/A N/A GPA/ZC 05‐1358 6.096 Application Withdrawn N/A N/A GPA/ZC 05‐1918 18.850 Multi‐Family Residential 321 Units R‐2‐CH GPA/ZC 05‐1580 215.727 Single Family Residential (EIR) 788 Units R‐1 GPA/ZC 06‐0168 551.407 Specific Specific Plan (EIR) 2,483 Units SR‐R‐1, SR‐R‐2, SR‐R‐3, SRTC GPA/ZC 05‐1420 305.864 Single Family and Multi‐Family Residential (EIR) 1,300 Units R‐1, R‐2 GPA 05‐1377 0.009 Single Family Residential N/A R‐1‐HD ZC 06‐0581 20.200 Residential Suburban N/A R‐S City of Bakersfield January 2009 4.0-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 4.0 Basis for Cumulative Analysis Draft EIR Table 4.0-1, Cumulative Projects List, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 PROJECT # ACRES PROPOSED USE UNITS/SQ.FT. ZONING GPA/ZC 06‐0377 71.749 Single Family Residential 186 R‐1 GPA/ZC 05‐0519 459.805 Single‐Family Residential 2,334 Units R‐1 ZC 06‐0380 18.982 Commercial 205,000 Sq.Ft. C‐2 GPA/ZC 06‐1031 39.198 Single Family, Multi‐Family Residential, Commercial 164 Units and 95,000 Sq.Ft. R‐1, R‐2, C‐2 GPA/ZC 06‐1039 20.028 Multi‐Family Residential 200 Units R‐2 GPA/ZC 06‐1014 94.197 Single Family Residential 330 Units R‐1 GPA/ZC 06‐1120 19.556 Application Withdrawn N/A N/A ZC 05‐1377 52.475 Single Family Residential 390 R‐1, R‐1‐HD GPA/ZC 03‐0337 886.096 Single‐Family Residential, Multi‐Family Residential, Commercial 1,400 Units and 65,000 Sq.Ft. R‐1, R‐2, C‐2 GPA/ZC 06‐1698 41.432 Multi‐Family Residential N/A R‐2 GPA/ZC 06‐1099 0.868 Mini‐Storage Space 19,700 Sq.Ft. C‐1 GPA/ZC 06‐1688 4.187 Single‐Family Residential 20 Units R‐1 GPA/ZC 06‐1681 192.563 Open Space N/A OS GPA/ZC 08‐1168 54.077 Multi‐Family Residential and Industrial 141 Units and 340,000 Sq.Ft. M‐1 and R‐2 GPA/ZC 06‐1877 254.600 Single‐Family Residential, Multi‐Family Residential, Commercial 425 Units and 2,65,00 Sq.Ft. R‐1, R‐2, C‐2 GPA/ZC 06‐1689 37.836 Multi‐Family Residential 350 Units R‐2 GPA/ZC 06‐1529 474.580 Single‐Family Residential and Multi‐Family Residential 4,381 Units R‐1, R‐2 GPA/ZC 06‐2275 46.487 Single‐Family Residential 300 Units R‐1 GPA/ZC 07‐0537 1.647 Multi‐Family Residential 350 Units R‐2 GPA/ZC 04‐0874 79.905 Application Withdrawn N/A N/A ZC 07‐1077 26.948 Estate Residential and Industrial 68 Units E, M‐1 GPA/ZC 07‐1365 43.787 Industrial N/A M‐1 ZC 07‐1370 104.427 Multi‐Family Residential N/A R‐2 ZC 07‐1371 72.813 Multi‐Family Residential N/A R‐2 GPA/ZC 07‐0655 104.231 Commercial 965,00 Units C‐2 GPA/ZC 07‐1835 18.381 Multi‐Family Residential 328 Units R‐3/PUD GPA/ZC 07‐1551 17.099 Application Withdrawn N/A N/A 4.0-3 3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 4.0 Basis for Cumulative Analysis Draft EIR Table 4.0-1, Cumulative Projects List, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 PROJECT # ACRES PROPOSED USE UNITS/SQ.FT. ZONING GPA/ZC 07‐1874 38.137 Single‐Family Residential 172 Units R‐1 GPA/ZC 07‐1848 80.204 Estate Residential 270 E GPA/ZC 07‐1778 6.210 Application Withdrawn N/A N/A GPA/ZC 06‐1722 1845.798 Single‐Family Residential, Multi‐Family Residential, Commercial 4,738 Units and 20.14‐acres of Commercial R‐1, R‐2, C‐2 ZC 07‐1893 66.382 Commercial, Multi‐Family Residential, Estate N/A C‐2/PCD, R‐2, E GPA/ZC 06‐2247 320.167 Commercial 1,400,00 Sq.Ft. C‐2 GPA/ZC 07‐1806 17.733 Commercial 150,000 Sq.Ft. C‐2/PCD GPA/ZC 07‐2329 32.115 Commercial 13,969 Sq.Ft. C‐1/PCD GPA/ZC 08‐0612 6.280 Commercial Office N/A C‐O/PCD GPA/ZC 07‐1930 19.759 Industrial 9250 Sq.Ft. M‐2 ZC 08‐0491 21.424 Single‐Family Residential and Commercial N/A C‐2, R‐1 ZC 08‐0594 81.866 Single‐Family Residential N/A R‐1/PUD ZC 08‐0472 8.592 Commercial 5,000 Sq.Ft. C‐2/PCD GPA/ZC 08‐0726 8.141 Multi‐Family Residential 216 Units R‐3/PUD GPA/ZC 08‐1238 2.591 Civic Center 30,000 Sq.Ft. C‐C GPA/ZC 08‐1036 6.347 Church 37,500 Sq.Ft. R‐1‐CH ZC 08‐1044 0.241 Multi‐Family Residential N/A R‐2 ZC 08‐0595 4.201 Storage Units 293 Units PCD Source: City of Bakersfield, Planning Division, Development Services Department, October 2008. 4.0-4 76 8 9 3 7 2 6 8 5 1 5 2 9 1 1 9 4 4 3 2 1 3 2 5 7 3 6 4 3 1 2 6 8 7 1 4 6 3 2 5 85 9 7 11 11 1111 11 11 30 18 19 30 31 31 31 30 32 19 33 16 15 13 12 17 30 14 14 25 27 24 36 19 10 31 13 29 12 10 10 3415 1022 23 18 34 24 36 12 33 12 32 36 26 35 33 22 36 13 34 23 12 26 35 10 25 35 27 30 35 25 29 26 32 33 34 23 12 3427 34 26 17 21 27 29 27 25 14 20 16 22 28 24 20 21 28 15 25 18 27 35 35 28 26 10 26 31 29 32 25 36 28 36 ZC 05-1575 510 GPA/ZC 04-0434 GPA/ZC 05-1377 SPR 04-0688 CANYONS EIR 6857 T6736 513 GPA/ZC 06-0494 ZC 06-0581 ZC 03-1514 577 539 547 GPA/ZC 06-1120 GPA/ZC 03-0337 & CIRC/BIKE 567 571 31 560 570 GPA/ZC 06-1099 GPA/ZC 06-1662 GPA/ZC 06-1681 SPR 06-1805 SPR 06-1822 SPR 06-1732 SPR 06-1746 SPR 06-1796 SPR 06-2091 SPR 06-1950 SPR 06-2131 SPR 06-1888 SPR 06-2108 SPR 06-1905 SPR 06-2144 SPR 06-0891 SPR 06-2121 SPR 06-1808 SPR 06-1946 SPR 07-0049 SPR 06-2267 SPR 07-0054 SPR 07-0210 SPR 07-0085 SPR 07-0124 SPR 07-0095 580 SPR 07-0102 SPR 06-1933 SPR 06-1852 SPR 07-0433 SPR 06-2091 SPR 07-0453 SPR 07-0250 0250 SPR 07-0164 SPR 07-0197 SPR 06-1949 SPR 07-0253 SPR 07-0088 SPR 07-0439 SPR 07-0240 SPR 07-0461 RIO BRAVO RANCH EIR GPA/ZC 06-1722 SPR 07-0751 SPR 07-0733 SPR 07-0842 SPR 07-0618 SPR 07-0750 SPR 07-0620 SPR 07-0628 SPR 07-0820SPR 07-0062 SPR 07-0502 SPR 07-0878 SPR 07-0605 SPR 07-0573 SPR 07-0137 SPR 07-0606 SPR 07-0497 SPR 07-0568 SPR 07-0529 SPR 07-0874 SPR 07-0061 SPR 07-0727 SPR 07-0830 SPR 07-1019 SPR 07-0232 SPR 07-0861 SPR 07-0875 SPR 07-0757 SPR 07-1079 SPR 07-0746 SPR 07-0853 SPR 07-0096 SPR 06-1733 SPR 07-0781 SPR 07-0544 SPR 07-1084 SPR 07-1106 SPR 07-1073 SPR 07-1036 SPR 07-1101 SPR 06-1918 SPR 07-1109 SPR 07-1128 10 SPR 07-1249 GPA/ZC 07-1193 581 34 SPR 07-1205 SPR 07-1324 SPR 07-1259 SPR 07-1311 SPR 07-1351 SPR 07-1364 SPR 07-1420 SPR 07-1534 SPR 07-0251 SPR 07-1603 SPR 07-1536 SPR 07-1573 SPR 07-1130 SPR 07-1663 SPR 07-1557 SPR 07-1707 SPR 07-1538 SPR 07-1446 SPR 07-1742 SPR 07-1662 SPR 07-0994 GPA/ZC 07-1551 SPR 07-1505 GPA/ZC 07-1541 SPR 07-1059 SPR 07-1828 SPR 07-1579 SPR 07-1822 SPR 07-1938 SPR 07-1318 SPR 07-2103 SPR 07-2089 SPR 07-1399 SPR 07-1053 SPR 07-2152 SPR 07-0810 SPR 07-2147 SPR 07-2177 598 SPR 07-2203 SPR 07-2355 SPR 07-2320 SPR 07-1875 585 596 597 597 597 597 597 597 597 597597 ZC 08-0224 SPR 08-0028 SPR 07-1166 SPR 07-2268 SPR 07-2349 609 SPR 08-0185 SPR 07-2240 SPR 08-0366 GPA/ZC 07-2329 SPR 08-0030 SPR 07-1953 SPR 08-0376 SPR 08-0447 SPR 08-0259 SPR 08-0291 SPR 08-0621 SPR 07-2294 SPR 08-0554 SPR 08-0500 SPR 08-0748 SPR 08-0688 SPR 07-2241 E 58 HWY W 58 HWY 178 E F WY178 W FWY 178 HWY 24TH ST GOLDEN STATE AVE KERN CANYON RD Y MORNING DR WY ALFRED HARRELL HWY WIBLE RD WHITE LN E HWY EDISON HWY MU LLER RD NILES ST FAIRFAX RD E BRUNDAGE LN JAMES RD BREC KENRIDGE RD AIRPORT DR ROUND MOUNTAIN RD COMANCHE DR RANCHERIA RD CALIFORNIA AVE OAK ST COLUMBUS ST MOUNT VERNON AVE PALADINO DR N CHESTER AVE MERLE HAGGARD DR S CHESTER AVE UNION AVE CHINA GRADE LOOP S COMANCHE DR E CALIFORNIA AVE BRUNDAGE LN NEW STINE RD EDISON RD PANORAMA DR RIVER BLVD S GRANITE RD CASA LOMA DR MANOR ST MASTERSON ST S MOUNT VERNON AVE OSWELL ST CHESTER AVE MORNING DR REDB ANK RD TEJON HWY VINELAND RD TRUXTUN AVE MOHAWK ST W CHINA GRADE LOOP OSWELL ST KNUDSEN DR MOHAWK ST MANOR ST S OSWELL ST MOHAWK ST MOHAWK ST VINELAND RD OAK ST CHINA GRADE LOOP MORNING DR ND RD T6299 T6137R T6137 T6433 T6148 T6606 T6964 T6444 T6149 T6604 T6961 T6352 T6962 T6963 T6876 T6603 T6521 T6567 T6498 T6296R T6638 T6866 T6182R T7141 T6297 T6426 T6605 T6842 T6539 T6568 T6571 T6191R T6844 T6515 T6202R T6517 T6843 T5517 T6850 T6872 T6465 T6696 T6522R T6839 T6503R T7056 T6871 T6939 T6655 T6730 T6505 T7027 T6622 T6575 T6892 T6318 T6546 T6378 T6902 T6465 T6840 T7152 T6610 T7153 T6547 T6423 T6841 T6645 T6383 T6586 T6422 T6350 T6876 T6499 T6780 T6485 T6852 T6736 T6347 T7006 T6243 T6256 T6459 T6251 T6591 T6543 T7135 T6857 T6917 T6510 T6753 T6569 T6657 T7106 T6945 T6905 T7066 T6599 T7126 P11189 P11618 P11334 P11322 P10928 P11464 P11698 P11782 P11246 P11554 P11613 P11802 P11548 P11193 P11472 P11670 P11513 9/25/08 JN 60-100489 Cumulative Projects Projects Study Area City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance • Draft EIR Figure 4-1 Prepared by the City of Bakersfield, Ca Planning Division of the Development Services Department The City of Bakersfield makes no warranty or guarantee regarding the accuracy of this map. This map is intended for use by City staff and the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to be used for analytical purposes. This map is continually updated by the Planning Department and should not be considered to be the most up-to-date version available beyond the date specified on the map. Furthermore, not all applications shown on this map have been deemed complete for processing. NOT TO SCALE LEGEND GENERAL PLAN BOUNDARY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE EIR'S PENDING ANNEXATIONS GPA'S & ZC'S (LAND & CIRC.) PARCEL MAPS TRACTS CITY LIMITS SITE PLAN REVIEW -Study Area Includes the Northeast Quadrant (North of SR-58 and East of SR-99). -Map reflects active projects as of June 20, 2008. SOURCE: Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 4.0 Basis for Cumulative Analysis Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 4.0-6 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 4.0 Basis for Cumulative Analysis Draft EIR 4.2.1.1 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Construction of currently approved and pending projects in the cumulative study area would permanently alter the nature and appearance of the area as future development occurs over upcoming years. Although the proposed Project would not directly result in or induce physical construction within the HD Zone or surrounding areas, the gradual visual effects of the change in land use from undeveloped to developed land with future projects would be evident; however, the significance and extent of the resulting visual and/or aesthetic changes is difficult to effectively evaluate, as aesthetic value is subjectively determined and future potential impacts would be site‐specific. It is anticipated that future construction activities within the cumulative study area would occur at various sites and at varied times, when an application for development is made. Such construction‐related impacts would be short‐term and would cease upon completion. In addition, all new development projects would be subject to additional environmental and design review on a site‐specific, project‐by‐project basis to ensure visual aesthetic impacts are limited to the extent possible during the construction process. All construction activities would be required to be consistent with the Municipal Code requirements and applicable conditions of approval to reduce potential cumulative effects of construction to less than significant. Cumulative projects in the Project vicinity would convert existing open space to urban uses, potentially resulting in the incremental loss of visible open space within Bakersfield. Such future development could also contribute to the alteration of views toward designated visual resources. The proposed Project would potentially result in an overall reduction in the number of residential units constructed within the City’s hillside areas, thereby reducing the potential cumulative visual effect on such resources by allowing for a lower density development. Therefore, the Amended HD Ordinance would reduce the potential for future development within the HD Zone to contribute to a cumulatively considerable alteration of views to scenic resources. All future development within the City would be subject to an evaluation of the significance of potential cumulative visual and aesthetic changes on a site‐specific, project‐by‐project basis, with consideration for its scope and contribution to a change in the overall visual pattern or character within the City. Adherence to applicable General Plan policies and goals and Municipal Code Design Standards, including those given in Chapter 17.66, Hillside Development Combining Zone, would further reduce potential cumulative impacts relative to the long‐term alteration of views to designated scenic resources. 4.2.1.2 Agricultural Resources As agriculture comprises a significant economy in both Kern County and in the Bakersfield area, the ongoing cumulative loss of agricultural land to other land uses would represent a permanent loss of such resources, thereby incrementally weakening the County’s potential to successfully support continued agricultural uses or operations. As “agriculture provides the backbone of Kern County’s economy, as well as that of the (Metropolitan Bakersfield) Planning City of Bakersfield January 2009 4.0-7 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 4.0 Basis for Cumulative Analysis Draft EIR Area,” the loss of such resources is considered to be significant. The General Plan EIR states that implementation of the General Plan has the potential to result in the removal of a substantial amount of prime agricultural land from production through the conversion to other uses. This “conversion of prime agricultural land to urban uses would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact since the proposed conversion would represent a substantial irretrievable commitment of a limited agricultural resource.”1 The General Plan anticipates future growth within northeast Bakersfield on lands affected by the Amended HD Ordinance. As the land affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is located within the City limits, implementation of Ordinance would not result in an increase in impacts on agricultural lands than was previously evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. However, as development continues to occur within this area of the City over future years, the continued conversion of agricultural land to urban uses would result, thereby potentially causing the permanent removal of prime agricultural land from production or other agricultural uses. As the Amended HD Ordinance is intended to provide for the protection of the City’s hillside resources for the purposes of public safety and aesthetics, implementation of the Ordinance would not directly induce the conversion of agricultural lands in the Project area, thereby further contributing to a cumulative loss of such lands. Although implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would potentially reduce the number of units able to be constructed within the Visual Resource and Slope Protection Areas of the HD Zone by approximately 3,199 units, it is anticipated that these units would be absorbed within the Northeast Quadrant and would not indirectly cause the conversion of agricultural lands to otherwise meet housing demands due to this loss. The Conservation Element of of the General Plan identifies goals and policies intended to decrease the rate of the conversion of agricultural land to non‐agricultural resources and encourage the conservation of such resources. In addition, the General Plan Update EIR provides mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts resulting from the conversion of prime farmland to nonagricultural uses. However, even with the proposed mitigation, such impacts would not be entirely avoided. Therefore, the future cumulative loss of prime agricultural land within the General Plan Planning Area would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. The Amended HD Ordinance is a resource protection/safety combining (or overlay) zone that provides development standards and guidelines for development allowed in the “base” zone. The HD Zone itself does not include a list of allowed uses. The proposed Project would not result in physical development within the HD Zone. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts relative to the conversion of agricultural land to non‐agricultural uses within the City of Bakersfield. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would therefore not contribute to a cumulative loss of farmland within the area affected by the HD Zone. Impacts would be less than significant. 1 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR. December 2002. City of Bakersfield January 2009 4.0-8 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 4.0 Basis for Cumulative Analysis Draft EIR 4.2.1.3 Air Quality The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin currently experiences poor air quality and is under nonattainment for ozone and non‐attainment for PM10 under the state designation. Therefore, cumulative development occurring within the Bakersfield area has the potential to contribute to significant air quality issues. The proposed Project would not directly result in physical construction within the HD Zone, and would therefore, not result in land uses that would potentially contribute pollutants to the surrounding air basin. In addition, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would reduce the number of units that could potentially be built within specific areas of the HD Zone, thereby also reducing overall vehicle trips and resultant emissions generated, if these units were not constructed elsewhere within the City’s Northeast Quadrant. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would reduce overall emissions potentially generated by future development, thereby reducing the Project’s potential to contribute to cumulative impacts on air quality on a local and regional level. As future development occurs within the cumulative study area, projects would be reviewed by the City on a project‐by‐project basis to determine potential impacts on air quality and appropriate mitigation measures, as needed. Individual projects would be required to reduce such impacts to less than significant, or to the extent possible, thereby reducing their potential to contribute to significant air quality impacts within the surrounding air basin. Due to the nature of the Project, the Project is anticipated to result in a no net impact for pollutant emissions. The proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on air quality, and impacts would be less than significant. 4.2.1.4 Biological Resources No cumulative, unavoidable significant impacts related to biological resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed Project, as no physical development would occur with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance. Future development projects within the cumulative study area would be subject to site‐specific environmental review for their potential to contribute to cumulative impacts with regard to biological resources. Project‐specific mitigation measures and compliance with the MBHCP would be required to reduce potential impacts resulting from future development projects within the cumulative study area to less than significant, as appropriate, to minimize a project’s potential effects on local and regional biological resources. If applicable, mitigation measures would be implemented to further reduce potential cumulative impacts of a project to less than significant levels with regards to biological resources. 4.2.1.5 Cultural Resources No cumulative, unavoidable significant impacts related to cultural resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed Project, as no physical development would directly occur. Impacts to cultural resources are typically site‐specific. A cumulative impact may occur if the resources identified on a particular site are determined to either be of rural historic landscape or of uncommon or last‐of‐its kind property type in the project area or on a larger, more regional scale. All future development projects within the cumulative study area would be evaluated on City of Bakersfield January 2009 4.0-9 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 4.0 Basis for Cumulative Analysis Draft EIR a project‐by‐project basis for their potential to contribute to cumulative impacts to historic and cultural resources, and to identify appropriate, site‐specific mitigation measures to reduce such potential impacts to less than cumulatively considerable levels. 4.2.1.6 Geologic and Seismic Hazards Geologic characteristics are typically similar for project sites and the lands surrounding them. Therefore, planned and future cumulative projects within the cumulative projects study area are expected to be subject to similar geologic conditions and risks, particularly with regard to seismic activity and groundshaking. However, greater risks may occur within the hillside areas, as soil and slope conditions could increase the potential for damage caused by geologic factors to occur. Potential geologic impacts would be evaluated on a site‐specific basis during the City’s environmental review process to determine specific characteristics and potential hazards or design constraints. Although no physical development would directly result with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, and therefore, no significant impacts relative to geology would occur, the Ordinance does provide design measures to reduce or minimize risks associated with geologic and seismic conditions on lands within the HD Zone. In addition, it is anticipated that future development projects within the cumulative study area would not increase the potential for significant impacts relative to geologic hazards to occur, as similar mitigation is likely to apply to such projects, particularly in areas where slopes occur. Therefore, impacts would not be cumulatively significant. 4.2.1.7 Hydrology and Water Quality As no physical development would directly occur as the result of implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, cumulative effects relative to hydrology and water quality are not anticipated. Future development within the cumulative study area may adversely affect downstream water quality, impacting surface or groundwater supplies. Potential cumulative impacts of future development would be mitigated through preparation of required drainage studies to identify potential impacts, consistency with the City’s drainage master plans, and implementation of appropriate onsite and offsite drainage improvements. Future development projects would also be required to implement NPDES and BMP measures on a project‐byproject basis to reduce potential water quality impacts. In addition, future development projects would be required to provide drainage improvements in compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code standards, in addition to local and regional agency requirements, as part of the City’s discretionary review process. As the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical improvements to or disturbance of lands within the HD Zone, the proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact with regard for hydrology and water quality. Impacts would be less than significant. 4.2.1.8 Land Use and Planning The City of Bakersfield implements its General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Municipal Code which guide growth within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the existing underlying General Plan land use or zoning designations within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance, thereby creating a potential inconsistency with future growth as intended by the City. The proposed Project would not cause a cumulative City of Bakersfield January 2009 4.0-10 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 4.0 Basis for Cumulative Analysis Draft EIR effect in that it would not induce other properties within the northeast area of the City to increase growth or subdivide to accommodate additional growth. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s established plans and guidelines for growth, and would not represent a cumulative impact with regard to land use and planning. 4.2.1.9 Noise The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to regulate future development to reduce impacts on the City’s hillside areas. As no development within the HD Zone would directly occur with implementation of the Ordinance, it is not anticipated that the Project would contribute to any short‐term construction or long‐term stationary noise impacts on a cumulative basis. In this regard, impacts would be less than significant. Nothing in the scope of the Amended HD Ordinance would cause an increase in traffic, which could lead to an increase in ambient noise levels. In In addition, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would result in a reduction in the overall number of units that could potentially be constructed within specific areas of the HD Zone, due to additional site design restrictions, thereby reducing project‐related traffic and resultant traffic noise along the City’s roadways. All future development within the cumulative study area would be subject to environmental and design review by the City to determine potential noise impacts and identify appropriate measures to reduce such impacts to less than significant, or to the extent possible. All development would be subject to the goals and policies of the General Plan, mitigation given in the General Plan Update EIR, and Municipal Code standards aimed at the reduction of noise generation and potential impacts on existing ambient noise levels. Appropriate mitigation measures and adherence to conditions of approval would be required to reduce the cumulative effects of noise to the extent possible. It should be noted that the General Plan Update EIR identifies significant and unavoidable traffic noise impacts resulting with buildout of the General Plan. Such effects would need to be considered and evaluated in a project‐specific noise analysis for all future development projects to determine the cumulative contribution of a project on noise levels within the City. 4.2.1.10 Population and Housing Specifically identified lands within the HD Zone that are 15 percent in slope and greater would be affected by the Slope Protection sections of the Amended HD Ordinance. Taking a conservative approach, and with consideration for the additional restrictions imposed by the Amended HD Ordinance, it is anticipated that in the Slope Protection Areas within the HD Zone, residential development potential would be reduced by an estimated 2,288 dwelling units. In addition, the HD Zone restrictions would reduce residential development potential within the City’s identified Visual Resource Areas by an estimated 911 units; however, with consideration for the land available and zoned for residential development within the Northeast Quadrant, it is anticipated that these units could easily be absorbed within the quadrant on other available residentially‐zoned lands outside of the HD Zone. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would allow for future growth as intended by the City, and consistent City of Bakersfield January 2009 4.0-11 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 4.0 Basis for Cumulative Analysis Draft EIR with that identified by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and the General Plan Housing Element. Implementation of the proposed Project would therefore not result in significant cumulative impacts relative to the displacement of housing units within the City of Bakersfield. Refer also to Section 5.12, Population and Housing, for additional discussion regarding this issue. The proposed Project would not directly result in the construction of residential units within the HD Zone, and would therefore not contribute to significant population growth within the cumulative study area. As such, the proposed Project would not have a significant effect on population or housing when considered on a cumulative basis with other planned and future development. Impacts would be less than significant. 4.2.1.11 Public Health and Safety The proposed Project is intended to protect public health and safety by restricting development on sensitive slopes and by promoting increased access for fire and other emergency services. With regard to public health and safety, all future development projects within the cumulative study area would be evaluated on a project‐specific basis through the City’s environmental and design review process to determine if a project would create adverse conditions that would be unsafe or unhealthy. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, inadequate emergency access, use of significant amounts of hazardous materials or generation of hazardous waste, risk of exposure to Valley Fever, or release of harmful products utilized for agricultural operations, among other elements. The design and characteristics of each development project would be reviewed by the City for conformance to applicable Federal, State, and local requirements, as well as consistency with the City’s Municipal Code, to ensure that public health and/or safety were not compromised by a project’s features or general character. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone, and therefore, would not establish land uses that would create adverse conditions with regard to public health or safety. As such, the proposed Project would not have a significant effect on public health or safety when considered on a cumulative basis with other planned and future development within the City. Impacts would be less than significant. 4.2.1.12 Public Services and Utilities Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not contribute to a significant cumulative effect as the result of increased demand for services or utilities, as the intent of the Ordinance is to protect the City’s hillsides, and physical growth would not directly result from Project implementation. Future development within the cumulative study area would effectively be self‐mitigating in that projects would be subject to review for all applicable permit, code, policy and other City of Bakersfield development requirements and would be required to contribute fair share payment of impact fees to ensure their participation in addressing potential cumulative growth and service‐related demand issues. As such, each future project within the cumulative study area would provide measures to reduce its potential to contribute to a significant cumulative effect on public services and utilities. In addition, all projects within the City would be required to comply with all applicable goals, policies and implementation measures set forth by the General Plan and General Plan Update EIR. As City of Bakersfield January 2009 4.0-12 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 4.0 Basis for Cumulative Analysis Draft EIR implementation of the Amended HD Zone would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone, no land uses would occur that would require the need for public services or utilities. As such, cumulative impacts with regard to public utilities and services would be less than significant. 4.2.1.13 Traffic and Circulation Nothing in the scope of the Amended HD Ordinance would result in an increase in traffic within the area affected by the proposed Project, as the purpose of the document is to regulate future development within the City’s hillsides. No physical development would directly occur within the HD Zone as the result of the Project. In addition, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would result in an overall reduction of the potential number of units that could be constructed within specific areas of the HD Zone by an estimated 3,199 units, thereby reducing the number of vehicle trips that would be contributed to the roadway system in the Project area. As such, the Project would indirectly generate fewer vehicle trips, thereby reducing the potential for future development within the HD Zone to contribute to significant cumulative traffic or circulation impacts. Additionally, it is assumed that future development within the cumulative study area would occur consistent with the City’s General Plan, unless otherwise approved by the City. As such, impacts to the circulation system would be consistent with that assumed with buildout of the General Plan and as evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. As the proposed Project would contribute to an overall reduction in the number of vehicle trips assumed for the northeastern portion of the City, and would not result in the physical development of structures that would generate vehicle trips within the Project area, implementation of the proposed Project is not anticipated to contribute to a significant increase in traffic when compared to the traffic capacity of the street system, or to exceed established LOS standards when combined with traffic from future development within the northeastern portion of the City. Cumulative impacts would therefore be considered less than significant. City of Bakersfield January 2009 4.0-13 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 4.0 Basis for Cumulative Analysis Draft EIR THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. City of Bakersfield January 2009 4.0-14 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-1 Section 5.1 Land Use and Planning 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 5.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING This Section presents a general discussion of the land use designations, policies and standards under the current Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, Municipal Code and regional plans. A discussion of existing conditions of on‐and offsite land uses and the general character of the Project area, as well as an assessment of potential impacts resulting from implementation of the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance, are provided. Project consistency with relevant local, State and Federal plans, as applicable, is also discussed. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce potential impacts to less than significant, as appropriate. The analysis in this Section is generally based on information provided in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update and the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update (General Plan). 5.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1.1.1 Onsite The Project area is located in the hilly areas of the northeastern portion of the City of Bakersfield. The area covered by the original HD Zone consisted of approximately 6,220 acres generally located north of State Route 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 Development Ordinance currently covers approximately 6,531 acres; refer to Figure 3‐3, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONING LOCATION. The increase in acreage is due to a number of project approvals and annexations within the Metropolitan Northeast area that have occurred since 2006. The lands within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance are those that have a natural slope of 8% or more. The Ordinance establishes an overlay zone that provides certain development restrictions on the affected lands, in addition to the uses allowed and the regulations currently provided by the underlying zoning. Land uses within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance are generally single‐family, multi‐family, and estate residential uses, interspersed with undeveloped lands and open space. Additional lands are designated as agricultural uses. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR 5.1.1.2 Surrounding Lands To the north of the Project area, land uses generally consist of undeveloped lands, with heavy petroleum extraction activities present to the northwest. Currently, the Kern River generally forms the northern boundary of the HD Zone. To the south of the Kern River are limited rural residential uses, as well as a number of recreational land uses, such as Lake Ming and several golf courses. To the east of the HD Zone are large areas of undeveloped lands and open space. Kern Canyon also lies to the east of the Project area. To the south of the HD Zone lies generally undeveloped land, with several intervening residential subdivisions that have been recently constructed or are currently under construction. To the west and southwest lie several largerscale residential neighborhoods with supporting commercial uses. 5.1.1.3 Relevant Plans and Policies City of Bakersfield General Plan The City of Bakersfield General Plan represents a policy document designed to provide longrange guidance for decision‐making affecting the future character of the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area. The General Plan provides a guide for intended physical development within the City and identifies important economic, social, and environmental goals. The General Plan establishes goals and policies in a series of General Plan Elements which include Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, Public Services and Facilities, and Parks. The Kern River Plan, Downtown Redevelopment, and Historical Resources Elements of the General Plan represent three additional Elements that also establish goals and policies for issues specific to the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The General Plan identifies four separate quadrants within the City, with State Route 99 (SR‐99) serving as the north‐south axis and Stockdale Highway (SR‐58) serving as the east‐west axis. Within each of the quadrants are “developed urban” and “rural‐undeveloped” areas. The area affected by the HD Zone is located in the Rural Northeast Planning Area, which is defined as being “characterized by foothill topography and large‐lot housing, which features the Rio Bravo Resort, Lake Ming, and the [former] Mesa Marin Raceway.”1 The General Plan Land Use Element indicates that the population of the Bakersfield planning area is anticipated to reach 520,500 by the Year 2020. Population growth over the years from 2001 to 2020 years is anticipated to be approximately 112,000. As such, the City has estimated the need for 37,000 housing units to meet this anticipated growth.2 Planned future growth would occur within the boundaries of the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). The General Plan provides a brief summary of the basic City’s intent for the future growth to occur in “mixed‐use activity centers” within “new urban areas” and “peripheral areas” in the City. The following is an excerpt from the General Plan: 5.1-2 1 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR. December 2002. 2 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan ‐Land Use Element. December 2002. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR “Overview of the General Plan Basic Principles for New Urban Areas The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Map is depicted in Figure II‐1. The plan map provides a graphic depiction of the general plan’s development policies, and indicated that land use designations for which pertinent policies and standards have been established. Two basic principles govern the plan: the focusing of new development into distinctive centers which are separated by low land use densities and the siting of development to take advantage of the environmental setting. These principles are defined as the “centers” and “resource” concepts respectively. Figure II‐2 conceptually illustrates these land use principles. The “centers” concept provides for a land use pattern consisting of several concentrated mixed‐use commercial and high density residential centers surrounded by medium density residential uses. Centers may be differentiated by functional activity, density/intensity, and physical character. Single‐family residential uses are located between these mixed‐use commercial/residential centers primarily. This concept encourages people to live and work in the same area and, thus, serves to minimize sprawl and reduce traffic, travel time, infrastructure costs, and air pollution. In addition to promoting the formation of several large concentrated mixed‐use centers, the plan attempts to consolidate smaller, neighborhood‐serving commercial development by prescribing minimum distances between commercial parcels and by discouraging strip commercial development. The “resources” concept emphasizes the siting of development to reflect the planning area’s natural and visual resources; its rivers, canals, and foothills. The “resources” concept uses as a point of departure, the 1984 Kern River Plan Element (as amended), which takes advantage of the recreational potential of the river while respecting the river’s sensitive natural habitats and aesthetic resources. It recommends that linkages to unique resources be encouraged. Policies have been included in the plan to promote utilization of and sensitivity to natural and visual resources. Basic Principles for Development of Peripheral Areas New development on the periphery of urban Bakersfield will be focused in ten new mixeduse activity centers located in the southwest, northwest and northeast….The center in the northeast will include retail commercial, professional office, moderate and high density residential, and will filter outwards to lower densities. The plan encourages that each center: (a) focus on a major open space amenity, such as a park or water body; (b) link land uses to the Kern River where possible; and (c) exhibit pedestrian sensitivity with appropriate design applied to encourage pedestrian activity. In addition to these three activity centers, peripheral development will be focused in smaller community centers, such as in the Greenfield and Lamont areas, with local‐serving commercial services and residential uses. As a general rule, the sphere of influence boundaries were utilized to help define the boundaries of planned urban growth.” City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR As such, the Land Use Element plans for growth within the northeast quadrant of Bakersfield. The Element states that population growth from 2002 to 2020 is anticipated to reach 20%, and that “the number of areas available for development will accommodate the expected demand.”3 General Plan Housing Element California law mandates that all General Plans include a Housing Element as one of seven required elements. Article 10.6, Section 65580‐65589.8, Chapter 3, Division 1, of Title 7 of the California Government Code establishes legal requirements for preparation of a Housing Element and encourages the provision of affordable and decent housing within communities to achieve State goals. The current Housing Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan covers the years 2002‐ 2007. The Element is required to include a five‐year plan identifying quantified objectives for the implementation of the goals and objectives of the Housing Element. The Element is intended to “develop an understanding of the existing and projected housing needs within the community and to set forth policies and schedules which promote preservation, improvement and development of diverse types and costs of housing throughout Bakersfield.ʺ4 The City’s Housing Element is currently being updated. The General Plan Draft Housing Element 2008‐2013 provides a summary of how the City achieved (or did not achieve) the goals, policies, and objectives contained within the 2002‐2007 Housing Element, and provides an updated analysis of existing housing conditions; anticipated future housing demand; and, goals, policies and objectives to meet such demand. Onsite General Plan Designations General Plan land use designations within the HD Zone include, but are not limited to, Low‐Medium Residential (LMR) and Low‐Density Residential (LD) in the north and northwestern portions; Open Space – Slopes (OS‐S), Low‐Density Residential (LD), High‐Medium Residential (HM‐R), and Open Space – Parks (OS‐P) in the central portion; and Low‐Density Residential, Open Space – Slopes (OS‐S), Suburban Residential (SR), and Intensive Agriculture (R‐IA) in the eastern portion of the Project area. Refer to Figure 5.1‐1, GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS – NORTHEAST QUADRANT. 3 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan ‐Land Use Element. December 2002. 4 Ibid. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-4 CITY LIMITS AS OF 1/09/03 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RURAL RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM 2.5 GROSS ACRES/UNIT ESTATE RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM 1 NET ACRE/UNIT RR ER UER URBAN ESTATE RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM 0.5 NET ACRE/UNIT SR SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL O 4 D.U./NET ACRE SR/LR COUNTY JURISDICTION: 4 D.U./NET ACRE CITY JURISDICTION: 7.26 D.U./NET ACRE OO LR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL O 7.26 D.U./NET ACRE LMR/LR COUNTY JURISDICTION: 10 D.U./NET ACRE CITY JURISDICTION: 4 AND 7.26 D.U./NET ACRE O N O LMR LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL COUNTY JURISDICTION: 10 D.U./NET ACRE CITY JURISDICTION: 4 AND 10 D.U./NET ACRE ON O HMR/LMR COUNTY JURISDICTION: 17.42 D.U./NET ACRE CITY JURISDICTION: N 4 AND O 10 D.U./NET ACRE O HMR HIGH MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL COUNTY JURISDICTION: 17.42 D.U./NET ACRE CITY JURISDICTION: 7.26 AND 17.42 D.U./NET ACRE ON O HR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL N 17.42 AND O 72.6 D.U./NET ACRE HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL GC OC MC MUC GENERAL COMMERICAL OFFICE COMMERCIAL MAJOR COMMERCIAL MIXED USE MAJOR/OFFICE COMMERCIAL LI HI SI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL SERVICE INDUSTRIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL P PS PT P-SW LR/PS INCLUDES: GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, HOSPITALS, PUBLIC UTILITIES, CEMETERIES, SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS, WASTE DISPOSAL SITES AND OTHER PUBLICLY OWNED FACILITIES PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR SOLID WASTE FACILITY SITES LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS OS OS-P OS-S INCLUDES: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREAS, AGRICULTURE AND FLOODPLAINS PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES SHILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE LOPES EXCEEDING 30% R-IA R-EA R-MP INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE: MINIMUM 20 ACRE PARCEL SIZE EXTENSIVE AGRICULTURE: MINIMUM 20 ACRE PARCEL SIZE (LANDS UNDER WILLIAMSON ACT: MINIMUM 80 ACRE PARCEL) MINERAL PETROLEUM AND MINIMUM 5 ACRE PARCEL RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES OPEN SPACE RESOURCE COMMERCIAL 10/13/08 JN 60-100489 General Plan Land Use Designations -Northeast Quadrant City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance • Draft EIR NOT TO SCALE Source: City of Bakersfield • August 2008 Figure 5.1-1 1 178 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-6 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR Offsite General Plan Designations Lands surrounding the HD Zone generally range from Low Density Residential (LR), Suburban Residential (SR), and Rural Residential (RR) to the north and northeast of the Project area. Areas designated as Low‐Medium Residential (LMR), High‐Medium Residential (HMR), and General Commercial (GC) generally occur to the south and southwest of the Project area, where density increases within the more urban areas of the City. In addition, areas designated as Resource – Extensive Agriculture (R‐EA) are generally present to the north and southeast and Resource – Mineral Petroleum (R‐MP) lands are identified to the west. Kern River Plan Element The Kern River generally forms the northern boundary of the HD Zone and represents an important natural resource on both a local and regional level. The Kern River Plan Element is included as part of the City’s General Plan. Due to its proximity to the Kern River, portions of the Project site are subject to the policies set forth in the Kern River Plan Element which is intended to provide long‐term protection of the River as a valuable natural resource. The Kern River Plan Element covers approximately 14,250 acres (35 miles in length) within the Bakersfield area. The Kern River Plan Element provides measures intended to allow for the long‐term preservation and maintenance of the primary floodway channel of the River, while allowing for resource, recreational, residential, and other uses within the secondary floodway. Within the Kern River Plan Element, the majority of Project lands that are affected by the Kern River Plan are generally designated as 2.1, Seismic Hazard; 2.5, Flood Hazard; 3.1, Public and Private Recreation Areas; 5.35, Residential (maximum 7.25 units/net acre); 5.6, Residential (minimum 2.5 gross acres/unit); and, 8.5, Resource Management. City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance Properties within the HD Zone are subject to Chapter 17.32 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, which defines the permitted uses and development restrictions for each of the City’s zoning designations. The Municipal Code provides a zoning map that indicates the limits of the zoning districts and defines permitted and conditional uses allowed within each individual zone, as well as giving development and performance standards; refer to Figure 5.1‐2, ZONING DESIGNATIONS ‐NORTHEAST QUADRANT. Onsite Zoning Designations A number of zoning designations occur within the area affected by the HD Zone. Zoning designations include, but are not limited to the following: Residential ‐One Family Dwelling (R‐1); Residential – One Family Dwelling ‐Hillside Development Overlay (R‐1‐HD); Residential – Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone ‐1 unit/2,500 s.f.; (R‐2); Residential – Limited Multiple Family Zone – 1 unit/1,250 s.f. (R‐3); Residential Suburban/10‐acre minimum ‐Hillside Development Overlay (R‐S‐10A‐HD); Residential Suburban/2.5‐acre minimum – Hillside Development Overlay (R‐S‐2.5A‐HD); Agricultural (A); Agricultural – Hillside Development Overlay (A‐HD); Agricultural – 20‐acre minimum Hillside Development Overlay (A‐20A‐HD); Agricultural – Floodplain ‐Slopes‐Hillside Development (A‐FP‐S‐HD); Open Space – Hillside City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-7 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR Development Overlay (OS‐HD); Estate One Family Dwelling (E); and, Estate – One Family Dwelling ‐Hillside Development Overlay (E‐HD). Offsite Zoning Designations Zoning designations for properties surrounding the Project area generally include, but are not limited to the following: Agricultural (A); Residential ‐One Family Dwelling (R‐1); Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone (R‐2); Residential Suburban (R‐S‐2‐.5A); and, Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). Hillside Development (HD) Combining Zone The original Hillside Development (HD) Zone was adopted by the City of Bakersfield City Council on August 11, 1999.The purpose of the original HD Ordinance was to “define and implement the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan as they relate to the preservation and maintenance of hillsides as a scenic resource of the City and to protect the general public from the threat of wildfire.” Similar to the Amended HD Ordinance, the HD Zone district acted as an overlay zone and provided measures in addition to the uses allowed by and the regulations of the existing base zone district. The original HD Ordinance generally applied to those larger contiguous areas having average slopes of eight percent or greater. The original HD Zone regulations applied to “all projects relating to grading, building permits, parcel maps, tentative tract maps, conditional use permits, zone changes, General Plan amendments, and site plan review.” Refer also to Table 3.0‐1, ORIGINAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AS COMPARED TO THE AMENDED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, which summarizes the key elements of both versions of the Ordinance. The original HD Ordinance included design measures to regulate development within the City’s hillside areas. The following provides a summary of the intent of the original HD Ordinance: • Encourage grading techniques that blend with the natural terrain, minimize earthmoving activities, minimize visual impacts of large cut and fill slopes, and provide for the preservation of unique and significant natural landforms and ridgelines; • Maintain the integrity and natural characteristics of major landforms and scenic qualities; and, • Protect the general public from the threat of wildfire through proper design of driveways and fire apparatus access roads, provision of emergency access, maintenance of defensible space around structures, and use of appropriate building construction materials (i.e. roofing) and fire‐resistant landscaping materials. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-8 Hillside Development Zone 10/13/08 JN 60-100489 Zoning Designations -Northeast Quadrant City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance • Draft EIR Figure 5.1-2 NOT TO SCALE Source: City of Bakersfield • August 2008 178 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-10 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield The purpose of the Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield is to “provide a system of parks and interconnecting trail systems in northeast Bakersfield for the public enjoyment of unique open space features and recreational amenities in the area.”5 The City has previously addressed the need to protect its unique natural resources and to provide continued public access to such resources, including the Kern River Corridor and other open space areas such as Hart Park, BLM land, habitat areas, Lake Ming, and the Kern River Trail system. The protection of these natural resources has been addressed in the Kern River Plan Element, Northeast Bakersfield Open Space Area (NBOSA) policies, the Specific Parks and Trails Plan prepared in 1996 for a portion of the northeast Bakersfield area, and the HD Ordinance. The Specific Parks and Trails Plan is intended to further ““define the intent and expectations for the northeast Bakersfield area and provide information for development design and evaluation.” The Specific Parks and Trails Plan identifies trail alignments and support facilities and provides for acquisition of and improvement of parks, staging areas, and trails, as well as measures for maintenance and operation of such facilities. Design standards are also given for these amenities to ensure that quality facilities are provided. All new development within the area affected by the Specific Parks and Trails Plan would be required to demonstrate consistency with the Plan and to provide parks and trails as shown on the Plan. According to the Specific Parks and Trails Plan, parks and staging areas would be acquired consistent with the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 15.80. Subdivisions required to dedicate trails as part of the proposed development would receive a one‐half acre per 1,000 population park dedication in‐lieu fee credit. Fees for park development and and improvements collected pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 15.82 would be used for improvement of parks, staging areas, and trails. 5.1.1.4 Regional Plans The lands within the HD Zone are affected by a number of regional plans aimed at guiding how future development would occur within the identified areas. These plans generally include the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP), and the Kern County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The key elements of each of these plans are described briefly below. Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) was adopted in 1994 and represents a comprehensive plan aimed at mitigating potential impacts on sensitive biological species, as the result of future development. The boundaries of the MBHCP study area are consistent with the boundaries of the City General Plan, which consists of approximately 408 square miles. The MBHCP is accompanied by implementing agreements and ordinances to provide a means by which funds can be collected to allow for the acquisition and perpetual 5.1-11 5 Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield. City of Bakersfield. Approved October 22, 2003. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR management of habitat land to ultimately create land preserves.6 Future development projects within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are required to pay mitigation fees, which are then used to purchase land for habitat preservation. The lands are managed for the long‐term by wildlife agencies or other entities, as approved by the City. The MBHCP also includes take avoidance measures. The existing MBHCP will expire in the year 2014; however, proposed development projects may be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval, or building permit and pay fees, prior to the 2014 expiration date. Projects that submit for approval of an urban development permit, grading plan approval, or building permit prior to the 2014 expiration date will be eligible to pay fees under the current MBHCP. The terms of the MBHCP govern the ability of the City to issue urban development permits. Following the 2014 expiration date, urban development permits issued may be subject to the requirements of a new or revised Habitat Conservation Plan (if prepared and approved), or be subject to individual permits issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) The Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) applies to the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (Basin). The Plan provides measures to reduce air quality emissions within the Valley to comply with California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone and carbon monoxide (CO). The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has developed mobile source emission control recommendations and regulations to implement the AQAP. Kern County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) The Kern County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) identifies future transportation improvements needed to serve the projected transportation needs of the County. The RTP details the existing transportation systems, sets goals, policies, and projects and identifies future means of funding. The RTP identifies anticipated highway, street, and roadway projects; mass transportation; railroad; and other programs and projects planned to meet the future transit needs of the County. Refer to Section 5.4, Traffic and Circulation, for additional discussion of the Project’s consistency with the RTP. 5.1.2 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Environmental Checklist form. The Environmental Checklist form includes questions relating to land use and relevant planning. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this Section. Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental impact if it would: 5.1-12 6 The MBHCP and associated implementing agreement and ordinances are available through the City of Bakersfield Planning Department. The Plan provides descriptions of species of concern and habitat areas within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR • Physically divides an established community; • Conflicts 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; or, • Conflicts with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. 5.1.3 IMPACTS Physical Division of an Established Community 5.1‐1 Implementation of the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance would not result in the physical division of an established community. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The proposed Project would result in the application of the Amended HD Zone over lands as identified in the Northeast Quadrant of the City of Bakersfield. The HD Zone is intended to act as an overlay zone and would not alter the existing underlying zoning designations that currently apply to the affected properties. The Project would not divide the physical arrangement of the existing community, nor would it directly result in the construction of elements that could potentially physically divide the community, such as a new highway or freeway through an established neighborhood. The provisions contained within the Amended HD Ordinance would be consistent with surrounding residential and other land uses, and would not introduce a physical element that would divide or separate existing or future land uses. The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to provide additional measures for the protection of natural scenic resources, as well as to provide additional safety measures to reduce the potential for hazards to occur with respect to wildfire, hillside instability, and landslides. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the creation of physical barriers that would divide the established land uses that exist along the City’s hillsides. Certain design features may be required on individual properties with the intent of protecting views of the hillsides from offsite vantage points, as well as to limit grading or development activities along adjacent slopes for the purposes of safety. Such design measures would be required on a site‐specific basis, with respect for the natural features of a property, and as determined applicable through site plan review and approval by the City. Per Section 17.66.010, Purpose and Intent, and Section 17.66.040, Development Plan Requirements, of the City’s Municipal Code, structural setbacks from the edge of slope would be required to protect natural scenic resources or for safety purposes; however, these measures would not create a physical barrier that would divide the established community. Development would continue to occur on lands within the HD Zone over future decades as identified in the City’s General Plan. However, the Amended HD Ordinance would act as an City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-13 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR overlay zone and would not in itself result in physical development. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in land uses or physical elements that would create the division of an established community. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Conflict with Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations 5.1‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not conflict with an 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). The proposed Project has been reviewed for consistency with the goals and policies set forth in the City’s General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Lands within the HD Zone are intended for long‐term protection of scenic resources and for increased public safety with regard to slope instability and potential for wildfire. No changes to the existing underlying General Plan land use or zoning designations would occur with the Project. General Plan As required by CEQA, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the policies and goals of the adopted plans that are pertinent to the Project site; however, City policymakers would make the final interpretation of the Project’s consistency with applicable policies. Although a project may be inconsistent in some manner with particular policies in a General Plan or Zoning Ordinance, the inconsistency does not necessarily amount to a significant environmental effect. In the context of land use and relevant planning, significant impacts would occur when a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the the project results in an adverse physical environmental effect. Although the Amended HD Ordinance would restrict future development within the HD Zone, it would not prohibit development from occurring. The HD Zone would apply to areas where slopes exceeding eight percent are present and where protection of visual resources or public safety (with respect for geologic conditions or wildfire) are an issue. As seen in Table 5.1‐1, GENERAL PLAN POLICY ANALYSIS, the Project would be consistent with the General Plan principles aimed at conservation of the City’s natural resources, including the Kern River, and as identified in the Conservation Element of the General Plan. The current General Plan Housing Element (2002‐2007) sets forth a number of goals and policies aimed at the provision of adequate housing within the City of Bakersfield. The Housing Element was prepared in compliance with California State General Plan law which, per Section 65580‐65589.8, Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code, requires that all General Plans include a Housing Element to address the provision of adequate housing City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-14 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR within communities. The Element represents a five‐year plan with established objectives for the implementation of the foals and policies of the Housing Element. An update to the current General Plan Housing Element has been drafted for the years 2008‐ 2013, but has not yet been adopted. The General Plan Draft Housing Element 2008‐2013 states that average annual population growth rates within the City have exceeded four percent since the 1970’s. The City’s population has increased by 76,157 persons since the year 2000 (30.8 percent growth) and currently supports a population of 323,213 persons. Currently, there are an estimated 100,683 households, which represents an increase of 17,242 households since 2000. In addition, in 2007, 73.7 percent (82,661 units) of the City’s housing was single‐family units. Construction of single‐family units increased by 41.6 percent between 2000 and 2007, while construction of multi‐family units increased by 18.1 percent.7 To address regional housing needs, a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is prepared by regional governments to meet the State’s housing unit goals. Within Kern County, the regional government entity responsible for the preparation of the RHNA is the Kern County Council of Governments (KernCOG). According to the City’s Draft Housing Element (2008‐2013), regional housing needs were exceeded by 159.1 percent for the 11 incorporated cities within KernCOG’s jurisdiction for the period 2000‐2007. Within the City of Bakersfield, the RHNA goal for years 2000‐2007 was 12,805 housing units; actual construction totaled 16,995 housing units, thereby exceeding the City’s overall RHNA objective by 123 percent, as well as meeting its fair share of the most recent regional housing needs.8 Table 5.1‐2, ACHIEVEMENT OF RHNA NEW CONSTRUCTION GOAL (2000‐2007), and Table 5.1‐3, BAKERSFIELD HOUSING ELEMENT ACHIEVEMENTS (2000‐2007), provide a breakdown of housing within the City of Bakersfield during during the years 2000‐2007. The City did not meet its housing goal for very low and low income families during this time period. The City has actively participated in all applicable Federal, State, and local programs; however, these government programs are only able to meet a percentage of shelter needs, due to overall demand. A total of 23,173 building permits were issued by the City from 2000 to 2007, with 98 percent of the permits issued for construction of single‐family units. This does not reflect the number of multi‐family units constructed, as one building permit may result in the construction of numerous units.8 Table 5.1‐4, HOUSING UNITS BY YEAR BUILT, reflects housing construction within the City for the years 1940 (and earlier) to 2000. In 2008, over 33 square miles of residentially‐zoned vacant land were available within the City of Bakersfield. Assuming a conservative approach in estimating the capacity of such lands (an average of 50 percent less than the zoned maximums), approximately 88,701 units could potentially be constructed, based on the information shown in Table 5.1‐5, ZONING CATEGORIES AND USEABLE DENSITIES. This number represents more than three times the 5.1-15 7 Public Review Draft – City of Bakersfield Draft Housing Element (2008‐2013). April 10, 2008. 8 Ibid. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR number required to meet the City’s current Regional Housing Needs Assessment of 27,252 units by the year 2013.9 Refer to Table 5.1‐6, ACREAGE AND UNITS REQUIRED TO MEET CURRENT RHNA. Specifically within the Northeast Quadrant, the City estimates that 1,901 vacant recorded lots and 11,310 remaining vacant lots within tentative tract maps are potentially available for residential development. Therefore, total dwelling unit capacity within northeast Bakersfield is estimated at 13,211 dwelling units.10 The HD Zone affects approximately 6,531 acres along the City’s hillsides. An evaluation of the potential buildout of lands included within the HD Zone was prepared by the City in August 2008. This analysis identified the acreage of lands within the HD Zone, with their potential for residential housing yield with respect for existing General Plan land use and zoning designations. As stated previously, as an overlay zone, implementation implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in a change to the existing General Plan land use designation or zoning of affected lands. Specifically identified hillsides within the HD Zone that are 15 percent in slope and greater would be affected by the Slope Protection sections of the Amended HD Ordinance; refer to Figure 5.3‐2, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE – WEST, and Figure 5.3‐3, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE – EAST, which illustrate the location of designated Slope Protection Areas. Taking a conservative approach, and with consideration for the additional restrictions imposed by the Amended HD Ordinance, it is anticipated that within the Slope Protection Areas within the HD Zone, residential development potential would be reduced by an estimated 2,288 dwelling units. In addition, the HD Zone restrictions would reduce residential development potential within the Visual Resource Areas by an estimated 911 units. The combined residential reduction is estimated at 3,199 units. Considering the existing land available and zoned for residential development within the Northeast Quadrant (13,211 dwelling units), it is anticipated that these units could be absorbed within the quadrant on other available lands. In addition, although the proposed restrictions of the HD Zone may constrain potential residential development on portions of some properties within the Zone, opportunities for clustering, multi‐family housing, and other similar development approaches may be used, consistent with the allowed underlying land use and zoning designations and as approved by the City, to achieve, at existing allowable densities, residential development within the HD Zone and meet the necessary dwelling unit yield. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would allow for future growth as intended by the City, and consistent with that identified by the RHNA and the General Plan Housing Element. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts relative to land use or zoning within the City of Bakersfield. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance 5.1-16 9 Public Review Draft – City of Bakersfield Draft Housing Element (2008‐2013). April 10, 2008. 10 Correspondence with J. Saberon, City of Bakersfield Department of Development Services, Planning Division. August 27, 2008. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Land Use & Planning Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-17 would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, including the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use and Planning Draft EIR Table 5.1-1 General Plan Policy Analysis GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY LAND USE ELEMENT Land Use Goal #2: Accommodate new development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in the construction of new development; however, the design restrictions proposed with the Ordinance would allow for future development that would protect the existing hillsides as natural and visual resources within the City and would prevent development that may impact their visual quality. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance provides measures aimed at ensuring that future development is compatible and appropriate with the individual geologic or topographic constraints on a project site through measures to control the siting of structural elements and grading design. No changes to the existing General Plan land use or base zoning designations would occur with the Project, thereby allowing land uses to occur as intended by the City. Land Use Goal #5: Accommodate new development which capitalizes on the planning area’s natural environmental setting, including the Kern River and foothills. The Amended HD Ordinance would provide additional design measures intended for the protection of the visual setting within northeast Bakersfield, with particular focus on preservation of the hillsides as a natural resource. The proposed Project would be consistent with the policies identified in the Kern River Plan Element, as applicable, thereby providing enhanced protection of the River and the associated flood plain. Land Use Goal #6: Accommodate new development that is sensitive to the natural environment and accounts for environmental hazards. The Amended HD Ordinance establishes measures to address potential safety hazards resulting from future development along the City’s hillsides. These measures include the requirement to prepare a geotechnical analysis, as directed by the City, to identify site‐specific geologic conditions on a project site. Once such conditions are determined, appropriate design measures would be applied to reduce the potential for environmental hazards to occur. In addition, to minimize the potential for wildfire hazards to occur, the Amended HD Ordinance provides measures such as proper design of driveways and fire apparatus access roads, provision of secondary emergency access, use of specific building materials (i.e., roof coverings), maintenance of defensible space around structures, and use of fire‐resistant plant materials for landscaping. To City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-18 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR Table 5.1-1, General Plan Policy Analysis, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-19 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY accommodate new development that is sensitive to the natural environment, the Amended HD Ordinance provides design measures addressing appropriate setbacks from the top of slope to reduce public views of development on the hillsides; use of contour grading, establishment of “Primary” and Secondary Viewsheds,” “Slope Protection Areas,” and “Visual Resource Areas;” naturalappearing landscaping; and, minimization of cut and fill slopes. Land Use Goal #7: Establish a built environment which achieves a compatible functional and visual relationship among individual buildings and sites. The proposed Project would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. As such, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in a functional or visual conflict between individual buildings buildings or sites. However, the Amended HD Ordinance does provide design measures intended to protect the scenic value and visual appearance of the City’s hillsides such as requirements for the use of contour grading, establishment of “Primary” and Secondary Viewsheds,” “Slope Protection Areas,” and “Visual Resource Areas;” natural‐appearing landscaping; and, minimization of cut and fill slopes. Land Use Policy #1: This policy outlines all land use designations as depicted on the Land Use Plan. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the Project boundaries. The Amended HD Ordinance would not change the existing General Plan designations of lands within the HD Zone, nor would changes to existing zoning be required. The Project would therefore allow future land uses to be developed consistent with that identified on the current General Plan Land Use Plan. Land Use Policy #2: Allow for the development of a variety of residential types and densities. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the Project boundaries. The Amended HD Ordinance would not change the existing General Plan designations of lands within the HD Zone, nor would changes to existing zoning be required. The Project would therefore allow future land uses to be developed consistent with that identified on the current General Plan Land Use Plan. Land Use Policy #67: Develop a distinctive identity for the Bakersfield region which differentiates it as a unique place in Southern San Joaquin Valley. The design measures given in the Amended HD Ordinance would provide additional protection for the hillsides in the northeast portion of the City. The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to protect views by identifying primary Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR Table 5.1-1, General Plan Policy Analysis, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-20 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY and secondary viewsheds, Visual Resources Areas, and Slope Protection Areas within the HD Zone. These views represent a unique natural and visual resource within the City and contribute to the City’s identity. The Amended HD Ordinance provides regulations to limit views of onsite development within properties containing hillsides, thereby preserving such visual resources within the viewshed. Land Use Policy #75: Provide adequate land area for the expansion of existing uses and development of new uses consistent with the policies of the general plan. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the Project boundaries. The Amended HD Ordinance would not change the existing General Plan designations of lands within the HD Zone, nor would changes to to existing zoning be required. The Project would therefore allow future land uses to be developed consistent with that identified on the current General Plan Land Use Plan. Land Use Policy #82: Preserve existing significant sound residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, and industrial areas. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in the construction of new development within the HD Zone. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance would apply to new development as it is proposed, and therefore, would not affect existing residential, commercial, or industrial uses. However, the design restrictions proposed with the Ordinance would allow for future development that would protect the existing hillsides as natural and visual resources within the City and would prevent development that may impact their visual quality. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance would ensure that future development is compatible and appropriate with the individual geologic or topographic constraints on a site through measures to control the siting of structural elements and grading design. No changes to the existing General Plan land use or base zoning designations would occur with the Project, thereby allowing future development to occur as intended by the City. The Amended HD Ordinance establishes measures to address potential safety hazards resulting from future development in the hillside areas of northeast Bakersfield. These measures include the requirement to prepare a geotechnical analysis, as directed by the City, to identify site‐specific geologic conditions on a project site. Once such conditions are determined, appropriate design measures would be applied to reduce the potential for environmental hazards to occur. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR Table 5.1-1, General Plan Policy Analysis, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-21 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Design measures addressing appropriate setbacks from the top of slope, proposed landscaping to reduce the potential for damage caused by wildfire, and other design measures are given in the Ordinance to evaluate and minimize potential environmental hazards and contribute to a more sound environment. CONSERVATION ELEMENT Air Quality Conservation Goal #CON/AQ‐G‐2: Continue working toward attainment of Federal, State and Local standards as enforced by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. All future development within the HD Zone would be required to be consistent with the Air Quality Control Plan for the San Joaquin Valley APCD. Such development would be considered on a project‐by‐project basis for potential impacts on air quality. Mitigation measures would be required, as applicable, to reduce emissions and to contribute to the overall attainment of Federal, State and Local standards, as enforced by the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD. Refer also to Section 5.6, Air Quality, of this EIR for additional discussion. Conservation Policy #CON/AQ‐P‐2: Encourage land uses and land use practices which do not contribute significantly to air quality degradation. The proposed Project would not result in physical development within the HD Zone. As such, implementation of the Project would not directly result in land uses or land use practices that would generate vehicle emissions or other pollutants which may adversely affect air quality. As discussed in Section 5.6, Air Quality, of this EIR, it is anticipated that the Amended HD Ordinance would result in an overall reduction in the number of homes that could potentially be constructed within the HD Zone, due to the additional site design restrictions. However, it is also anticipated that these residential units could easily be absorbed on other lands within northeast Bakersfield, and therefore, would not result in the dispersion of such units to other areas of the City, thereby requiring residents to drive greater distances to reach their intended destinations. As such, the Amended HD Ordinance is not expected to indirectly result in land use patterns that would contribute significantly to air quality degradation within the Bakersfield area. Refer also to Section 5.6, Air Quality, of this EIR for additional discussion. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR Table 5.1-1, General Plan Policy Analysis, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-22 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY HOUSING ELEMENT (2002 ‐2007) Housing Element Goal #1: It is the Goal of the City of Bakersfield to concentrate its efforts to increase the availability of permanent housing for all economic segments of the City. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development (i.e., housing) within the Project boundaries. The Amended HD Ordinance would not change the existing General Plan designations of lands within the HD Zone, nor would changes to existing zoning be required. The Project would therefore allow future land uses to be developed consistent with that identified on the current General Plan Land Use Plan. Housing Element Goal #2: Provide and maintain an adequate supply of sites for the development of new affordable housing. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in the physical development of residential units on the affected lots; however, the Amended HD Ordinance would not interfere with or restrict the City’s ability to provide affordable housing. Existing land use and zoning designations would remain the same and would allow for future development of affordable housing, as appropriate, and consistent with the General Plan Housing Element. Housing Element Objective #2‐3: Provide a sufficient amount of zoned land to accommodate development for all housing types and income levels. According to the City of Bakersfield Draft Housing Element 2008‐2013, the City supports an estimated 33 square miles of residentially zoned vacant land. Using a conservative approach to determine the capacity of the residentially zoned vacant land, approximately 88,071 units could be constructed. As described in Section 5.1.5, it is estimated that within the Northeast Quadrant of the City, there are approximately 1,901 vacant recorded lots, and 11,310 remaining lots within tentative tracts, thereby resulting in a total dwelling unit capacity of approximately 13,211 units. Thus, an adequate supply of land would be available for the future development of affordable housing, as appropriate. In addition, the City actively participates in Federal, State, and local programs aimed at providing a variety of affordable housing. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR Table 5.1-1, General Plan Policy Analysis, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-23 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Housing Element Goal #3: Preserve, rehabilitate, and enhance existing housing and neighborhoods. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in the preservation, rehabilitation, or enhancement of existing housing and/or neighborhoods within the City’s Northeast Quadrant; however, the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the demolition or removal of any existing housing, thereby allowing the existing housing stock within the Project area to remain. No changes to the existing General Plan land use or zoning designations on the properties within the HD Zone would occur with the proposed Project. Housing Element Policy #3‐1‐1: Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. The Amended HD Ordinance does not propose to change the existing land use or zoning designations of lands within the Project area. The proposed Project would not directly result in protection of housing neighborhoods from potential encroachment of incompatible land uses; however, the Amended HD Ordinance would provide measures to guide development within the HD Zone to ensure that development does not occur in a potentially disruptive or dangerous manner with regard to site grading or the siting of structures. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance would provide greater protection of the hillsides within existing neighborhoods and greater protection of scenic views by requiring structures to be set back from the top of slopes, thereby ensuring that future development within the HD Zone would not create a visual character that is incompatible with that which already exists. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Open Space Goal #OS‐G‐1: Conserve and enhance the unique aspects of open space within the Planning area. The goal of the Amended HD Ordinance is to preserve specifically identified hillsides for the long‐term as both a visual resource and for purposes of public safety. The Amended HD Ordinance would result in the protection of slopes within individual property ownerships through site design measures, thereby creating areas of undeveloped open space along the hillsides. Future development within the HD Zone would also be consistent with the Kern River Plan Element, thereby resulting in long‐term protection of the resources within the Kern River Corridor, as applicable. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance states that property lines shall be placed at the top of manufactured or natural slopes to remain as open space, park area, or in a natural state for the purposes of aesthetics and erosion prevention. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR Table 5.1-1, General Plan Policy Analysis, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-24 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Open Space Policy #OS‐P‐1: Promote the establishment, maintenance, and protection of the Planning areas open space resources, including the following: o Conservation of natural resources (refer to Chapter II‐Land Use, Chapter V – Conservation, and Chapter XII – Kern River Plan Element). o Kern River Corridor o Management of hillsides The goal of the Amended HD Ordinance is to preserve specifically identified hillsides for the long‐term as both a visual resource and for purposes of public safety. The Amended HD Ordinance would result in the protection of slopes within individual property ownerships through site design measures, thereby creating areas of undeveloped open space along the hillsides. Although Project implementation would not directly result in physical development, future development within the HD Zone would also be consistent with the Kern River Plan Element, thereby resulting in long‐term protection of the resources within the Kern River Corridor, as applicable. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance states that property lines shall be placed at the top of manufactured or natural slopes to remain as open space, park area, or in a natural state for the purposes of aesthetics and erosion prevention. Conservation Policy #OS‐P‐2: Development of ridge lines within the Planning Area should consider natural topographic constraints. The Amended HD Ordinance would restrict future development along specifically identified ridge lines within the northeast portion of Bakersfield. The Amended HD Ordinance would require preparation of a grading plan for review and approval by the City for future development of individual properties. The Amended HD Ordinance states that grading shall reflect the natural contour of the existing terrain and that extensive grading shall be discouraged. The Amended HD Ordinance indicates that grading shall follow the natural contours to the extent possible, and that graded slopes shall blend with naturally occurring slopes at a radius comparable with the existing natural terrain. Additional measures related to grading are included in Chapter 17.66 of the Municipal Code. Open Space Policy #OS‐P‐3: Hillside development should exhibit sensitivity and be complementary to the natural topography. The Amended HD Ordinance provides additional design measures intended to guide future hillside development within northeast Bakersfield. The Amended HD Ordinance would require future development along specifically identified ridge lines to utilize land development techniques that are sensitive and complementary to the natural topography in order to reduce potential visual impacts and to provide protection of the hillsides as a natural visual resource within the Bakersfield area. The Amended HD Ordinance would require preparation of a grading plan for review and approval by the City for future Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR Table 5.1-1, General Plan Policy Analysis, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-25 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY development of individual properties within the HD Zone. The Amended HD Ordinance states that proposed grading shall reflect the natural contour of the existing terrain and that extensive grading shall be discouraged. The Amended HD Ordinance also indicates that proposed grading shall follow the natural contours of a property to the extent possible. Additional measures related to grading that are intended to provide site design that is sensitive to the natural topography are included in Chapter 17.66 of the Municipal Code. Open Space Policy #OS‐P‐4: Require the use of grading techniques in hillside areas that preserve the form of natural topography and ridge lines. The Amended HD Ordinance would restrict future development along specifically identified ridge lines within the northeast portion of Bakersfield. The Amended HD Ordinance would require preparation of a grading plan for review and approval by the City for future development of individual properties. The Amended HD Ordinance states that grading shall reflect the natural contour of the existing terrain and that extensive grading shall be discouraged. The Amended HD Ordinance indicates that grading shall follow the natural contours to the extent possible. Additional measures related to grading intended to preserve the natural topography and ridge lines are included in Chapter 17.66 of the Municipal Code. Open Space Policy #OS‐P‐5: Development location and siting should be sensitive to its relationship to the Kern River. The Amended HD Ordinance would restrict future development along specifically identified ridge lines within the northeast portion of Bakersfield. Future development within the HD Zone would also be consistent with the Kern River Plan Element, as applicable, thereby resulting in long‐term protection of the resources within the Kern River Corridor. The Amended HD Ordinance would require preparation of a grading plan for review and approval by the City for future development of individual properties within the HD Zone. The Amended HD Ordinance states that grading shall reflect the natural contour of the existing terrain and that extensive grading shall be discouraged. The Amended HD Ordinance indicates that grading shall follow the natural contours to the extent possible. These design measures are intended to provide protection of the City’s hillside areas, thereby contributing to the preservation of existing views of such visual resources within northeast Bakersfield. Additional measures related to grading are included in Chapter 17.66 of the Municipal Code. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Land Use & Planning Draft EIR Table 5.1-1, General Plan Policy Analysis, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-26 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Open Space Policy #OS‐P‐6: Development on or adjacent to bluff areas should complement the natural topographic integrity of such areas. The Amended HD Ordinance would restrict future development along specifically identified ridge lines within the northeast portion of Bakersfield. The Amended HD Ordinance would require preparation of a grading plan for review and approval by the City for future development of individual properties. The Amended HD Ordinance states that grading shall reflect the natural contour of the existing terrain and that extensive grading shall be discouraged. The Amended HD Ordinance indicates that grading shall follow the natural contours to the extent possible. Additional measures related to grading are included in Chapter 17.66 of the Municipal Code. 5.1 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR Table 5.1-2 Achievement of RHNA New Construction Goal (2000-2007) INCOME GROUPS 2000-2007 RHNA GOAL 2000-2007 ACTUAL NEW CONSTRUCTION PERCENT OF GOAL ACHIEVED Very Low 3,175 729 22.9% Low 2,347 2,189 93.3% Moderate 2,761 5,660 205.0% Above Moderate 5,522 8,417 152.4% TOTAL 13,805 16,995 123.1% Source: 2000 KernCOG RHNA, Annual Review of the General Plan, Consolidated Annual Plan and Performance Reviews, and Building Permit records. Table 5.1-3 Bakersfield Housing Element Achievements (2000-2007) 2000-2007 HOUSING ELEMENT GOAL ACHIEVED PERCENT OF GOAL New Construction 3,175 16,995 535.3% Rehabilitation 2,347 932 39.7% Preservation 2,761 523 18.9% TOTAL 5,522 18,450 334.1% Source: 2000 KernCOG RHNA, Annual Review of the General Plan, Consolidated Annual Plan and Performance Reviews, and Building Permit records. Table 5.1-4 Housing Units by Year Built BAKERSFIELD KERN COUNTY YEAR NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT 1990 – 2000 22,087 24.9% 32,928 14.2% 1980 – 1989 22,767 25.7% 58,346 25.2% 1970 – 1979 17,108 19.3% 43,617 18.8% 1960 – 1969 9,679 10.9% 31,165 13.5% 1950 – 1959 9,081 10.3% 34,864 15.1% 1940 and earlier 7,840 8.9% 30,644 13.2% Source: 1990, 2000 Census City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-27 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR Table 5.1-5 Zoning Categories and Useable Densities ZONING CATEGORY USABLE DENSITY/ACRE E (Estate) 1 DU/10,000 sq. ft. (4.36 DU/AC) R‐S (Residential‐Suburban) 1 DU/24,000 sq. ft. (1.8 DU/AC) R‐1 HD (Single Family/Hillside Development) 1 DU/21,780 sq. ft. (2 DU/AC) R‐1 (Single Family) 1 DU/6,000 sq. ft. (7.26 DU/AC) R‐2 (Multi‐Family) 1 DU/2,500 sq. ft. (17.4 DU/AC) R‐3 (Multi‐Family) 1 DU/1,250 sq. ft. (34.8 DU/AC) R‐4 (Multi‐Family) 1 DU/600 sq. ft. (72.6 DU/AC) MH (Mobile Home) 1 DU/6,223 sq. ft. (7 DU/AC) PUD (Planned Unit Development) Depends on Specific Plan R‐H (Residential Holding) 1 DU/20 AC Source: City of Bakersfield, January 2008. Table 5.1-6 Acreage and Units Required to Meet Current RHNA CURRENT ZONING MULTIFAMILY INCOME CATEGORY AND RHNA ACREAGE REALISTIC UNIT CAPACITY Very Low (6,626 units) 432.76 9,699 Low (4,500 units) 1,429.21 11,320 Moderate (4,960 units) 9,339.18 41,280 Above Moderate (11,166 units) 9,901.84 25,772 TOTAL (27,252 units) 21,102.99 88,071 Source: Public Review Draft – City of Bakersfield Draft Housing Element (2008‐2013). April 10, 2008. Zoning The City of Bakersfield’s original Hillside Development Ordinance (Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 17.66) was adopted August 11, 1999; the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance was adopted by the City of Bakersfield on November 15, 2006. The measures included in Chapter 17.66, Hillside Development (HD) Combining Zone, would apply to all plans associated with future planned commercial developments, planned unit developments, conditional use permits, tentative tracts, site plan reviews, and applications for single‐family residential dwellings not reviewed as part of tentative tract maps or parcel maps, located within the HD Zone. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-28 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR The Amended HD Ordinance includes restrictions on the placement of structures and uses on lots within the hillside areas. The standards are designed to achieve land use patterns and site development characteristics that are consistent with the natural features of the hillsides. Similar to the original HD Ordinance, the Amended HD Ordinance would not change the existing underlying zoning, but instead would act as an overlay zone. Although the Amended HD Ordinance may restrict future development on certain slopes within the HD Zone, it would not alter or otherwise affect the existing base zone or allowed density. As such, the Amended HD Ordinance would not conflict with the standards set forth by the Municipal Code, or with existing zoning designations within the HD Zone. Impacts would be less than significant. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Conflict with Regional Plans 5.1‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The proposed Project would not result in inconsistencies with existing environmental plans that would apply to the same area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance, as described below: Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) The Project area is within the area covered by the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP). The MBCHP provides measures to minimize conflicts that may result from projected growth, as identified in the General Plan, and addresses mitigation and compensation for the loss of endangered species habitat and impacts on endangered species within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The study area covered by the MBHCP includes the jurisdictions of both the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern. As noted above, the MBHCP serves as a regulatory document intended to “acquire, preserve, and enhance native habitats which support endangered and sensitive species, while allowing urban development to proceed as set forth in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.”11 The MBCHP allows for the incidental take of certain species caused by the destruction of habitat or displacement of individual species as the result of the conversion of open land to developed land. All future development within the City would be required to demonstrate consistency with the requirements of the MBHCP. All future applicants, as applicable, would be required to pay 11 Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. City of Bakersfield, County of Kern. April 1994. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-29 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR impact fees to the City, which would be placed in an account and used solely for the purpose of ongoing habitat acquisition and long‐term management. As established by the MBHCP, the loss of habitat would be mitigated for by the payment of such fees, thereby mitigating for the planned loss of habitat while accommodating future growth. As the proposed Project does not propose physical development within the HD Zone, no impacts to biological resources or conflicts with the MBHCP would occur. Impacts would be less than significant. Refer also to Section 5.7, Biological Resources, for a comprehensive discussion of potential impacts to biological resources within the HD Zone. Kern River Plan Element The Kern River represents an important regional resource that provides a variety of open space, recreational, and other uses. The Kern River Plan Element addresses future planned development within the Bakersfield area with consideration for the primary and secondary floodways of the River. The focus of the Kern River Plan Element is on the preservation and maintenance of the primary floodway channel of the Kern River, while allowing for resource, recreational, residential, and other uses within the secondary floodway. The Kern River Plan Element indicates City and County General Plan designations and their relationship to existing and planned land uses within the floodway, in order to identify where potential land use conflicts may occur. Section 2.4 of the Kern River Plan Element states that urban type uses (i.e., residences, businesses, industry, etc.) are to be restricted to areas outside the Primary Floodway designated for such use. Policies are given in the Element to promote utilization and sensitivity of natural and visual resources. Within the Kern River Plan Element, the majority of affected Project lands are generally designated as 2.1, Seismic Hazard; 2.5, Flood Hazard; 3.1, Public and Private Recreation Areas; 5.35, Residential ((maximum 7.25 units/net acre); 5.6, Residential (minimum 2.5 gross acres/unit); and, 8.5, Resource Management. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development of structures within the Northeast Quadrant of the City. Design measures established for lands within the HD Zone would not conflict with the goals and policies of the Kern River Plan Element, as the Amended HD Ordinance is intended to provide additional protection for the City’s hillsides as a visual resource. As such, the Project would be consistent with the Kern River Plan Element. Impacts would be less than significant. Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield As applicable, all new development within the area affected by the Specific Parks and Trails Plan would be required to demonstrate consistency with the Plan. Developers of such lands would therefore be subject to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the General Plan and would be required to dedicate the proposed River access trail and support facilities, as applicable. However, as the proposed Project would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone, the dedication of trails or other support facilities consistent with the Specific Parks and Trails Plan would not apply to the Project. Project impacts would therefore be considered less than significant. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-30 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) The proposed Project does not propose to amend the General Plan to allow for a change in land use within the HD Zone. The General Plan and Municipal Code anticipate future growth within the area affected by the HD Zone. The AQAP has anticipated such growth of the population and economy within the air basin and predicted that the workforce in Kern County would increase, along with a 2.2 percent increase in population between 2002 and 2030. Thus, the proposed Project would be consistent with the AQAP, and is consistent with the anticipated growth within the Project area; refer also to Section 5.6, Air Quality, for additional discussion. As such, the Project would not conflict with the AQAP. Impacts would be less than significant. Kern County Regional Transportation Plan As stated previously, the Kern County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) identifies future transportation improvements needed to to serve the projected transportation needs of the County. The RTP details the existing transportation systems, sets goals, policies, and projects and identifies future means of funding. Implementation of the Project would not directly result in physical development or associated roadway improvements within the HD Zone. Such improvements would occur consistent with the RTP as lands within the HD Zone are developed in the future on an individual basis. As such, the Project would not result in development that would conflict with the intent of the RTP. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.1‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not physically divide an established community, conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, or conflict with any applicable habitat or natural community conservation plan. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: With regard to land use, cumulative impacts may occur if the Project, when considered with other existing, present, or future development, were to result in a substantial disruption within an established community, or to conflict with adopted plans or policies intended to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. Existing land uses within the affected Project area generally include single‐family and large‐lot estate residential, agricultural, and industrial uses. Open space and undeveloped lands are interspersed with these uses. The area potentially influenced by cumulative land use effects related to the surrounding planned development areas is depicted on Figure 4‐1, CUMULATIVE PROJECTS STUDY AREA, and further described in Table 4.0‐1, CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST (refer to Section 4.0, BASIS OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS). Related development projects in the surrounding City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-31 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR area are considered to have been (1) submitted for plan processing; (2) approved by the City of Bakersfield; and/or, (3) are engaged in active construction programs. With consideration for lands surrounding the Project area, and the General Plan projections for future development of these properties, cumulative effects with respect to land use and planning could potentially occur with the proposed Project. The Amended HD Ordinance would further restrict development in the hilly areas in the northeastern portion of the City for the purpose of preservation of scenic resources, as well as for protection of the general public from potential damage or harm caused by wildfire, slope instability, and landslides; however, the Hillside Development Zone is an overlay zone, and therefore, would not change the type or permitted density of land use as indicated by the General Plan Land Use Map or underlying zoning. Therefore, the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in development that would conflict with established land use plans or policies. The Amended HD Ordinance would not change the existing underlying land use or zoning designations within the Project area or on surrounding lands. The Amended HD Ordinance would instead allow for greater habitat preservation through the creation of open space by reducing the encroachment of future development on the affected properties along the City’s hillsides. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance would provide additional protection of existing views of the hillsides, which are seen as natural and visual resources, by implementing measures to further control onsite grading, to control the use and type of landscaping materials, and to require setbacks from the edge of slopes (as determined appropriate) and emergency access, among other measures. The Amended HD Ordinance would therefore contribute to greater preservation of the hillsides, while maintaining consistency with the intent of the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations. As no physical development would directly occur with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, the Project would not contribute to a change in land use that would cause a substantial disruption within the existing community. As such, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts relative to land use, and impacts would be less than significant. The proposed development regulations resulting from the Amended HD Ordinance would further reduce the potential for future development to contribute to a cumulative effect on the City’s visual resources, or result in development that is potentially hazardous with regard to slope stability and/or the potential for wildfire, by providing additional application and design standards for development in specific areas where natural slopes are a minimum of eight percent. Design requirements would include additional prevention measures such as restricting structure locations through setbacks, appropriate location of fencing, planting of proper landscaping materials, and preparation of a geotechnical suitability analysis, as appropriate, thereby reducing the potential for development within the HD Zone to contribute to potential cumulative visual impacts or adversely affect the general safety and welfare of the City’s residents. In addition, potential land use impacts resulting from other planned or future development projects within the cumulative study area would be evaluated on case‐by‐case, site‐specific basis. As the conditions on each site would vary, an analysis of the relationship between the City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-32 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR proposed development and other existing land uses within the vicinity would be necessary. Although no physical development would occur as the result of Project implementation, future development within the HD Zone is anticipated to occur in accordance with the General Plan and zoning classifications or as otherwise approved by the City, and as such, would not contribute to cumulative effects relative to land use and planning. As such, Project impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.1.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts associated with the implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-33 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 5.1 Land Use & Planning Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.1-34 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.2 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR 5.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES This Section is intended to identify and evaluate potential impacts of the proposed Project on agricultural resources, including the conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural use that many potentially occur as the result of implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance. This Section also addresses potential land use conflicts between uses within the HD Zone and ongoing agricultural activities in the Bakersfield area. If applicable, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the significance of impacts. Discussion in this Section is based on information provided in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update and the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update (General Plan). 5.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.2.1.1 Agricultural Resources State of California The State of California is a nationwide leader in agriculture, supporting some of the most agriculturally productive counties. According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture (most current census data available), the top ten agricultural producing counties nationwide are all located in California and include Fresno, Tulare, Kern, Monterey, Merced, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, San Diego, Kings, and Imperial.1 Agricultural products sold in 2002 that were produced in California achieved a total market value of $25,737,173,000.2 During the year 2006, the State of California supported an estimated 76,000 farming operations, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The State’s farms and ranches received an estimated $31.4 billion for their output in 2006, representing a four percent drop in sales as compared to 2005.3 California land in farms totaled 26.2 million acres for the year 2005, which represented a decrease of 0.7 percent from the number of land in farms in 2004. Average farm size in the U.S. average is an estimated 444 acres; average farm size in California is approximately 345 acres.4 An estimated 400 crops are grown within the State and include seeds, flowers, and ornamental crops. Kern County Since the introduction of livestock in the 1860’s, agricultural activities within Kern County have been extensive. Until around 1880, primary agricultural activities within the County included the raising of livestock on large land grants, as well as limited production of grain under dry‐5.2-1 1 2002 Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/i ndex.asp. Accessed September 2008. 2 Ibid. 3 California Department of Food and Agriculture. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics.html. Accessed September 2008. 4 U.S. Department of Agriculture – National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://www.nass.usda.gov. Accessed September 2008. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.2 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR farming methods. After 1880, rapid agricultural development occurred, spurred on by the development of irrigation, inexpensive land, favorable crop yields, the arrival of two railroads, the development of the petroleum industry, and greater access to potential markets. Kern County has a long history of high agricultural production for many crops which continues in the present day, as the valley region of Kern County has characteristics that make it highly suitable for the cultivation of crops. Such factors include climate, availability of water, dependable market demand, good soils, and effective agricultural management. Kern County supports an estimated 902,160 acres of harvested land, according to the 2006 Agricultural Crop Report prepared by the Kern County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office.5 For the year 2006, the total value of agricultural commodities produced in Kern County was $3,476,963,500, which represents a decrease of approximately 2.0 percent as compared to the 2005 crop value.6 The top five commodities within the County in 2006 were almonds, grapes, milk, carrots, and citrus. Cattle and calves were the number six‐ranked commodity in the County for the year 2006.7 Metropolitan Bakersfield Area Similar to Kern County, within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, agriculture has remained extensive since the introduction of livestock in the 1860s. Large land grants used for livestock raising, combined with grain production under dry‐farming methods, were the chief agricultural activities until approximately 1880. After 1880, agricultural activities within the area continued to expand rapidly, due to the development of irrigation (harnessing the uncontrolled flow of water from the Kern River), inexpensive land, the arrival of two railroads, and increased access to markets, among other factors. The California Department of Food and Agriculture Annual Crop Reports reinforce the presence of a history of agricultural production within the Bakersfield area, continuing to the present. Factors that have influenced agricultural productivity over the years include climate, availability of water, market demand, and quality of soil. Agricultural land uses within Metropolitan Bakersfield are regulated by the City’s General Plan and City and County zoning ordinances. These documents identify the type of land uses permitted within agricultural zones, and identify the development parameters for each agricultural land use category. Economically, agriculture has played an important role in the City of Bakersfield’s history. The Swamp and Overflow Lands Act was passed in 1857 which granted parcels to individuals who could channel water and create arable land, thereby influencing the use of area lands for agricultural purposes. Eventually, cotton farming and crop farming overcame cattle ranching within the area. In 1912, the Rancho El Tejon property was sold to southern California investors, 5.2-2 5 2006 Kern County Agricultural Crop Report. Department of Agricultural and Measurement Standards. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.2 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR which created the Tejon Ranch Company. The Ranch Company still exists today and retains vast land holdings in the southern San Joaquin Valley and Tehachapi Range. The Ranch’s lands support cattle ranching, as well as cotton, alfalfa, grapes, walnuts, and vegetables. Additional lands within the Ranch are utilized for oil extraction, real estate, and other independent industries. Agriculture remains a major industry in the Bakersfield area today, and is largely dominated by cotton, almonds, walnuts, oranges, grapes, and raisins. Project Site The area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance includes a total of approximately 6,531 acres of land, including active agriculture uses and production of various crops. The area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is comprised of numerous individual land ownerships. Figure 5.2‐ 1, AGRICULTURAL ZONING WITHIN THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT (OVERLAY) ZONE, illustrates the properties within the HD Zone that are zoned for agricultural use. 5.2.1.2 Soils The properties of soils play a large factor in determining the agricultural suitability of an area. In California, two main systems are used to rate the suitability of soils for agricultural purposes. The Storie Index gives a numerical value indicating the relative suitability of a soil group for general agricultural purposes, based on the quality of the soil, soil surface texture, slope, and other conditions. For a “Prime” rating, a soil unit must achieve a Storie Index score between 80 to 100. The Soil Conservation Service’s Land Use Compatibility Classifications also identify a soil’s suitability for agriculture. These soils are grouped according to their ability to support sustained production of cultivated crops and pasture plants and are grouped by level. Class I soils have few limitations for cultivation; Class II soils have some limitation for cultivation and require soil management and conservation practices. Soils must meet the criteria for Class I or Class II to achieve a “Prime” soils rating. Prime soils are found within the City’s 408 squaremile Planning Area. 5.2.2 REGULATION OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES 5.2.2.1 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) The FMMP guides decision makers in planning present and future use of California’s agricultural land resources. Government Code §65570 requires the FMMP to report land use acreage and conversion data by June 30 of each even‐numbered year. Many Important Farmland Maps were initially mapped in 1984; the base year for areas introduced to the FMMP inventory since 1984 is the even‐numbered year closest to their compilation date. The results are published in the biennial Farmland Conversion Report which identifies County land use acreage by category and the type of conversion that occurred during each two‐year cycle. The Important Farmland Mapping Categories Map is prepared by the California Resources Agency under the FMMP, which maps important farmland on agricultural lands. The FMMP City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.2-3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.2 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR considers United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey information in combination with Important Farmland categorization to assess the potential for lands to be utilized as agricultural land resources. Farmland types are defined within A Guide to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Appendix B: Mapping Categories and Soil Taxonomy Terms, from the California Department of Conservation FMMP. The following are definitions of the Farmland Mapping Categories: A. Prime Farmland “Land with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain longterm production of agricultural crops. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for agricultural production of irrigated crops at some time during the [past four years].” B. Farmland of Statewide Importance “Land similar to Prime Farmland that has a good good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of agricultural crops. This land has minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture than Prime Farmland. Land must have been used for production of irrigated crops at sometime during the [past four years].” C. Unique Farmland “Unique Farmland is land which does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, that has been used for the production of specific high economic value crops at some time during the two update cycles prior to the mapping date. It has a special combination of soil quality, location, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality and/or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to current farming methods. Examples of such crops may include oranges, olives, avocados, rice, grapes, and cut flowers. It does not include publicly owned lands for which there is an adopted policy preventing agricultural use.” D. Farmland of Local Importance “Land that meets all the characteristics of Prime and Statewide, with the exception of irrigation. Farmlands not covered by the above categories but are of significant economic importance to the County. They have a history of good production for locally adapted crops. The soils are grouped in types that are suited for truck crops (such as tomatoes, strawberries, cucumbers, potatoes, celery, squash, romaine lettuce, and cauliflower) and soils suited for orchard crops (avocados and citrus).” City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.2-4 9/25/08 JN 60-100489 Agricultural Zoning Within the Amended Hillside Development Zone City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance • Draft EIR Figure 5.2-1 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A-HD A A A A A AA A A-HD A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A-HD A A A-HD A-20A A A A A A A A-HD A A A A A-HD A-HD A-HD A A-HD A A A-HD A COLUMBUS ST TRUXTUN AVE S UNION AVE PALADINO DR MT VERNON AVE W NILES ST GOLDEN STATE AVE DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD MONTEREY ST E CALIFORNIA AVE MASTERSON ST NILES ST 178 HWY CALIFORNIA AVE BRUNDAGE LN MANOR ST S OSWELL ST E TRUXTUN AVE BRECKENRIDGE RD MORNING DR VINELAND RD PANORAM A DR ROUND MOUNTAIN RD UNION AVE UNION AVE CHINA GRADE LOOP BEALE AVE RIVER BLVD FAIRFAX RD FAIRFAX RD OSWELL ST ROUND MOUNTAIN RD OSWELL ST KERN CANYON RD COMANCHE DR RANCHERIA RD 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Legend City Limits Hillside Development Overlay Zone Zoning A-20A-FP-S A Agricultural A-MH Agriculture -Mobile Home Overlay A-FP-S Agricultural -Flood Plain Secondary Overlay A-FP-S-HD Agricultural -Flood Plain Secondary and Hillside Development Overlay A-HD Agricultural -Hillside Development Overlay A-AA Agricultural -Airport Approach Overlay A-20A Agricultural -20 acre minimum A-20A-HD Agricultural -20 acre minimum -Hillside Development Overlay Source: City of Bakersfield Development Services -Planning Division • October 2008 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.2 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.2-6 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.2 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR E. Other Land and Built‐Up Land Other Land and Built‐Up Land are lands that do not qualify for one of the above classifications. These lands are generally disturbed or developed lands with no agricultural value or significance. Additionally, according to the Farmland Conversion Report: 2000 to 2002, prepared by the staff of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the Department of Conservation, Farmland of Local Importance is classified as: “Farmland of Local Importance is land of importance to the local economy, as defined by each countyʹs local advisory committee and adopted by its Board of Supervisors. Farmland of Local Importance is either currently producing, or has the capability of production, but does not meet the criteria of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland. Authority to adopt or to recommend changes to the category of Farmland of Local Importance rests with the Board Board of Supervisors in each county.” California Land Conservation (Williamson Act) The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, also known as the Williamson Act, is legislation intended to afford property tax relief to farmers and ranchers, and allows for Agricultural Preserves between local governments and private landowners to be created. The basic intent of the Act is to encourage the preservation of the state’s agricultural lands in view of the increasing trends toward their “premature and unnecessary” urbanization. Under a Williamson Act Contract (Land Conservation Contract), property is taxed by the County, based on its ability to generate income from agricultural production. Local governments receive an annual subvention of forgone property tax revenues from the state via the Open Space Subvention Act of 1971. The area affected by the HD Zone does not currently contain any lands encumbered by a Williamson Act Contract. Farmland Security Zone Contract The California Department of Conservation passed passed the Farmland Security Zone legislation (Govt. Code Sec. 51296) in 1998 to allow counties to establish a program for farmlands to enter into contracts with the State. This legislation allows landowners whose land is under a Williamson Act contract to petition to the appropriate county board of supervisors to annul the Williamson Act contract for a Farmland Security Zone Contract. A Farmland Security Zone Contract is a 20‐year contract that allows the property owner to receive 35% more in tax savings than a Williamson Act contract. An estimated 1,711,352 acres of land in Kern County were under Williamson Act Land Use Contract and Farmland Security Zone Contract in 2005. This represents a reduction of approximately 3,616 acres as compared to 2004. Both the Williamson Act Contract and the Farmland Security Zone Contract require that lands be within an established Agricultural Preserve. As agricultural lands that are not protected within a preserve face a greater threat of City of Bakersfield January 2009 2009 5.2-7 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.2 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR conversion to non‐agricultural uses, they are assessed higher property taxes, due to their proximity to urbanization. Public Resources Code Section 21060.1 Section 21060.1 of the California Public Resources Code defines agricultural land for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts using the FMMP. In §21060.1, the Code defines agricultural land to be “prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmland, as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California.”8 The FMMP was established in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and the conversion of these lands to alternative uses. The FMMP provides an analysis of agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan In collaboration with Kern County, the City of Bakersfield has prepared the General Plan for the entire Metropolitan Bakersfield area to establish goals and policies intended to provide decisionmakers with long‐range guidance affecting the future character of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Planning Area. Through the General Plan, the City and County can inform the general public, property owners, and prospective investors of its goals, policies and development standards, thereby communicating what actions must be taken to meet the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan provides guidance for continued future growth within the northeastern Bakersfield area. The General Plan provides goals for land use aimed to achieve: • New development which captures the economic demands generated by the marketplace and establishes Bakersfieldʹs role as the capital of the southern San Joaquin Valley; • New development which provides a full mix of uses to support its population; • New development which channels land uses in a phased, orderly manner and is coordinated with the provision of infrastructure and public improvements; and, • New development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses. Residential policies and implementation measures regulating how affected lands will be utilized are given in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. In addition, the Conservation Element of the General Plan addresses the preservation of “prime agricultural land” for the longterm, and provides goals and policies aimed at the protection of such lands. As stated above, prime soils are extensive within the 408 square‐mile Bakersfield Planning Area. As given in the General Plan, prime agricultural lands are defined by the following criteria: 5.2-8 8 California Public Resources Code. Division 13. Environmental Quality, Chapter 2.5. Definitions, §21060.1, Agricultural Land. As of November 2008. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.2 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR • Capability Class I and/or II irrigated soils; • 80‐100 Storie Index rating; • Gross crop return of $200 or more per acre per year; and, • Annual carrying capacity of one animal unit per acre per year. The Elements within the General Plan that provide policies and implementation measures for the conservation and/or improvements on agricultural lands include the Land Use, Conservation, and Open Space Elements. Table 5.2‐1, CONSISTENCY WITH METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND, provides an outline of the applicable goals within the Conservation Element. Table 5.2-1 Consistency with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Agricultural Land GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Conservation/Soils and Agriculture Goal #1: “Provide for the planned management, conservation, and wise utilization of agricultural land in the planning area.” Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to the conversion of prime agricultural land on either an individual Project or cumulative basis. The Amended HD Ordinance is an overlay zone that would not change the underlying General Plan designation or zoning. The Amended HD Ordinance would serve to provide additional protection for the City’s hillsides and would not result in physical development on lands within the HD Zone. Prime agricultural lands within the HD Zone would remain in their present state with Project implementation. Conservation/Soils and Agriculture Goal #2: “Promote soil conservation and minimize development of prime agricultural land as defined by the following criteria...” Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to the conversion of prime agricultural land on either an individual Project or cumulative basis. The Amended HD Ordinance is an overlay zone that would not change the underlying General Plan designation or zoning, and would not result in physical development on lands within the HD Zone. Prime agricultural lands within the HD Zone would remain in their present state with Project implementation. Conservation/Soils and Agriculture Goal #3: “Establish urban development patterns and practices that promote soil conservation and that protect areas of agricultural production of food and fiber crops, and nursery products.” Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to the conversion of prime agricultural land on either an individual Project or cumulative basis. The Amended HD Ordinance is an overlay zone that would not change the underlying General Plan designation or zoning and would not result in physical development on lands within the HD Zone. Prime agricultural lands within the HD Zone would remain in their present state with Project implementation. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.2-9 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.2 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR Table 5.2-1, Consistency with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Agricultural Land, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.2-10 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Conservation/Soils and Agriculture Policy #1: “Determine the extent and location of all prime agricultural land within the study area.” Some lands within the HD Zone are identified as prime agricultural land. The Amended HD Ordinance is an overlay zone that would not change the underlying General Plan designation or zoning. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a significant or cumulative impact with regard to prime agricultural lands, as no physical development or conversion to non‐agricultural uses is proposed. Conservation/Soils and Agriculture Policy #2: “Review projects that propose subdividing or urbanizing prime agricultural land to ascertain how continued commercial agricultural production in the project vicinity would be affected.” As an overlay zone, the Amended HD Ordinance would not interfere with existing or future agricultural uses within the HD Zone. The Project would allow for the continued use of prime agricultural land on affected properties until future buildout of lands included within the HD Zone occurs with individual development applications. Agriculture production on properties adjacent to the HD Zone would not be affected with implementation of the Project and such operations would continue in their present state. Conservation/Soils and Agriculture Policy #3: “Protect areas designated for agricultural use, which includes Class I and II agricultural soils having surface delivery water systems, from the encroachment of residential and commercial subdivision development activities.” Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to the conversion of prime agricultural land on either an individual Project or cumulative cumulative basis. The Amended HD Ordinance is an overlay zone that would not change the underlying General Plan designation or zoning and that would serve to provide additional protection for the City’s hillsides and would not result in physical development on lands within the HD Zone, nor require a change to existing General Plan land use or zoning designations. Existing agricultural uses would not be affected by the proposed Project. Conservation/Soils and Agriculture Policy #6: “Continue implementing land grading ordinances that reduce soil erosion/siltation commonly associated with land development.” The Amended HD Ordinance provides design measures aimed at the protection of the City’s hillsides. Such measures include preparation of a preliminary grading plan and a slope erosion control plan for review by the City. In addition, the Ordinance includes requirements for landscaping intended to further reduce the potential for erosion on affected lands to occur. Although the proposed Project would not result in physical development or land improvement activities, all future grading activities on individual lands within the HD Zone would be required to be conducted in accordance with applicable local grading standards and practices to minimize soil erosion and siltation. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.2 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR Table 5.2-1, Consistency with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Agricultural Land, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.2-11 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Conservation/Soils and Agriculture Policy #9: “Protect prime agricultural lands against unplanned urban development by adopting agricultural zoning, general plan agriculture designation, and by encouraging use of the Williamson Act and supporting programs and policies that provide tax and economic incentives to ensure the long‐term retention of agricultural lands.” Some lands within the HD Zone are identified as prime agricultural land. However, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a significant or cumulative impact with regard to prime soils, as no physical development or conversion to non‐agricultural uses is proposed. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to the conversion of prime agricultural land on either an individual Project or cumulative basis. The Amended HD Ordinance is an overlay zone that would not change the underlying General Plan designation or zoning. Existing agricultural uses would not be affected by the proposed Project. Conservation/Soils and Agriculture Policy #12: “Prohibit premature removal of ground cover in advance of development and require measures to prevent soil erosion during and immediately after construction.” The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical construction or land development activities within the HD Zone. The Amended HD Ordinance provides design measures aimed at the protection of the City’s hillsides. Such measures include preparation of a preliminary grading plan and a slope erosion control plan for review by the City. In addition, the Ordinance includes requirements for landscaping intended to further reduce the potential for erosion on affected lands to occur. Conservation/Soils and Agriculture Policy #14: “When considering proposal to convert designated agricultural lands to non‐agricultural use, the decision making body of the city and County shall evaluate the following factors to determine the appropriateness of the proposal…” Some lands within the HD Zone are identified as prime agricultural land. However, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a significant or cumulative impact with regard to prime soils, as no physical development or conversion of agricultural lands to non‐agricultural uses is proposed. The Amended HD Ordinance is an overlay zone that would not change the underlying General Plan designation or zoning and which would serve to provide additional protection for the City’s hillsides. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) is a term used to define an approach for rating the relative quality of land resources based upon specific measurable features. The formulation of the California Agricultural LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812/1993), which charges the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, to develop an amendment to Appendix “G” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Such an amendment is intended “to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure significant effects on the environment of Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.2 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process” (Public Resources Code Section 21095). A LESA Model is created by defining and measuring two separate set of factors. The first set, Land Evaluation (LE), includes two different factors (Land Capability Classification Rating and Storie Index Rating) that are intended to measure the inherent, soil‐based qualities of land as they relate to agricultural suitability. The second set, Site Assessment (SA), includes factors that are intended to measure social, economic, and geographic attributes that also contribute to the overall value of agricultural land. This second set includes four different factors to provide measures of a give project’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. For a given project, each of these six factors is separately rated in a 100‐point scale. The factors are then weighted relative to one another and combined, resulting in a single numeric score for a given project, with a maximum attainable score of 100 points. This final project score becomes the basis for making a determination of the level of significance of a project’s potential impacts, based upon a range of established scoring thresholds. Any site that scores between 80 and 100 points is considered to have a significant impact. 5.2.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Environmental Checklist form. The Environmental Checklist form includes questions relating to agricultural resources. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this Section. Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental impact if it would: • 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; • Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract; or, • Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines also identifies the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural land and farmland. (A LESA model was not prepared for the Project site, due to the nature and scope of the Project). City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.2-12 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.2 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR 5.2.4 IMPACTS Loss of Agricultural Land 5.2‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not 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 nonagricultural uses. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Within Bakersfield, land use patterns of low‐density growth have historically resulted in the conversion of prime farmland. According to the California Farmland Conversion Report, during the years 2002‐2004, Kern County supported approximately 689,615 acres of Important Farmland and approximately 904,760 acres of grazing land. During this time period, an estimated 13,390 acres of Important Farmland were lost due to the conversion of such lands.9 As stated in the General Plan Update EIR, it is anticipated that this trend will continue within the Bakersfield area as the General Plan is built out over future years. As such, a substantial amount of prime agricultural farmland could be removed from production. As much of the City’s Planning Area is designated as prime agricultural land, the conversion of such lands is considered to be somewhat “unavoidable” as future development within the City continues to occur. As noted above, the FMMP is administered by the California Department of Conservation and provides a system of classification for agricultural lands. The system classifies agricultural land according to its soil quality and irrigation status. According to the FMMP, the area affected by the HD Zone 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. Section 51201), prime agricultural soils include Class I and II soils, Storie Index 80‐100 soils, vineyard and orchards, and soils which yield a minimum of $200 an acre per year. The The extent of Prime soils in the City’s General Plan Planning Area is substantial, covering a significant portion of the Area’s 408 square miles. Prime soils are found within the area affected by the HD Zone. According to the General Plan Update EIR, although the northeastern portion of the City is experiencing land development pressure, several factors would influence the agricultural suitability of lands within the HD Zone. Water availability and cost are considerations, as a significant portion of the land in the northeastern portion of the Planning Area does not have sufficient groundwater or surface water transmission facilities. As such, lands within the northeastern portion of the City are generally not considered to be suitable for intensive agricultural production. 5.2-13 9 California Farmland Conversion Report 2002‐2004. California Department of Conservation. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.2 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR A significant impact would occur if implementation of the Project were to result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland FMMP, to non‐agricultural uses. However, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the conversion of prime farmland to non‐agricultural uses because the Amended HD Ordinance is an overlay zone that would not change the existing underlying General Plan designation or zoning, and no physical development is proposed. As discussed within Section 5.1, Land Use and Planning, it is anticipated that the site design restrictions proposed with the Amended HD Ordinance would reduce the number of residential units that could potentially be constructed in the HD Zone by approximately 3,199 units. However, as sufficient land zoned for residential development exists within the northeastern portion of the City, it is anticipated that such units could be absorbed within this same area of the City and would not require the conversion of agriculturally‐zoned lands to meet housing demands caused by the loss of units. Therefore, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly result in the conversion of prime agricultural land to nonagricultural uses, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use or A Williamson Act Contract 5.2‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not require the cancellation of an existing Williamson Act Contract. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: As the Amended HD Ordinance would act as an overlay zone and would not change the existing General Plan designation or zoning, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any changes to or interfere with any existing Williamson Act Contract or agricultural preserve on lands affected by the HD Zone. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be less than significant. Other Changes in the Environment That Could Result in Conversion of Farmland 5.2‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The Amended HD Ordinance is an overlay ordinance that would not change the existing underlying General Plan designation or zoning and would not directly result in physical development on lands within the HD Zone. Existing agricultural lands within the HD City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.2-14 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.2 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR Zone would remain as they presently exist until the time that an application for a change in use is submitted to the City, if such an action is desired in the future by individual landowners. In addition, as previously stated, the anticipated reduction in the number of units that could be constructed in the HD Zone with implementation of the Project would not result in the conversion of agricultural lands in the Northeast Quadrant, as such units could be absorbed on existing residentially zoned lands. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the physical development of uses that may conflict with agricultural operations within the surrounding area on a local or regional scale. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the increased exposure of future residents to potential adverse effects of adjacent farming activities. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be less than significant. 5.2.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.2‐4 Implementation of the Project, considered with other future development projects, would not result in the cumulative loss of farmland. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: According to the California Farmland Conversion Report, during the years 2002‐ 2004, Kern County supported approximately 689,615 acres of Important Farmland and approximately 904,760 acres of grazing land. During this time period, an estimated 13,390 acres of Important Farmland were lost due to the conversion of such lands.10 The conversion of prime agricultural land to non‐agricultural uses is considered to be a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact, as such action would result in a “substantial irretrievable commitment of a limited resource.”11 The General Plan anticipates future growth within Northeast Bakersfield on lands affected by the Amended HD Ordinance. As the land affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is located within the City limits, implementation of Ordinance would not result in an increase in impacts on agricultural lands than was previously evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. However, as development continues to occur within this area of the City over future years, the continued conversion of agricultural land to urban uses would result, thereby potentially causing the permanent removal of prime agricultural land from production or other agricultural uses. As the Amended HD Ordinance is intended to provide for the protection of the City’s hillside resources for the purposes of public safety and aesthetics, implementation of the Ordinance 5.2-15 10 California Farmland Conversion Report 2002‐2004. California Department of Conservation. 11 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR. December 2002. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.2 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR would not directly induce the conversion of agricultural lands in the Project area, thereby further contributing to a cumulative loss of such lands. The Conservation Element of the General Plan identifies goals and policies intended to decrease the rate of the conversion of agricultural land to non‐agricultural resources and encourage the conservation of such resources. In addition, the General Plan Update EIR provides mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts resulting from the conversion of prime farmland to nonagricultural uses. However, even with the proposed mitigation, such impacts would not be entirely avoided. Therefore, the future cumulative loss of prime agricultural land associated with buildout of the General Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. However, the proposed Project would not result in physical development within the HD Zone. It is estimated that with the additional site site development restrictions proposed within the Amended HD Ordinance, that the number of housing units that could potentially be constructed on lands within the HD Zone would be reduced by approximately 3,199 units. This could potentially result in the displacement of these units to land elsewhere in the City, perhaps along the Valley floor where additional agricultural land may require conversion to nonagricultural uses to meet housing demands. However, with consideration for the land available and zoned for residential development within the City’s Northeast Quadrant (13,211 units), it is anticipated that these units could easily be absorbed within the quadrant on other available lands, thereby avoiding potential effects on existing agricultural uses. In addition, although the proposed restrictions of the HD Zone may constrain potential residential development on affected properties within the HD Zone, opportunities for clustering, multi‐family housing, and other similar development approaches may be used, consistent with the allowed underlying land use and zoning designations and as approved by the City, to achieve residential development within the HD Zone and meet the necessary dwelling unit yield. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would allow for future growth as intended by the City, and consistent with that identified by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment and the General Plan Housing Element; refer also to Section 5.1, Land Use and Planning, for additional discussion. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts relative to the conversion of agricultural land to non‐agricultural uses within the City of Bakersfield. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would therefore not result in the loss of farmland within the area affected by the HD Zone. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be less than significant. 5.2.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts associated with the implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.2-16 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR 5.3 AESTHETICS, LIGHT AND GLARE Information in this Section is based on information from the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update (General Plan), Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update, the Thomas Guide 2003 Kern County Street Guide, aerial photographs, and available United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps. This Section considers the potential effects of implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance on the aesthetic and visual environment, both onsite and from within the surrounding area. Public scenic vistas and views, potential impacts on scenic resources, and the introduction of new sources of light and glare are considered. The evaluation of potential impacts is based on professional judgment, analysis of the City’s applicable policies, the intent of the Amended HD Ordinance, and the significance criteria established by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. 5.3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.3.1.1 Visual Setting Regional Setting According to the General Plan Update EIR, Metropolitan Bakersfield is an estimated 408 square miles in area and includes the City of Bakersfield, the area included in its sphere of influence (SOI), and several contiguous ownerships located in unincorporated portions of Kern County. The core area includes urban and suburban land uses surrounded by low intensity agriculture, oil production and open space areas. In addition, the General Plan Update EIR indicates that there are approximately 221 square miles of designated open space within Metropolitan Bakersfield, consisting of open space, parks and recreation facilities, agriculture, and mineral production uses. This represents approximately 58 percent of the total land use acreage. The majority of this open space supports agricultural uses, including row and tree crops, as well as land intended for oil exploration activities. The general Project area is located within the west central portion of Kern County, California in the City of Bakersfield. The limits of the City generally extend to the Sequoia National Forest at the foot of the Greenhorn Mountain Range and at the entrance to the Kern Canyon. The Project area generally lies near the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, with the southern tip of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east. To the south lie 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. Project Site The Project area is generally located within the northeastern portion of Bakersfield where the topography has largely been shaped by the drainage patterns of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the uplifting geological forces that created the mountains. The result of these geological actions has created dramatic bluffs along the Kern River Valley that represent a unique resource within the City of Bakersfield. According to the General Plan Update EIR, the area affected by the City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-1 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR Amended HD Ordinance contains prime and non‐prime agricultural soils. Due to low and infrequent rainfall, predominant vegetation types are mainly grasslands and scrublands. The area affected by the HD Zone possesses a high degree of aesthetic value, and views of the hillsides occur from many areas within the City. The Amended HD Ordinance represents an overlay zone that applies to hillsides in the northeast portion of the City with a natural slope of 8% or more. This area of the City is generally characterized by foothill topography and large‐lot housing. Existing uses within the HD Zone generally include single‐and multi‐family residential and estate residential uses, mixed with undeveloped lands and open space. Agricultural lands are dispersed within the area affected by the HD Zone and generally support orchards and vineyards, among other crops. The Kern River generally forms the northern boundary of the proposed Project site. The evidence of off‐road vehicle use can be seen in areas along the hillsides. This activity often disturbs the underlying vegetation, and the remaining tracks are visible from both close‐up and from vantage points at a distance. This activity has occurred over the years on unfenced private property. As northeast Bakersfield continues to urbanize, potential conflicts between land uses are more prevalent. The effects of this activity on the hillsides and development, and the appropriate means by which to restrict such activity, are outside the scope and intent of the Amended HD Ordinance and do not require evaluation with regard for CEQA. State Route 178 (SR‐178) traverses a portion of the Project area in a northeast/southwest direction. Other roadways that cross through or are within the general vicinity of the Project area include, but are not limited to, State Route 84 (SR‐84), Alfred Harrell Highway, Paladino Drive, Kern Canyon Road, China Grade Loop, Morning Drive, Columbus Street, Round Round Mountain Road, and Panorama Drive. Surrounding Areas The Kern River generally forms the northern boundary of the area affected by the HD Zone. To the north of the Project site, land uses generally consist of undeveloped lands, with heavy petroleum extraction activities present to the northwest. To the south of the Kern River are limited rural residential uses, as well as a number of recreational land uses, such as Lake Ming and several golf courses. To the east of the HD Zone are large areas of undeveloped lands and open space. Kern Canyon also lies to the east of the Project site. To the south of the HD Zone lies generally undeveloped land, with several intervening residential subdivisions that have been recently constructed or are currently under construction. To the west and southwest lie several larger‐scale residential neighborhoods with supporting commercial uses. 5.3.1.2 Scenic Resources Scenic resources in the Bakersfield area include vistas along the Kern River corridor, the natural foothill terrain in the rural northeastern portion of Bakersfield, recreation areas, and scenic views from highways. The area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is located within the boundaries of the City of Bakersfield and is subject to the General Plan and Municipal Code. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and General Plan Update EIR The General Plan and General Plan Update EIR evaluate the visual and aesthetic setting of Metropolitan Bakersfield and assess the potential for visual impacts resulting from future buildout of the General Plan. The General Plan divides the City into developed urban and rural undeveloped areas. The area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is located within the rural northeast portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield, which is identified as an area with scenic viewsheds, scenic recreational areas, scenic vantage points, scenic views from highways, and the Kern River corridor. The rural northeast provides topographic relief, including foothills and bluffs with slopes exceeding 20 percent and elevations exceeding 1,000 feet, as compared to other areas of the community that possess little to no topographic relief and average slopes that range from 0‐5 percent. According to the General Plan Update EIR, multiple scenic resources are located within and surrounding the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance; refer to Figure 5.3‐1, SCENIC RESOURCES. Kern River Corridor One of the most significant scenic resources in Metropolitan Bakersfield is the Kern River. The General Plan Update EIR identifies the River as the single most valuable visual resource in the southern San Joaquin Valley. The River provides prime habitat for many forms of wildlife that make up part of the visual resource. It also provides needed moisture for the riparian vegetation that breaks up the visual expanse of the surrounding area grasslands. Such vegetation produces a vertical relief to the flatness of the Valley. The scouring ability of the River has also resulted in vertical modification of the land, further adding visual interest to the River as an aesthetic resource. The Kern River Plan Element, prepared as a joint effort by Kern County and the City of Bakersfield in 1985, identifies policies aimed at protection and maintenance of the Kern River. Due to both the size and extent of the Kern River within Metropolitan Bakersfield, the River offers great potential for the provision of regional recreational and open space opportunities. Scenic Viewshed Areas Scenic viewshed areas within Metropolitan Bakersfield include the following (refer also to Figure 5.3‐1, SCENIC RESOURCES): • Area east of Lake Ming, north of SR‐178, and west of Rancheria Road. This scenic viewshed area is immediately south of the Kern River corridor. • Area along SR‐178, east of Miramonte Drive, extending to the eastern most limits of Metropolitan Bakersfield. This scenic viewshed area is immediately south of the Kern River corridor. Scenic Recreational Areas Scenic recreational areas within Metropolitan Bakersfield include the following (refer also to Figure 5.3‐1, SCENIC RESOURCES): City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR • Area near and surrounding Lake Ming. This scenic recreational area is located along the Kern River corridor and is part of the eastern portion of Kern River County Park. • Area located north of Alfred Harrell Highway at the western end of Kern County River Park. This recreational area is located along the Kern River corridor and near Hart Memorial Park. Scenic Vantage Points Scenic vantage points within Metropolitan Bakersfield include the following (refer also to Figure 5.3‐1, SCENIC RESOURCES): • Along Camanche Drive, south of SR‐178; • The east‐west portion of Alfred Harrell Highway, south of Lake Ming; • The north‐south portion of Alfred Harrell Highway, north of Highway 178; and, • SR‐178, west of Alfred Harrell Highway. Scenic Highways Based on the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no State designated scenic highways located within and surrounding the proposed Project; however, several potential local scenic views occur along SR‐178, SR‐184, and SR‐58 within Bakersfield. The County of Kern adopted the Scenic Highways Element in 1974. In 1992, the Scenic Highways Element was rescinded and replaced by the County of Kern General Plan Circulation Element. The County of Kern General Plan identifies a system of scenic routes, outlines standards, and suggests methods of implementation designed to preserve scenic land. Upon official designation as a Scenic Highway, a local government body may eliminate and/or prevent unsightly development to occur within the corridor through a program involving the reasonable exercise of its powers. There are three highways within Metropolitan Bakersfield that could potentially become County‐designated scenic routes. The following highway segments are relative to the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance: • SR‐178 east of Alfred Harrell Highway to the eastern boundary of Metropolitan Bakersfield; and, • The Alfred Harrell Highway east of Panorama Drive and extending to SR‐178, then continuing south along Comanche Drive to Highway 58. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-4 178 58 58 184 178 CAMANCHE DR RIVER BLVD ALFRED HARRELL HWY KERN RIVER ROUND MOUNTAIN RD CHINA GRADE LOOP COLUMBUS ST CALIFORNIA AVE EDISON HWY NILES ST BRECKENRIDGE RD PALADINO DR Scenic Viewsheds Scenic Views from Highway Scenic Vantage Points Kern River Corridor Foothills Bluffs Metropolitan Bakersfield Boundary Line LEGEND NOT TO SCALE 9/25/08 JN 60-100489 Scenic Resources City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance • Draft EIR Source: Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR, January 2002. Figure 5.3-1 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-6 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR City of Bakersfield Municipal Code The Amended Hillside Development Combining Zone (Chapter 17.66 of the Municipal Code) contains development standards and procedures aimed at preserving the unique character of the City’s hillsides as important visual resources. The objectives of the Ordinance relative to aesthetics include, but are not limited to, preservation and protection of views to and from hillside areas in the City as a scenic resource; sensitive development at a density that respects and is reflective of the natural resource; grading techniques that blend with the natural terrain and minimize visual impacts of large cut and fill slopes; and, maintaining the integrity and natural characteristics of major landforms, scenic qualities, and open space. Refer also to Chapter 17.66 of the Municipal Code for additional details. The Amended HD Ordinance establishes provisions for preserving identified viewsheds within the HD Zone. The visual elements described below are identified in Figure 5.3‐2, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE – WEST, and Figure 5.3‐3, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE – EAST. These measures include the following: • Identification of Visual Resource Areas along ridgelines for protection; • Identification of Primary and Secondary Viewsheds which, considered with Visual Resource Areas, limit the view of structures from major roadways; • Identification of Slope Protection Areas that have unique visual characteristics and slope constraints; • Establishment of the requirement to provide a minimum 25‐foot setback from open space areas; and, • Protection of visual resources on the perimeter of development visible from major roadways. 5.3.1.3 Light and Glare Based on the General Plan Update EIR, the effects of light and glare within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are largely attributed to land uses and associated infrastructure within the more urbanized areas. There are two types of light intrusion that can affect the Project site. The first light source is from interior lighting within structures which passes through windows; the second light source is from exterior sources such as lighting for landscaping, or street or parking lot lighting. Perceived glare is the unwanted and potentially objectionable sensation as observed by a person when looking directly into the light source of a luminaire. Glare can occur as the result of sunlight or artificial light sources reflecting off of flat building surfaces or reflective exterior coatings. Light and glare can disturb wildlife in natural habitat areas and act as a nuisance to adjacent residential areas and motorists by interfering with scenic vistas. Currently, potential light sources within the area affected by the HD Zone generally consist of residential uses, exterior lighting, and street lighting. Nighttime light levels generated in the Project area are generally considered to be low. Other existing sources of light and glare in the City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-7 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR area may also occur from offsite uses and include nearby residential uses and vehicles traveling along area roadways. 5.3.2 REGULATORY SETTING 5.3.2.1 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The General Plan provides goals and policies aimed at protecting the City’s visual resources over future buildout, as anticipated by the General Plan. All future development projects within the City would be subject to review to ensure that a project design is consistent with the goals and policies established by the General Plan, and to reduce the potential for development that is visually or otherwise incompatible with its surroundings, does not respect onsite environmental or geologic conditions, would substantially block significant views, or that would result in excess light, glare, or similar effects. Goals and policies pertaining to aesthetics and light/glare are included in the Land Use and Open Space Elements of the General Plan, as well as in the Kern River Plan Element. These goals and policies, as they apply to the proposed Project, are discussed below in Table 5.3‐1, CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS WITH METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES FOR AESTHETICS, LIGHT, AND GLARE. The proposed Project would be consistent with the relevant goals and policies set forth in the General Plan, as identified below. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-8 9/25/08 JN 60-100489 Hillside Development Zone -West City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance • Draft EIR Figure 5.3-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-10 9/25/08 JN 60-100489 Hillside Development Zone -East City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance • Draft EIR Figure 5.3-3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-12 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR Table 5.3-1 Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Aesthetics, Light, and Glare GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Land Use Element Goals Land Use Goal #7: “Establish a built environment which achieves a compatible functional and visual relationship among individual buildings and sites.” Implementation of the proposed Project would not in itself result in physical development within the HD Zone, nor would it alter the existing underlying General Plan land use or zoning designations of lands within the HD Zone to allow development not intended by the General Plan; however, the intent of the Ordinance is to provide measures to protect the City’s hillsides as a visual resource and as such, establishes regulations to control the visual aspects of future development. The Ordinance identifies such design measures as structural setbacks to reduce potential views of development from surrounding offsite areas, preservation of unique and significant natural landforms and ridgelines, maintaining the natural character of landforms and vegetation, and other design restrictions for fencing and roofing materials and color to encourage new development that is visually compatible with other land uses. The Project is considered to be consistent with Land Use Goal #7. Open Space Element Goals Open Space Element Goal #1: “Conserve and enhance the unique aspects of open space within the planning area.” Although no physical development would occur within the HD Zone with Project implementation, the Amended HD Ordinance provides additional site design measures aimed at the protection of the hillsides as an important natural and visual resource within the City. With application of the identified design measures, additional land area on private ownerships within the HD Zone would be protected for the long‐term, thereby contributing to the long‐term maintenance and conservation of the hillsides as a unique aspect of the City’s landscape.. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with Open Space Element Goal #1. Open Space Element Goal #3: “Locate and site development to minimize the disruption of open space areas.” The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to provide protection of the hillside areas within northeast Bakersfield and includes design measures to minimize visual disruption potentially caused by future development. No physical development would directly occur with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance. However, the Ordinance establishes design measures to require the use of contour grading techniques, minimize cut and fill slopes, establish structural setbacks, and limit the use of certain building materials or siting of physical elements (i.e. fencing) within the HD Zone to reduce the visual appearance of future development. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with Open Space Element Goal #3. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-13 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR Table 5.3-1, Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Aesthetics, Light, and Glare, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-14 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Open Space Element Goal #6: “Create a greenbelt corridor along the Kern River with increased recreational opportunities.” The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in the creation of a greenbelt corridor along the Kern River to allow for increased recreational opportunities. All future development on lands within northeast Bakersfield that are affected by the Kern River Plan Element would be required to demonstrate consistency with the Element and to contribute to the achievement of this goal, as appropriate. The proposed Project would be consistent with Open Space Element Goal #6. Open Space Element Policies Open Space Element Policy #1: “Promote the establishment, maintenance and protection of the planning area’s open space resources, including the following: • Conservation of natural resources (refer to Chapter II‐Land Use, Chapter V‐Conservation, and Chapter XII‐Kern River Plan Element). • Kern River corridor • Management of hillsides • Managed production of resources. • Agriculture (refer to Chapter VConservation /Soils and Agriculture) • Oil production (refer to Chapter VConservation /Mineral Resources) • Outdoor recreation • Parks (refer to Chapter XI‐Parks) • Kern River corridor (refer to Chapter II‐Land Use, Chapter VConservation, and Chapter XIIKern River Plan Element) • Public health and safety • Hazard avoidance (refer to Chapter VII‐Safety)” Although the Amended HD Ordinance does not specifically provide for the establishment, maintenance, or protection of open space resources within the HD Zone, it would result in a greater land area within the HD Zone being protected for the long‐term as undeveloped land. The Amended HD Ordinance would not change the existing underlying General Plan land use designations or zoning on lands within the HD Zone and would allow for future development to occur as intended by the City. The Project would not require an amendment to any existing plan pertaining to the establishment, maintenance, or protection of open space resources. However, the Amended HD Ordinance would provide design measures to further protect the City’s hillsides within northeastern Bakersfield as a natural visual resource for the long‐term. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with Open Space Element Policy #1. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR Table 5.3-1, Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Aesthetics, Light, and Glare, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-15 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Open Space Element Policy #2: “Development of ridge lines within the planning area should consider natural topographic constraints.” The Amended HD Ordinance encourages the use of “grading techniques that blend with the natural terrain, minimize earthmoving activities, minimize visual impacts of large cut and fill slopes,…and provide for the preservation of unique and significant natural landforms and ridgelines.” In addition, the Ordinance states that development should “Maintain the integrity and natural characteristics of major landform…and scenic qualities.” The Amended HD Ordinance requires the preparation and submittal of a preliminary grading plan showing all manufactured slopes for review by by the City. The purpose of the plan is to illustrate that the future siting of any structures would create an attractive and harmonious relationship with surrounding development and the natural environment with respect for grading and land development activities. Where feasible, future development within the HD Zone should be designed to complement the natural topography, as stated in the Amended HD Ordinance. The proposed Project would not conflict with Open Space Element Policy #2. Open Space Element Policy #3: “Hillside development should exhibit sensitivity and be complementary to the natural topography.” The Amended HD Ordinance encourages the use of “grading techniques that blend with the natural terrain, minimize earthmoving activities, minimize visual impacts of large cut and fill slopes,…and provide for the preservation of unique and significant natural landforms and ridgelines.” In addition, the Ordinance states that development should “Maintain the integrity and natural characteristics of major landform…and scenic qualities.” The proposed Project would be consistent with Open Space Element Policy #3. Open Space Element Policy #4: “Require the use of grading techniques in hillside areas that preserve the form of natural topography and ridge lines.” The Amended HD Ordinance encourages the use of “grading techniques that blend with the natural terrain, minimize earthmoving activities, minimize visual impacts of large cut and fill slopes,…and provide for the preservation of unique and significant natural landforms and ridgelines.” In addition, the Ordinance states that development should “Maintain the integrity and natural characteristics of major landform…and scenic qualities.” The Amended HD Ordinance requires the preparation and submittal of a preliminary grading plan showing all proposed manufactured slopes for review by the City. The purpose of the plan is to illustrate that the future siting of any structures would create an attractive and harmonious relationship with surrounding development and the natural environment with respect for grading and land development activities. Where feasible, future development within the HD Zone should be designed to complement the natural topography, as stated in the Amended HD Ordinance. The proposed Project would be consistent with Open Space Element Policy #4. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR Table 5.3-1, Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Aesthetics, Light, and Glare, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-16 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Open Space Element Policy #5: “Development location and siting should be sensitive to its relationship to the Kern River.” The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone, and therefore, would not create land uses that would conflict with existing plans or policies intended for the protection of the Kern River and its value as a natural and scenic resource. The Project would not interfere with the intent of The Kern River Plan Element, and instead, would provide design measures intended to enhance and protect the City’s hillsides as a natural and scenic resource in the area through which the Kern River flows. The proposed Project would be consistent with with Open Space Element Policy #5. The Kern River Plan Element Open Space Versus Development Policies Policy #2: “Siting of buildings and structures shall be designed to create an attractive and harmonious relationship with surrounding developments and the natural environment, and shall be supported by a lot‐use feasibility study approved by the Planning Director of the respective jurisdiction.” Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. The Amended HD Ordinance encourages the use of “grading techniques that blend with the natural terrain, minimize earthmoving activities, minimize visual impacts of large cut and fill slopes,…and provide for the preservation of unique and significant natural landforms and ridgelines.” In addition, the Ordinance states that development should “Maintain the integrity and natural characteristics of major landform…and scenic qualities.” The Amended HD Ordinance provides design measures that would require preparation and submittal of a preliminary grading plan showing all proposed manufactured slopes for review by the City. The purpose of the plan is to illustrate that the future siting of any structures would create an attractive and harmonious relationship with surrounding development and the natural environment with respect for grading and land development activities. Where feasible, future development within the HD Zone should be designed to complement the natural topography, as stated in the Amended HD Ordinance. The proposed Project would be consistent with The Kern River Plan Element, Open Space Versus Development Policy #2. Policy #3: “Buildings, structures, and vegetation shall be constructed, installed, or planted in a manner to minimize to the greatest extent possible, the obstruction of scenic views of the Kern River from highways, streets, trails, parks, or beach areas.” The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to provide additional site design measures to reduce the potential for future development to adversely affect views of the City’s hillsides. Design measures given in the Ordinance address structural siting and required setbacks, as well as landscaping materials, aimed at protecting views of the hillsides as one of the City’s natural visual resources. All future development affected by The Kern River Plan Element would be required to minimize the obstruction of scenic views of the Kern River from highways, Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR Table 5.3-1, Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Aesthetics, Light, and Glare, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-17 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY streets, trails, parks, or beach areas as applicable, and would be evaluated for consistency with the Element on a project‐by‐project basis. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with The Kern River Plan Element, Open Space Versus Development Policy #3. Policy #4: “Land developments which would detract from the scenic quality of the Kern River shall be screened by vegetation, fencing, or landscaped berms, or be located in a reasonably inconspicuous manner.” Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical construction within the HD Zone, and therefore, would not result in development that would detract from the scenic quality of the Kern River. However, design measures to protect scenic resources (including specific design features such as vegetation, fencing, and landscaping) are included to ensure that visual impacts to specific visual resources (including the Kern River) would be reduced. The proposed Project would be consistent with The Kern River Plan Element, Open Space Versus Development Policy #4. Policy #5: “Natural topography, vegetation, and scenic features shall be retained to the greatest feasible extent in future development along the River.” The Amended HD Ordinance encourages the use of “grading techniques that blend with the natural terrain, minimize earthmoving activities, minimize visual impacts of large cut and fill slopes,…and provide for the preservation of unique and significant natural landforms and ridgelines.” In addition, the Ordinance states that development should “Maintain the integrity and natural characteristics of major landform…and scenic qualities.” The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in development within the the City’s hillsides areas. However, design measures are included in the Ordinance to retain natural topography and scenic features within the Project area, thereby retaining the hillsides as a natural visual resource within the City. No physical development or land improvement activities would occur that would conflict or interfere with properties located along the Kern River. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with The Kern River Plan Element, Open Space Versus Development Policy #5. Policy #6: “Grading or earthmoving for projects within the secondary floodway shall blend with existing topography, and vegetation shall subsequently be harmoniously reestablished where it does not conflict with channel maintenance and recharge facilities.” The Amended HD Ordinance would not result in physical development or land improvement activities within the HD Zone. The Ordinance includes design measures to regulate grading and earthmoving activities within the hillside areas, as well as to provide measures for landscaping purposes. The proposed Project would not conflict with The Kern River Plan Element, Open Space Versus Development Policy #6, as determined to be applicable. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR Table 5.3-1, Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Aesthetics, Light, and Glare, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-18 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Policy #7: “Agricultural land preparation, vegetation plantings, and minor structural improvements or appurtenances shall blend with and enhance the open space qualities of the River corridor to the greatest extent possible.” The proposed Project does not involve agricultural land preparation, vegetation plantings, or minor structural improvements or appurtenances, and no physical development within the HD Zone would result with Project implementation. The Amended HD Ordinance includes design measures to minimize the visual appearance of future development within the HD Zone with the intent of protecting the hillside areas as a visual resource within northeast Bakersfield. The proposed Project includes design measures intended to blend future development with the surrounding landscape, thereby contributing to the visual enhancement of the open space qualities of the Kern River corridor, as applicable. The proposed Project would not conflict with The Kern River Plan Element, Open Space Versus Development Policy #7. Policy #8: “Building heights and setbacks shall not significantly obstruct River views, and they shall be regulated in accordance with potential to obstruct River views from the existing or planned roads or trails. Structural improvements shall be set back as far as possible from the primary floodway line, and building height shall be regulated in accordance with potential to obstruct River views (see Chapter V, Implementation Policies, 5.3.B.4).” As the Project area is generally situated in the hilly areas in the northeastern portion of the City, it is not anticipated that future development within the HD Zone would block views of the River. As no physical construction would occur, no structures would result that would block views of the River from existing or planned roads or trails. The Amended HD Ordinance provides setback requirements, as well as other design measures such as restricting the use of certain building materials or colors and the location of fencing, that are aimed at the long‐term protection of views of the hillsides from surrounding public vantage points. The proposed Project would not conflict with The Kern River Plan Element, Open Space Versus Development Policy #8, pertaining to obstruction of views to the Kern River from publicly accessible areas. Riparian Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Policies Policy #3: “Native vegetation shall be protected by minimizing the introduction of dominant nonnative plant species. All development proposals, except intensive agriculture, shall include a landscape plan to identify vegetation to be used on the site and the method of long‐term maintenance of landscaped areas. The submitted landscape plan shall be used to verify acceptability of vegetation for use along the River. Those plants found not acceptable shall not be used.” The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. However, the Ordinance includes the requirement for preparation of a landscape plan to identify appropriate vegetative materials (i.e. drought‐resistant, native plants) for development of lands within the HD Zone. All proposed development within the HD Zone that is affected by The Kern River Plan Element would be required to submit a landscape plan to the City for review and approval. The proposed Project would not conflict with the Riparian Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Policy #3. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR As demonstrated by the above discussion, the proposed Project is considered to be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. Therefore, no conflicts with applicable goals and policies would occur with proposed Project implementation. 5.3.2.2 City of Bakersfield Municipal Code Specific lighting requirements are given in the City’s Municipal Code. The following discussion pertains to lighting relevant to the proposed Project. Lighting The City of Bakersfield Municipal Code provides specific zoning regulations pertaining to lighting standards for parking lots and sign illumination. To reduce potential impacts, lighting should be designed so that light is reflected away from adjacent residential properties and streets by use of glare shields or baffles to reduce glare and control backlight effects. In addition, with regard to the illumination of signage, floodlighting is permitted when such such lighting is installed on private property or property maintained by a maintenance district, and is hooded or shielded so that the light source is not a nuisance or detrimental to persons viewing the area, or would not affect or interfere with vehicular traffic, pedestrians, or adjacent properties (City of Bakersfield 2007d). No physical development would occur as a direct result of implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, and therefore, no element of the Project would be subject to the Municipal Code with regard to lighting requirements. 5.3.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Environmental Checklist form. The Environmental Checklist form includes questions relating to aesthetics, light, and glare. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this Section. Accordingly, the Project may would create a significant environmental impact if one or more of the following occurs: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; • Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or, • Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The evaluation of aesthetic impacts is a subjective exercise because of widely varying personal perceptions. Nonetheless, replacement of undeveloped land with future development would permanently alter the appearance of the proposed Project area over time. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-19 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR 5.3.4 IMPACTS Short-Term Aesthetic Impacts: Construction Activities 5.3‐1 Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in grading or construction activities within the HD Zone that would temporarily alter the visual appearance of the proposed Project area. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development of any of the lands affected by the HD Zone. However, development would occur in the HD Zone over future years as buildout of the General Plan is achieved. Generally, construction activities temporarily affect views where construction occurs as the result of demolition, construction debris, and construction‐related activities. Construction activities would generally have the potential to temporarily alter existing views within designated scenic viewsheds and from scenic vantage points within the City, as well as along along the Kern River corridor. Following site preparation activities, such as grading and excavation, the building of structures and subsequent installation landscape improvements typically occur. During this time, the presence of construction truck traffic, such as dump trucks hauling excavation materials or trucks carrying construction or landscaping materials, may be present along area roadways traveling to and from a development site. All future grading and earthwork activities within the City would be required to be conducted in accordance with an approved construction grading plan and grading permit issued by the Building Director. All future development within the City would be subject to environmental and design review on a site‐specific, project‐by‐project basis to evaluate the scope of a project and the potential for visual impacts caused by construction activities. Construction activities would be required to conform to all applicable City policies pertaining to construction and applicable conditions of approval. In addition, construction activities have the potential to result in short‐term light and glare impacts, typically as the result of nighttime lighting for security purposes in the evening or nighttime hours. Section 9.22.050 (Noise During Construction) of the City’s Municipal Code limits demolition/grading/construction operations on weekdays between the hours of 6:00 AM and 9:00 PM, and on weekends between 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. As such, no change in the existing visual character of the area would occur due to construction and/or grading activities. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Long-Term Aesthetic Impacts to Scenic Resources 5.3‐2 Project implementation would not permanently alter views to designated scenic resources. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-20 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Buildout of the General Plan would lead to the development of previously undeveloped lands within the northeastern portion of Bakersfield, thereby changing the visual landscape and potentially altering views of and to scenic resources within the City. The rural northeast portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield is identified as an area with scenic viewsheds, scenic recreational areas, scenic vantage points, views along a scenic highway, foothills, and the designated Kern River corridor; refer to Figure 5.3‐1, SCENIC RESOURCES; Figure 5.3‐2, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE‐WEST; and, Figure 5.3‐3, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE‐EAST, which show the identified visual resources, viewsheds, and protection areas in the northeast portion of the City. In evaluating the significance of potential visual impacts, consideration should be given to the actual visual quality of the area, which for the proposed Project area, is characterized by the scenic value of the hillsides and the area’s other unique features. Visual sensitivity of the area should also be considered, as defined by the public views of the project, the number of viewers, and the duration of view. Development of a project site that has both high visual quality and high visual sensitivity would have the potential for the most significant visual impact. The area affected by the proposed Project and the surrounding area are considered to have resources of high visual quality. The General Plan Update EIR indicates that within Metropolitan Bakersfield, several scenic areas are located on undeveloped and/or vacant land; however, several of these areas are designated for residential land use, not long‐term open space or preservation, and therefore, would be subject to potential residential development which may obstruct existing scenic views. The General Plan Update EIR states that impacts to all scenic areas are considered less than significant because future development would be consistent with the City’s policies and implementation actions set forth in the General Plan Land Use Element, Open Space Element, and the City’s Hillside Ordinance. Therefore, the natural features that provide topographical relief to Metropolitan Bakersfield would not be significantly altered by future development due to sitespecific environmental and design review of development plans by the City. In addition, the General Plan Update EIR also states that the potential for visual impacts along scenic highways from new development would be considered less than significant with project consistency with the Elements of the General Plan, as they establish policies intended to protect and enhance scenic areas adjacent to designated scenic routes/highways and provide measures to protect scenic lands. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance is intended to “protect views by identifying primary and secondary viewsheds, visual resource areas, and slope protection protection areas within the HD Zone.” The Ordinance identifies the following scenic elements within the northeastern portion of the City; refer also to Figure 5.3‐1, SCENIC RESOURCES; Figure 5.3‐2, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE‐WEST; and, Figure 5.3‐3, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE‐EAST. • Primary Viewsheds – 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 one‐half mile, except as City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-21 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR may be allowed under Section 17.66.040(P)(4),” which allows for the Planning Commission to allow for a lesser setback if other methods can be utilized to provide an equivalent solution to the protection of the viewshed (i.e., landscaping, mounding, etc.). • Secondary Viewshed – Those locations identified along freeways, expressways or arterial roadways from which no more than fifty percent of the height of structural elevation is visible on a Class II visual resource area for a distance of a mile, except as may be allowed under Section 17.66.040(P)(4),” as described above. • Class I Visual Resources Area – Designated ridge and hilltop areas which require a structural setback great enough so that no portion of a structure is visible from a primary viewshed; refer to Figure 5.3‐2, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE – WEST, and Figure 5.3‐3, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE – EAST, which illustrate these areas within the northeast Bakersfield area. • Class II Visual Resources Area – Designated ridge and hilltop areas which require a structural setback great enough so that no more than fifty percent of the height of a structural elevation is visible from a secondary viewshed; refer to Figure 5.3‐2, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE – WEST, and Figure 5.3‐3, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE – EAST, which illustrate these areas within the northeast Bakersfield area. • Slope Protection Areas – Those mapped slopes of fifteen percent or greater within the HD Zone area that, due to physical constraints, aesthetic value and visibility from major roadways, are to be left in their natural state with no structures or fences allowed on the slope face. Areas identified as slope protection areas shall be identified as lettered, non‐buildable lots on subdivision maps; refer to Figure 5.3‐2, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE – WEST, and Figure 5.3‐3, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE – EAST, which illustrate these areas within the northeast Bakersfield area. The definitions of “Primary and Secondary Viewsheds” and “Visual Resource Areas” were arrived at through consideration of the following: • Views from existing and proposed major roadways; • Major geological features in the area; • Observation height and view angle; • Structure heights on the tops of ridges; • Distance from the observation point to the structure; • The angle of the viewshed and/or elevation of the ridge compared to the observation point; and, • The length of time the resource is viewed from the traveling public. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-22 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR “Slope Protection Areas” are specifically identified areas within Northeast Bakersfield that are 15% or greater in slope on the face of significant bluffs and ridges and open to public views from major roadways. The applicable percent slope for these areas has been added to the Amended HD Ordinance in Section 17.66.010(B)(5). The Amended HD Ordinance provides standards and guidelines to encourage development that is sensitive to the unique characteristics of the hillside areas within the City, which include, but are not limited to, slopes, landforms, vegetation, and scenic quality. As discussed above, the Amended HD Ordinance provides measures to reduce the potential visibility of future development from surrounding freeways, expressways, and arterial roadways in northeast Bakersfield by requiring structural setbacks to limit the (visual) height of structural elevations that can be seen from surrounding public vantage points. In addition, the Ordinance identifies grading techniques, such as contour grading, to encourage grading that blends with the natural terrain and to preserve the natural landform of the hillsides. The Ordinance further requires structural setbacks for development on buildable lots adjacent to parks or open space. Other design measures include landscape design, color and materials of fencing, color and materials of roofing, and other such elements. These requirements would create a greater level of longterm protection for the City’s hillsides, thereby reducing the potential for significant visual effects to scenic resources to occur. With implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, existing views of designated scenic resources would not directly change, as no physical development is proposed or would occur as a result. The lands within the HD Zone would remain unaffected until the time when (and if) development is proposed by individual landowners in the future. The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to minimize potential impacts to views of the area affected by the HD Zone by establishing site design and setback requirements. It is therefore not anticipated that future development within the HD Zone would result in significant impacts to the City’s scenic resources. As part of the development review process, the Amended HD Ordinance would require preparation of a site plan and grading plan, among other requirements, to illustrate the siting of structures and buildings in order to ensure that development proposed would create an attractive and harmonious relationship with surrounding development and the natural environment. Where feasible, the Amended HD Ordinance would encourage future development proposed within the HD Zone that would complement natural topography and be sensitive to the relationship with the Kern River. Measures for structural siting, proposed building heights, and landscaping are also given in the Ordinance to minimize the obstruction of scenic views of the Kern River from highways, streets, trails, parks, as appropriate, if subject to the Kern River Plan Element. Consistent with the Amended HD Ordinance, the City would evaluate proposed site plans, landscape design and materials, grading design, and color and materials for roofing and fencing, among other elements, for conformity with the General Plan Elements and the Municipal Code (including the requirements of the Amended HD Ordinance and the Kern River Plan City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-23 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR Element, as applicable), in consultation with the Planning Director, as well as approval by the City Planning Commission. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in significant visual impacts to the City’s scenic resources, as the Ordinance is intended to protect and enhance such resources for the long‐term. No development would directly occur within the HD Zone as the result of the Project, as the Amended HD Ordinance would act as an overlay zone, and would not physically affect the underlying lands. As such, lands within the HD Zone would remain in their current state, and would not be visibly altered with Project implementation. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Long-Term Visual Character 5.3‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not permanently alter views of and across the site, thus potentially degrading the character/quality of the area. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Areas within the northeast portion of Bakersfield have been identified in the General Plan as scenic resources, and include the Kern River and the City’s hillside areas. The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to preserve and maintain “the hillsides as a scenic resource of the City” and to protect the visual character or quality of the Project area. As such, significant visual impacts resulting from implementation of the Ordinance are not anticipated. The Amended HD Ordinance includes requirements intended to reduce the visual effect of future development on the City’s hillside areas. The Ordinance includes site design measures to minimize grading and to require contour grading techniques that would provide slopes similar to existing adjacent terrain and minimize the visual impacts of cut and fill slopes. Buildings setbacks are also established to minimize views of development within individual lots from offsite public vantage points. The Ordinance also includes design measures to control the placement and color and material of fencing, as well as the color and materials used for roofing to further reduce the visual appearance of development along the hillsides. As such, these design measures would reduce the potential for future development within the HD Zone to permanently alter views of and across the site, thereby potentially degrading the character or quality of the area. As implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance is intended to protect views of the hillsides for the long‐term and would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone, the Project is not anticipated to potentially degrade the character or quality of the area. Instead, the measures proposed would result in a beneficial visual impact by preserving views of the City’s hillsides for the long‐term. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-24 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Light and Glare 5.3‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Street lighting, security lighting, lighting for commercial and residential structures, and lighting for recreational purposes (i.e., sports fields) can adversely affect adjacent uses through spillover and/or glare that may result in nuisance complaints of an area or building being aesthetically disturbing. In addition, spillover lighting may adversely affect wildlife areas if such lighting occurs adjacent to open space areas or established wildlife corridors. Generally, existing sources of artificial light in the Project area include outdoor decorative and security lighting associated with residential uses and City street lighting. Lighting within the Project area is generally limited at the present time. The Amended HD Ordinance does not include regulations that address light or glare. Any new residential development in the Project area would increase nighttime light and glare resulting from new perimeter lighting for decorative and security purposes. However, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development that would generate additional light and/or glare in the Project area. Additionally, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance may result in an overall reduction in the number of residential units potentially constructed within the HD Zone due to site design restrictions, thereby decreasing the amount of light produced by development in the hillside areas, and reducing such effects on nighttime views. As such, the Amended HD Ordinance would more effectively protect the existing environment with regard for for lighting and glare impacts, and would therefore be considered a beneficial impact. Impacts from lighting and glare would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.3.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.3‐5 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, together with cumulative projects, would not result in greater urbanization and the loss of views to scenic resources in undeveloped areas of the northeastern portion of the City of Bakersfield. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Construction of currently approved and pending projects in the Project vicinity would permanently alter the nature and appearance of the area as future development occurs over upcoming years. The proposed Project would not directly result in or induce physical construction within the HD Zone or surrounding areas. The gradual visual effects of City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-25 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR the change in land use from undeveloped to developed land with future projects onsite and within the cumulative study area would be evident as development within Northeast Bakersfield continues; however, the significance and extent of the resulting visual and/or aesthetic changes is difficult to effectively evaluate, as aesthetic value is subjectively determined and future potential impacts would be site‐specific. It is anticipated that future construction activities within the cumulative study area would occur at various sites throughout the HD Zone and at varied times, when an application for development is made. Such construction‐related impacts would be short‐term and would cease upon completion. In addition, all new development projects within the cumulative study area would be subject to additional environmental and design review on a site‐specific, project‐byproject basis to ensure visual aesthetic impacts are limited to the extent possible during the construction process. All future construction activities would be required to be consistent with the Municipal Code requirements and applicable conditions of approval to reduce potential cumulative effects of construction to less than significant. Cumulative projects in the Project vicinity could convert existing offsite open space to urban uses, potentially resulting in the incremental loss of visible open space within Bakersfield. Such future development could also contribute to the alteration of views to designated visual resources. The proposed Project would potentially result in an overall reduction in the number of residential units constructed within the area affected by the HD Zone, thereby reducing the potential cumulative visual effect on such resources by allowing for lower density development. In addition, all lighting proposed with future development within the cumulative study area, such as street lighting, security lighting, or exterior illumination, would potentially result in increased light and glare impacts within the HD Zone and in the larger northeastern portion of the City. Projects within the cumulative study area would be evaluated by the City on a projectby‐project basis to determine the extent of such lighting necessary and the appropriate sitespecific measures to reduce potential impacts on surrounding areas (i.e., shielding, use of lowlevel lighting, directing lighting away from adjacent properties and open space areas). As such, the cumulative effects of increased lighting and/or glare associated with future development in the cumulative study area would be reduced to less than significant levels. As the Project would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts relative to light and/or glare. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. All future development within the City would be subject to an evaluation of the significance of potential cumulative visual and aesthetic changes on a site‐specific, project‐by‐project basis, with consideration for its scope and contribution to a change in the overall visual pattern or character within the City. Adherence to applicable General Plan policies and goals and Municipal Code Design Standards, including those given in Chapter 17.66, Hillside Development Combining Zone, would further reduce potential cumulative impacts relative to the long‐term alteration of views to designated scenic resources. However, as the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in physical construction within the HD Zone, and instead, provides design measures intended to reduce visual effects of future development within the City’s hillside areas, the City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-26 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR Project would not contribute to a cumulative effect with regard to the loss of views to scenic resources. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.3.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts associated with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-27 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.3-28 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.4-1 Section 5.4 Traffic and Circulation 5.4 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION This Section evaluates transportation and circulation and the impacts resulting from the implementation of the Amended Hillside Development (HD) Ordinance (Amended HD Ordinance). The purpose of this Section is to identify existing conditions related to transportation and circulation within the Project area, analyze potential impacts, and recommend mitigation measures as appropriate to reduce the significance of identified impacts. Information in this Section is based on the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update (General Plan) and the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR. 5.4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.4.1.1 Roadway Network The street system in Metropolitan Bakersfield is generally laid out in a grid pattern. Within the northeast portion of the City, major east‐west thoroughfares include SR‐178, California Avenue, Truxtun Avenue, Niles Street, and SR‐58. Major north‐south thoroughfares include SR‐99, SR‐204, and portions of SR‐184. The City’s hillside streets are designed based on the topography of the area. A number of the streets end in a cul‐de‐sac due to geographic constraints, and many are not organized in a typical grid pattern. Within the City’s hillsides, roadways are generally narrow and winding with occasionally steep grades. Major roadways within the area potentially affected by future development within the HD Zone may include, but are not limited to, the following: Alfred Harrell Highway Alfred Harrell Highway generally runs north and west from State Route 178 at Comanche Drive. The Highway generally runs along the Kern River and terminates where it ultimately connects to Panorama Drive and China Grade Loop. The Highway provides access from State Route 178 and northeast Bakersfield to residential and recreational land uses located along the Kern River. The Highway is a two‐lane roadway with paved shoulders. To the east of Hart Hart Park, the roadway alignment includes right of way for four lanes. To the west of Hart Park, the roadway exists as a four‐lane limited access highway. Traffic signals were recently installed where Alfred Harrell Highway and State Route 178 intersect to improve traffic flows. Paladino Drive Paladino Drive is designated as an arterial and extends from Morning Drive east to Masterson Street, north of State Route 178. The road presently exists as a two‐lane roadway, and provides access to existing residential land uses. Extension of roadway westerly from Morning Drive to Fairfax Road and easterly from Masterson Street to Alfred Harrell Highway is planned for in the General Plan Circulation Element. The Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.4-2 calls for the future widening and extension of Paladino Drive, as well as the signalization of Fairfax Road, Morning Drive and Masterson Street with Paladino Drive. State Route 99 State Route 99 is a designated north‐south freeway, with four to six travel lanes. State Route 58 State Route 58 is a designated east‐west freeway linking State Route 99 with cities east of Bakersfield. California Avenue California Avenue is a designated east‐west arterial that currently exists as a six (6) lane divided road from Real Road to William Street. California Avenue continues easterly as a designated collector that currently exists as a four (4) lane, divided road from east of William Street to Edison Highway. University Avenue University Avenue is a designated east‐west collector that currently exists as a two (2) lane, undivided roadway from River Boulevard to Panorama Drive. Manor Street Manor Street is a designated north‐south arterial that currently exists as a four (4) lane, divided roadway from Columbus Street to West Day Avenue. Panorama Drive Panorama Drive is designated as an arterial west of Columbus Street and as a collector east of Columbus Street. The roadway generally provides access to residential land uses. The road extends to the east from Union Avenue to Morning Drive. Panorama Drive was recently extended from Vineland Road and Masterson Street. The General Plan assumes the extension of Panorama Drive east of Morning Drive by the year 2016. Auburn Street Auburn Street generally runs in an east‐west direction and extends from Columbus Street to Morning Drive. The road is designated as a collector and generally provides access to residential and commercial land uses. West of Fairfax Road, the road currently operates as a four‐lane facility with a striped two‐way left‐turn lane. East of Fairfax Road, the roadway operates as a two‐lane facility. The City is currently developing plans to realign the easterly terminus of Auburn Street to the north. SR-178/Kern Canyon Road SR‐178 generally trends east‐west and provides access from Bakersfield to Lake Isabella and Ridgecrest. State Route 178 exists as a four‐lane freeway to a point approximately one‐half mile west of Fairfax Road, where it transitions to three lanes. East of Morning Drive, the road exists as a two‐lane highway with paved shoulders. Construction of a new interchange at Fairfax Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.4-3 Road is currently underway. Other improvements also include the widening of State Route 178 to a four‐lane freeway in the area where the new interchange is being constructed. SR‐178 currently continues easterly of Vineland Road as a designated east‐west arterial as a two (2) lane, undivided roadway from Vineland Road to east of Rancheria Road. SR‐178 also is designated to be re‐aligned as a future freeway from Vineland Road to Rancheria Road. This future alignment will connect with Rancheria Road and continue northerly. Subsequent to this proposed realignment of SR‐178 as a designated freeway, the existing alignment of SR‐178 east of Vineland Road will remain as a designated arterial roadway and be relinquished to the City of Bakersfield. Flower Street Flower Street is a designated east‐west collector that currently exists as a four (4) lane, undivided roadway from Alta Vista Drive to Mount Vernon Avenue. College Avenue College Avenue is designated as a collector and extends east from Mt Vernon Avenue to east of Fairfax Road. The roadway generally provides access from residential and commercial land uses to north‐south arterials. The installation of new traffic signals at College Avenue and Morning Drive is included in the RTIF. Niles Street/Kern Canyon Road/SR-184 Niles Street is a designated east‐west arterial which extends from Union Avenue to Morning Drive. The road generally provides access from residential and commercial land uses within east Bakersfield to north‐south arterials and State Route 178. State Route 184 is a two‐lane, north‐south State highway that generally trends southwest from State Route 178 at Masterson Street. The roadway merges with the Morning Drive alignment and then extends south as Weedpatch Highway to Bear Mountain Boulevard (State Route 223). The roadway provides access east‐west arterials in the eastern portion of metropolitan Bakersfield, as well as to State Route 178. The widening of several segments along State Route 184 between Panama Lane and State Route 178, as well as the signalization of State Route 184 and State Route 58, are included in the RTIF. Columbus Street Columbus Street is a designated east‐west arterial that currently exists as a four (4) lane, divided roadway from Union Avenue to Panorama Drive. Pioneer Avenue Pioneer Avenue is a designated east‐west collector that currently exists as a two (2) lane, undivided roadway from Oswell Street to Vineland Road. Breckenridge Road Breckenridge Road is a designated east‐west collector that currently exists as a two (2) lane, undivided roadway from Morning Drive to Vineland Road. Breckenridge Road continues Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.4-4 easterly of Vineland Road as a designated arterial from Vineland Road to Comanche Drive with an existing two (2) lane, undivided roadway. Edison Highway Edison Highway is a designated east‐west arterial that currently exists in various stages of widening with a four (4) lane, divided roadway from west of Fairfax Road to Morning Drive. Edison Highway continues from Morning Drive to the east of Edison Road as a two (2) lane, undivided roadway. Union Avenue Union Avenue is a designated north‐south arterial that currently exists as a six (6) lane, divided roadway from Stockdale Highway to Columbus Avenue. Beale Avenue Beale Avenue is a designated north‐south arterial that currently exists as a four (4) lane, divided roadway to the north of SR‐178 Westbound Off‐Ramp to the south of Flower Street. Mount Vernon Avenue Mount Vernon Avenue is a designated north‐south arterial that currently exists as a four (4) lane, divided roadway from Panorama Drive to the south of Niles Street. Oswell Street Oswell Street is a designated north‐south arterial that currently exists in various stages of widening as a four (4) lane, divided roadway from Columbus Street to Auburn Street. Oswell Street continues from Auburn Street to Bernard Street as a six (6) lane, divided roadway, and it continues from Bernard Street to the south of Edison Highway as a four (4) lane, divided roadway. Fairfax Road Fairfax Road is a designated north‐south arterial that provides a connection between northeast and southeast Bakersfield. The road is varied in width from south of State Route 178 to Alfred Harrell Highway, where it terminates. From Fairfax Road, access is provided to State Routes 178 and 58, east Bakersfield, and the City of Lamont to the south. The widening of Fairfax Road to four lanes north of Paladino Drive is included in the RTIF, as well as the signalization of the intersection of Fairfax Road and Paladino Drive. The expansion of the intersection of Fairfax Road with Alfred Harrell Highway is also included in the RTIF. Morning Drive/SR-184 Morning Drive/SR‐184 is a designated north‐south arterial that currently exists in various stages of widening as a two (2) lane, undivided roadway from Paladino Drive to SR‐178. Morning Drive currently exists as a two (2) lane, divided roadway from College Avenue to Breckenridge Road. SR‐184 changes its alignment at Kern Canyon Road/Niles Street and continues southerly along Morning Drive’s alignment. Morning Drive/SR‐184 continues as an existing two (2) lane, undivided roadway from Breckenridge Road to Edison Highway. Morning Drive/SR‐184 exists as a four (4) lane, divided roadway from Edison Highway to south of Brundage Lane. In the Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.4-5 future, Morning Drive will be extended from Paladino Drive to Alfred Harrell Highway and also extended from College Avenue to SR‐178. Morning Drive is designated as a north‐south arterial which extends south of College Avenue and north from State Route 178 to Paladino Drive. The roadway generally provides access to residential land uses. The extension of Morning Drive from College Avenue to State Route 178 and from Paladino Drive to Alfred Harrell Highway is planned for in the General Plan. In addition, the widening and extension of various segments of Morning Drive is planned for in the RTIF. Signalization of the intersection of Morning Drive with Auburn Street and Paladino Drive is also anticipated in the RTIF, as well as the construction of interchanges to provide access to State Route 178 and Alfred Harrell Highway. State Route 184 is constructed as a two‐lane highway generally trending north‐south. From State Route 178, the roadway extends to the southwest from Masterson Street, merges with the Morning Drive alignment, then continues south as Weedpatch Highway to Bear Mountain Boulevard (State Route 223). The road provides access to State Route 178, as well as east‐west arterials in eastern metropolitan Bakersfield. The widening of various segments of State Route 184 from Panama Lane to State Route 178 is included in the RTIF. The signalization of the intersection of State Route 184 and State Route 58 is also planned as part of the RTIF. Masterson Street/Kern Canyon Road/SR-184/Edison Road Masterson Street is designated as an arterial and currently exists as a two‐lane roadway with graded shoulders. Masterson Street generally provides access from State Route 178 to residential land use areas. An extension of Masterson Street is planned to intersect Alfred Harrell Highway at Lake Ming Road. The RTIF includes the widening of Masterson Street to four lanes from State Route 178 to its current northerly terminus is included in the RTIF. In addition, the extension of Masterson Street to Alfred Harrell Highway as a four‐lane roadway, as well as the signalization of the intersections of Masterson Street with State Route 178, Paladino Drive and Alfred Harrell Highway, are also included in the RTIF. State Route 184 is constructed as a two‐lane highway generally trending north‐south. From State Route 178, the roadway extends to the southwest from Masterson Street, merges with the Morning Drive alignment, then continues south as Weedpatch Highway to Bear Mountain Boulevard (State Route 223). The road provides access to State Route 178, as well as east‐west arterials in eastern metropolitan Bakersfield. The widening of various segments of State Route 184 from Panama Lane to State Route 178 is included in the RTIF. The signalization of the intersection of State Route 184 and State Route 58 is also planned as part of the RTIF. Miramonte Drive Miramonte Drive is a designated north‐south collector collector that currently exists as a two (2) lane, undivided roadway to the north and south of SR‐178. 5.4.1.2 Area Transit A variety of public transportation options exist in Bakersfield, including local buses, intercity buses, Amtrak and paratransit service. Golden Empire Transit (GET) operates the local bus service in the City of Bakersfield, which runs eighteen routes throughout the Metropolitan area. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.4-6 Service runs from 6:00 AM to 11:00 PM, and is free for children under the age of five. The GET runs in the vicinity of the area affected by the HD Zone and offers the potential to reduce localpurpose vehicle trips to and from the Project area and surrounding locations. In addition to GET, intercity bus operators include Greyhound, Orange Belt Stages, Airport Bus of Bakersfield, and Kern County. Kern County provides service between Bakersfield and rural communities, such as Lamont and the Kern River Valley, while the private carriers serve other major cities. Amtrak provides rail service to and from Bakersfield and the Central Valley cities to the north, and operated from its station located at Truxton Avenue and S Street. Paratransit providers include the taxicab system and various social service agencies providing specialized transportation to their clients. 5.4.1.3 Bikeways Following the energy crisis in the mid 1970’s, Kern County developed and adopted a regional Bikeway Master Plan. The Plan consisted of bike lanes on various streets, canals, along railroad right‐of‐ways, and along the Kern River. In 1984, this Plan was expanded to include more onstreet bike lanes and fewer paths along canals and railroad right‐of‐ways. The path along Kern River was retained as a major component of the Plan. Currently, over 30 miles of bike lanes exist in the City of Bakersfield, including Stockdale Highway to California State University at Bakersfield, Alfred Harrell Highway, and SR‐178. Additionally, the Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield identifies bike facilities within the Project area. Bicycle facilities within the City are classed as follows: • Bike Path (Class 1): A bike path is a completely separated right‐of‐way (ROW) for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, and minimizes cross flow. • Bike Lane (Class 2): A bike lane is a striped lane for one‐way bike travel on a street or highway. • Bike Route (Class 3): A bike route is a shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic. 5.4.1.4 Pedestrian Paths Walking can be a major mode of transportation for many people, and several locations in the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area have high levels of pedestrian activity, including downtown Bakersfield and school vicinities. The primary components of the pedestrian circulation system are sidewalks and crosswalks. In older neighborhoods with no sidewalks, pedestrians must walk in the street, and many older neighborhoods lack wheelchair access. Current conditions supporting pedestrian activity within the HD Zone may vary, due to the scope of the Project and the character of the affected lands. The Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield provides a plan for a multi‐use trail system with Northeast Bakersfield including the Project area. 5.4.1.5 Existing Operating Conditions As stated previously, the street system in the City of Bakersfield has been developed in a grid pattern, with arterials generally spaced at one‐mile intervals. Collector streets are spaced at half Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.4-7 mile intervals between arterials, also in a grid pattern. Typically, motorists use these collectors for through travel, avoiding parallel arterials. However, to discourage this practice, collectors in newer areas are aligned in irregular patterns. As a result, discontinuity and disruption of the grid system has led to overburdened portions of the system. Located within the northeast portion of the City of Bakersfield is a limited freeway system. State Route 99 (SR‐99), with four to six travel lanes, is the only existing north‐south freeway. SR‐99 is identified as a major Central Valley connector in California and carries large numbers of vehicles in addition to local Bakersfield traffic. Linking SR‐99 to the cities east of Bakersfield is State Route 58 (SR‐58). This route carries much less traffic than SR‐99. State Route 178 (SR‐178) is also located in the area of the proposed Project and is one of the most highly traveled corridors within the Project vicinity. Congestion also occurs along various streets where they cross SR‐99, including California Avenue and Rosedale Highway. In addition, the General Plan recognizes that signalized intersections are the primary constraints to capacity on the arterials. Within the Northeast Quadrant, intersections are identified in the General Plan as experiencing congested conditions, including varied intersections along SR‐178 and SR‐99; refer to Figure III‐2, Existing (2000) Traffic Congestion Locations, of the General Plan. The following arterials with high traffic volumes have been identified in the areas surrounding the Project area1: • Fairfax Road: Alfred Harrell – Paladino.................. 2,300 • Fairfax Road: Paladino – Panorama ......................... 4,725 • Fairfax Road: Panorama – Auburn......................... 10,900 • Fairfax Road: Auburn – SR 178 ............................... 15,825 • Fairfax Road: SR 178 – College........................ ........ 14,975 • Fairfax Road: College – Niles .................................. 12,300 • Fairfax Road: Niles – Pioneer .................................. 12,500 • Morning Drive: Paladino – SR 178 ........................... 1,970 • Morning Drive: College – Niles ................................ 1,550 • Morning Drive: Pioneer – Niles .............................. 12,200 • Alfred Harrell Highway: China Grade – Fairfax ... 3,000 • Alfred Harrell Highway: Fairfax – Hart Park......... 1,600 • Alfred Harrell Highway: Hart Park – Morning...... 1,100 • Panorama Drive: University – Fairfax ..................... 2,825 1 Traffic Study, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change – Morning Drive and Paladino Drive (The Canyons), Bakersfield, California, Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers, April 2007. Table 6, Roadway Capacity. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.4-8 • Panorama Drive: Fairfax – Morning......................... 2,800 • SR 178: Oswell – Fairfax........................................... 24,300 • SR 178: Fairfax – Morning.......................................... 9,200 • SR 178: Morning – Vineland............ .......................... 9,200 • SR 178: Masterson – Comanche ................................ 3,350 5.4.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY Level of service (LOS) is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection operation and is based on the capacity of the intersection and the volume of traffic using the intersection. The City of Bakersfield utilizes the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council’s Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM), intersection analysis methodology to analyze the operation of non‐signalized intersections. The 2000 HCM analysis methodology describes the operation of an intersection intersection using a range of LOS from LOS A (free‐flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions), based on the corresponding stopped delay experienced per vehicle for non‐signalized intersections shown in Table 5.4‐1, LOS CRITERIA – UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS. Table 5.4-1 LOS Criteria – Unsignalized Intersections LOS AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY (SECONDS/VEHICLE) EXPECTED DELAY TO MINOR STREET TRAFFIC A < 10 Little or no delay B > 10 and < 15 Short delays C > 15 and < 25 Average delays D > 25 and < 35 Long delays E > 35 and < 50 Very long delays F > 50 When volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered. This condition usually warrants improvement to the intersection. Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Operating conditions at intersections are assessed in terms of the level of service during a typical hour‐long period. Level of service is based on the average stopped delay per vehicle for all movements of all‐way stop‐controlled intersections; for one‐way or two‐way stop‐stop‐controlled intersections, LOS is based on the worst stop‐controlled movement. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis methodology describes the operation of a signalized intersection using a range from LOS A (free‐flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions), based on corresponding volume/capacity (V/C) ratios shown in Table 5.4‐2, LOS CRITERIA– SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS. LOS A represents free flow conditions; LOS D represents conditions where vehicles on some approaches may have to wait through more than one traffic signal cycle to pass through the intersection; LOS E represents the theoretical capacity of the intersection; and, LOS F represents jammed conditions. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.4-9 Table 5.4-2 LOS Criteria – Signalized Intersections LOS DESCRIPTION V/C RATIO A Free flow conditions, unimpeded ability to maneuver and pass, very little delay, no platoons, highest average travel speeds. < 0.60 B Mostly free flow conditions, presence of other vehicles begin to be noticeable. Passing is required to maintain speeds, slightly less average travel speeds than Level of Service “A’. 0.61 – 0.70 C Traffic density clearly affects the ability to pass and maneuver within the stream. Speeds are reduced to about 50 mph on highways and about 50% of the average on urban arterials. 0.71 – 0.80 D Unstable flow. Speeds are reduced from 40% to 60% of normal. Passing demand is high although mostly impossible on 2‐lane highways. Traffic disruptions usually cause extensive queues. 0.81 – 0.90 E Very unstable flow at or near capacity. Passing and maneuvering virtually impossible. Extensive platooning on highways and queuing on arterials. Speeds range from 20 mph to less on arterials and 2 lane highways, and up to 50 mph on multi‐lane highways. 0.91 – 1.00 F Forced or breakdown flow. Demand exceeds capacity. Vehicles experience short spurts of movement followed by stoppages. Intersection congestion, long queues and delays are common. > 1.00 Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. 5.4.2.1 Roadway Analysis Methodology A V/C of greater than 0.80 corresponds to an LOS D, E, or F, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual. The operational goal for roadway capacity is LOS C or better for both the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern for intersection and roadways. 5.4.2.2 Intersection and Roadway Segment Performance Criteria The City of Bakersfield performance criterion for intersections and roadway segments is LOS C. If the existing operational LOS of a facility is worse than LOS C prior to the addition of Project and cumulative traffic, the City’s performance criterion is to restore the intersection or roadway segment to its existing operational LOS or better. Please refer to Tables 4.3‐3 through 4.3‐6 in the General Plan Update EIR, which provide a Year 2000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes and Capacity Analysis for freeways, highway/expressways, arterial streets, and collectors. 5.4.3 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE PROGRAM Following adoption of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and the subsequent General Plan Update, the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern determined that future transportation needs of the area within the Plan boundaries required a regional transportation system designed to support buildout through the year 2010 for the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Land Use Element. It was noted that the objective of the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan was to accommodate the level and type of planned land use Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.4-10 development while maintaining LOS “C” conditions with respect to the operation of the road and transportation system throughout the metropolitan area and, where existing LOS was below C, to prevent further degradation of the existing LOS. The Circulation Element in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and General Plan Update provided that the City and County adopt measures such as a Transportation Impact Fee Program and to specify an area‐wide impact fee schedule and how fees will be used to accommodate new growth and development by having new development pay or participate in its pro‐rata share of the costs of regional transportation facilities necessary for this growth. The original impetus for this Transportation Impact Fee Program is the Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan. Circulation Policy Statement No. 39 contained in the Plan states the following: “Require new development and expansion of existing development to pay or participate in its pro‐rata share of the costs of expansions in area‐wide transportation facilities and services which it necessitates.” The Transportation Impact Fee pays for the construction of both regional and local facilities that are required to maintain a LOS C for the Metropolitan Bakersfield transportation system, based upon a growth in new development of approximately 3% over the next 20 years. This Transportation Impact Fee Program covers only those facilities required by new development, as allowed by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan in effect on December 4, 1997. The Transportation Impact Fee Facilities List contains items such as the construction or expansion of bridges and culverts, grade separations, railroad crossings, traffic signals, and roadwork. The roads contained in the facilities list are mainly arterials, and only those lanes that are required to be built to maintain the LOC C are listed. The fee program usually builds only the inner travel lanes and the median curb; the developer of the adjacent land constructs the outside lane, parking lane, and the remainder of the median. In April 1992, the County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance establishing transportation impact fees for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Area. In the implementation of this ordinance, several areas of concern were identified, including application of fees directed to regional demands rather than local needs, and a program that provided funds to only partially mitigate highway impacts. In order to implement this program as envisioned by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan policies, and to adequately address the needs of the community and development interests, revisions to the program were undertaken. A Regional Facilities List and Fee Schedule were prepared through the use of the Kern COG transportation model, analysis of potential demands on roads in the metropolitan area, and identifying demonstrated deficiencies resulting from construction and development to the target year of 2020. (Actual buildout based on land use designations would be several additional years into the future, for which the projected numbers could not be reasonably expected to be accurate.) These deficiencies resulted in the preparation of the amended Regional Facilities List. On December 4, 1996, the Bakersfield City Council adopted an ordinance amending Chapter 15.84 of the Municipal Code relating to a transportation impact fee on new development. The 5 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update .4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.4-11 County Board of Supervisors likewise adopted Kern County Ordinance 17.60 for the same purpose. The ordinance provides for annually updating a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) containing a “Regional Transportation Facilities List.” Chapter 15.84.070.C states: “Each fiscal year, the administrator shall present to the City Council a proposed update to the capital improvement plan for road construction Projects as set forth in Section 15.84.030.C. Such plan shall indicate the approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all improvements to be financed with transportation impact fees. Such plan shall be updated by the City Council at a noticed public hearing as required by Government Code Section 66002.” The ordinance also provides for annual adoption of the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule based upon the facilities list. On December 4, 1996, the City Council also adopted the 1996‐2015 Capital Improvement Plan and Fee Schedule. Any proposed amendments to the General Plan are also addressed by the ordinance. Chapter 15.040.D states: “In the event of development that necessitates a General Plan Amendment, the transportation impact fee shall be determined independently of the fee schedule adopted by resolution and shall be based on the actual impacts of said development. The independent study shall measure the impact of the development in question on the road system by following the prescribed methodologies and formats for the study established by the administrator.” The administrator, as defined in the ordinance, is the Public Works Director, or designee. The formats and methodologies consist of the preparation of a regional traffic impact study to assess impacts upon the circulation system, including those provided for in the Regional Transportation Facilities List. The said study makes recommendations for required mitigation, including the appropriate development’s share in the facilities list, as well as the need for additional mitigation measures. 5.4.4 REGULATORY SETTING Traffic analysis in the State of California is guided by policies and standards set at the state level by Caltrans and local jurisdictions. All future development within the HD Zone would be subject to the City of Bakersfield transportation policies. Local transportation policies that may apply to the proposed Project or future development within the HD Zone are discussed within the General Plan. The goals and policies that apply to transportation are discussed below in Table 5.4‐3, CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS WITH METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES FOR TRAFFIC CIRCULATION. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR Table 5.4-3 Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Traffic Circulation GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Circulation/Streets Element Goals Circulation/Streets Goal #1: “Provide a safe and efficient street system that links all parts of the area for movement of people and goods.” The Amended HD Ordinance would act as an overlay zone and would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. As such, no circulation improvements would be required to support new development, or to ensure establishment of a safe and efficient street system that would provide for the movement of people and goods. Circulation/Streets Goal #6: “Provide a local street network that contributes to the quality and safety of residential neighborhoods and commercial districts.” The Amended HD Ordinance would act as an overlay zone and would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. As such, no circulation improvements would be required to support new development, or to ensure the quality or safety of the local street network. Circulation/Streets Goal #7: “Develop and maintain a circulation system that supports the land use plan shown in the General Plan.” The Amended HD Ordinance would act as an overlay zone and would not change the existing underlying General Plan land use designations or zoning on lands within the area affected by the Project. The Project would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone, and therefore, no roadway improvements would be required to support new land uses or vehicular circulation. Circulation/Streets Element Policies Circulation/Streets Policy #6: “Design and locate site access driveways to minimize traffic disruption where possible considering items such as topography, past parcelization and other factors.” The Amended HD Ordinance would act as an overlay zone and would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. The Ordinance includes design measures to provide proper emergency access with regard to driveways, fire apparatus access roads, and emergency secondary access to ensure that adequate circulation is achieved within the HD Zone with future development and to minimize the potential for traffic flows to be disrupted in an emergency situation Measures are also provided to limit the maximum grade of streets, public or private, for purposes of access. Circulation/Streets Policy #10: “Design local streets to conform to topography. Allow for deviation from “grid” system on local streets when they do not interfere with other traffic policies and traffic flows.” Future roadway extensions and improvements shall be implemented in accordance with Municipal Code requirements. City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.4-12 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance d Circulation Dra Update ft EIR Table 5.4-3, Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Traffic Circulation, continued City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.4-13 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Circulation/Streets Policy #18: “Provide and maintain landscaping on both sides and in the median of arterial streets within incorporated areas. In unincorporated areas, landscaping within road right‐of‐way may be allowed and shall be limited to low shrubs; blank irrigation conduit only will be provided within the median of arterial streets.” The Amended HD Ordinance would act as an overlay zone and would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. As such, no landscaping improvements would occur with Project implementation. However, the Amended HD Ordinance does include design measures to address future landscaping and irrigation requirements for areas to within the HD Zone to be maintained by the City. City. Circulation/Streets Policy #19: “Provide and maintain landscaping on both sides of collector streets. In unincorporated areas, landscaping within road right‐of‐way may be allowed and shall be limited to low shrubs.” The Amended HD Ordinance would act as an overlay zone and would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. As such, no landscaping improvements would occur with Project implementation. However, the Amended HD Ordinance does include design measures to address future landscaping and irrigation requirements for areas to within the HD Zone to be maintained by the City. 5.4 Traffic an Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR 5.4.5 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Environmental Checklist form. The Environmental Checklist form includes questions relating to traffic and circulation. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this Section. Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental impact if it would: • Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., substantially increase the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections); • Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, an LOS standard established by the CMP agency for designated roads or highways; • 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; • Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); • Result in inadequate emergency access; • Result in inadequate parking capacity; or, • Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts and bicycle racks). 5.4.6 IMPACTS Traffic Generation 5.4‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not 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). Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in the construction of residential units or other uses that would generate vehicle trips or contribute traffic to the existing roadway system. An analysis of the existing roadway system and the anticipated effects of buildout of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area as described in the General Plan is provided in Section 4.3, Traffic/Circulation, of the General Plan Update EIR. It should be noted that the Amended HD Ordinance would reduce the overall number of homes potentially constructed within the northeastern portion of the City by an estimated 3,199 units, due to site design restrictions. This would consequently result in a decrease in potential traffic volumes contributed to the roadway system in this portion of the City, as compared to that City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.4-14 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR which would result from development anticipated by the General Plan. As it is anticipated that construction of these units could be absorbed and constructed on available lands zoned for residential use within the northeastern area, these vehicle trips would still be generated within the general area as originally anticipated, rather than being transferred to roadways located in other areas of the City. Nothing in the scope of the Amended HD Ordinance would cause an increase in traffic within the northeastern portion of the City, because the Amended HD Ordinance is an overlay zone that would not change the existing General Plan designations or zoning, and because the purpose of the Amended HD Ordinance is to regulate development to reduce potential impacts within the City’s hillside areas. As such, the proposed Project would not result in a significant increase in traffic on the existing roadway system. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Level of Service Standards 5.4‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Significance: Less than Significant. Impact Analysis: Refer to Impact 5.4‐1, above. The Amended HD Ordinance would not cause an increase in traffic, either individually or cumulatively, as the Ordinance is intended to regulate future development within the City’s hillside areas. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would result in an overall reduction in the potential number of residential units that could be developed within the HD Zone; however, it is anticipated that these units would be absorbed on other available properties in the Northeast Quadrant zoned for residential construction, and therefore, would not result in the displacement of vehicle trips to other areas of the City. A such, the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the development of land uses that would generate traffic. Therefore, the Project would not generate vehicle trips that would exceed, either individually or cumulatively, an established level of service standard for any designated roads or highways. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Design Hazards 5.4‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.4-15 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Impacts relative to traffic hazards and emergency access could occur when changes to the existing circulation system such as road closures or improvements limit the sight of drivers. However, the Amended HD Ordinance is a land regulation tool which does not propose infrastructure or circulation improvements. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance provides design measures intended to increase roadway and driveway safety. Section 17.66.030, Maximum Grade of Access, of the Municipal Code states the “maximum grade of streets, public or private, and other access easements shall be determined in accordance with ‘A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,’ American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 1990, for design of maximum grades for arterials, collectors, and local streets” (Ord. 4391 §1 (Exh. A (part)), 2006). The Amended HD Ordinance also provides design measures for driveway requirements, requiring driveways to be a minimum 12 feet in width, with unobstructed height clearance of thirteen feet six inches, to allow for adequate emergency vehicle access. Turnarounds and/or turnouts are also required, as applicable, by the Amended HD Ordinance on driveways exceeding 150 feet in length to provide safe access and maneuvering on private ownerships with the HD Zone. In addition, the provision of emergency secondary access may be required when determined necessary by the Fire Chief. The Amended HD Ordinance also encourages grading that reflects the natural topography of the site, thereby reducing the potential for future road or driveway designs that would go against the natural slope or create unsafe or steep slope conditions. The design measures provided by the Amended HD Ordinance would provide additional safety measures to reduce the potential for an increase in hazards to occur due to a design feature. Nothing in the scope scope of the Amended HD Ordinance would cause an increase in traffic hazards, as no physical development is proposed and the Ordinance is intended to regulate future development within the HD Zone in order to reduce environmental impacts within the hillside areas. A reduction in the potential overall number of expected people ultimately living within the area affected by the proposed Project may occur due to proposed site design restrictions, thereby reducing the density and intensity of future land use and the resulting number of vehicle trips generated by future development within the HD Zone, and in turn, reducing overall potential congestion along area roadways. Impacts are therefore considered to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Emergency Access 5.4‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in inadequate emergency access. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.4-16 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR Impact Analysis: The City of Bakersfield Fire Department reviews all proposed development projects within the City for emergency access issues. In the event an issue is identified by the Fire Department, land development projects must comply with the requirements of the Fire Department in order to be approved. The City of Bakersfield Fire Department has stated that it can adequately provide service to the Project area from Fire Station 10, located at 12100 Alfred Harrell Highway. A future fire station (Fire Station 12) will be also constructed on Paladino when funding becomes available. The Fire Department states that it continually works with developers through Community Facility Districts (CFDs) to help fund the construction and staffing of additional fire stations required to address increased service levels. The Police Department has indicated current staffing levels are below their staffing goal of 1.3 officers per 1,000 residents; however, the Department has stated there are no foreseeable needs for physical additions to the Main Station at this time. Due to the location of the HD Zone within the northeastern portion of the City where development continues to occur, a satellite station in conjunction with a fire station could potentially expedite police and/or fire services.2 Refer also to Section 5.9, Public Services and Utilities, for additional information regarding provision of emergency services. Both fire and police protection services can be effectively provided to the area affected by the HD Zone. No physical development would result with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance. As such, the proposed Project would not increase the likelihood of having inadequate emergency access, as the purpose of the Ordinance is to regulate future development to reduce environmental impacts on the City’s hillside areas. The Amended HD Ordinance includes requirements for provision of emergency access for all future development within the HD Zone, when required by the fire chief. The Amended HD Ordinance requires that all roads subject to fire department apparatus shall have a minimum width of 20 feet and a minimum height clearance of 13 feet, six inches. Dead‐end roads in excess of 150 feet in length would be required to provide a turnaround, as approved by the fire chief, to ensure that adequate emergency access is available. Emergency secondary access would be required, when determined appropriate by the fire chief; refer also to Section 17.66.080 of the Municipal Code for additional discussion. As no physical development would directly result from implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access within the HD Zone. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Parking Capacity 5.4‐5 Implementation of of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in inadequate parking capacity. 5.4-17 2 Letter from the City of Bakersfield Police Department, received August 2008. City of Bakersfield December 2008 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical construction within the HD Zone. Therefore, no land uses (i.e., residential units, commercial uses, etc.) would be constructed that would generate the need for parking. As such, impacts resulting from implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Alternative Transportation 5.4‐6 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation because the purpose of the document is to regulate development in order to reduce environmental impacts in the City’s hillside areas. No physical development would result from the project, and, therefore, the Project would not affect existing or planned alternative transportation facilities. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.4.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.4‐7 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, combined with cumulative project development, would not cause a significant increase in traffic when compared to the traffic capacity of the street system and would not exceed an established LOS standard. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: As previously stated, nothing in the scope of the Amended HD Ordinance would result in an increase in traffic within the area affected by the proposed Project, because the Amended HD Ordinance is an overlay zone which would not change the existing General Plan designations or zoning, and because the purpose of the Amended HD Ordinance is to regulate future development within the City’s hillsides. In addition, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would result in an overall reduction of the potential number of units that could be constructed within the HD Zone by an estimated 3,199 units, thereby reducing the number of future vehicle trips that would potentially be contributed to the roadway system in the Project area. As such, the Project would contribute fewer vehicle trips to the circulation system, thereby reducing the potential for future development within the HD Zone to contribute to significant cumulative traffic or circulation impacts. Impacts to the circulation City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.4-18 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR system would be consistent with that assumed with buildout of the General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. As the proposed Project would not result in the physical development of structures that would generate vehicle trips within the Project area, implementation of the proposed Project is not anticipated to cause a significant increase in traffic when compared to the traffic capacity of the street system, or to exceed established LOS standards when combined with traffic from future development within the northeastern portion of the City. Cumulative impacts would therefore be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.4.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Transportation and circulation impacts associated with implementation of the the Amended HD Ordinance would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.4-19 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.4 Traffic and Circulation Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.4-20 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.5-1 Section 5.5 Noise 5.5 NOISE The purpose of this Section is to analyze project‐related noise source impacts to onsite and surrounding land uses. This Section evaluates short‐term construction related impacts, as well as future buildout conditions. Information in this Section is based on information from the City of Bakersfield, Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update (General Plan), Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update, and City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. 5.5.1 NOISE SCALES AND DEFINITIONS Human response to sound is highly individualized. Annoyance is the most common issue regarding community noise. The percentage of people claiming to be annoyed by noise will generally increase with the environmental sound level. However, many factors will also influence people’s response to noise. The factors can include the character of the noise, the variability of the sound level, the presence of tones or impulses, and the time of day of the occurrence. Additionally, non‐acoustical factors, such as the person’s opinion of the noise source, the ability to adapt to the noise, the attitude towards the source and those associated with it, and the predictability of the noise, will all influence people’s response. As such, response to noise varies widely from one person to another and with any particular noise, individual responses will range from “not annoyed” to “highly annoyed.” Sound is described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequencydependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A‐weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of of the human ear. Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA higher than another is judged to be twice as loud, and 20 dBA higher four times as loud, and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Examples of various sound levels in different environments are shown in Figure 5.5‐1, SOUND LEVELS AND HUMAN RESPONSE. In general, a 3‐dBA change in sound pressure level is considered a “just detectable” difference in most situations. A 5‐dBA change is readily noticeable, and a 10‐dBA change is considered a doubling (or halving) of the subjective loudness. It should be noted that a 3‐dBA increase or decrease in the average traffic noise level is realized by a doubling or halving of the traffic volume, or by about a 7‐mile‐per‐hour (mph) increase or decrease in speed. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.5 Noise Draft EIR For each doubling of distance from a point noise source, the sound level decreases by 6 dBA. In other words, if a person is 100 feet from a machine, and moves to 200 feet from that source, the machine sound level will drop approximately 6 dBA. For each doubling of distance from a line source, like a roadway, noise levels are reduced by 3 to 5 decibels, depending on the ground cover between the source and the receiver. Many methods have been developed for evaluating community noise to account for, among other things: • The variation of noise levels over time; • The influence of periodic individual loud events; and, • The community response to changes in the community noise environment. Numerous methods have been developed to measure sound over a period of time; refer to Table 5.5‐1, NOISE DESCRIPTORS. Table 5.5-1 Noise Descriptors TERM DEFINITION Decibel (dB) The unit for measuring the volume of sound equal to 10 times the logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of the pressure of a measured sound to a reference pressure (20 micropascals). A‐Weighted Decibel (dBA) A sound measurement scale that adjusts the pressure of individual frequencies according to human sensitivities. The scale accounts for the fact that the region of highest sensitivity for the human ear is between 2,000 and 4,000 cycles per second (hertz). Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period. The Leq is the value that expresses the time averaged total energy of a fluctuating sound level. Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) The highest individual sound level (dBA) occurring over a given time period. Minimum Sound Level (Lmin) The lowest individual sound level (dBA) occurring over a given time period. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) A rating of community noise exposure to all sources of sound that differentiates between daytime, evening, and nighttime noise exposure. These adjustments are +5 dBA for the evening, 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M., and +10 dBA for the night, 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. Day/Night Average (Ldn) The Ldn is a measure of the 24‐hour average noise level at a given location. It was adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for developing criteria for the evaluation of community noise exposure. It is based on a measure of the average noise level over a given time period called the Leq. The Ldn is calculated by averaging the Leq’s for each hour of the day at a given location after penalizing the “sleeping hours” (defined as 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.), by 10 dBA to account for the increased sensitivity of people to noises that occur at night. Source: Cyril M. Harris, Handbook of Noise Control, 1979. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.5-2 9/25/08 JN 60-100489 NOT TO SCALE Sound Levels and Human Response City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance • Draft EIR Figure 5.5-1 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.5 Noise Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.5-4 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.5 Noise Draft EIR 5.5.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK As noted above, it is difficult to specify noise levels that are generally acceptable to everyone. What is annoying to one person may be unnoticed by another. Standards may be based on documented complaint activity in response to documented noise levels, or based on studies on the ability of people to sleep, talk, or work under various noise conditions. All such studies, however, recognize that individual responses vary considerably. Standards usually address the needs of the majority of the general population. This Section summarizes the laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards that are applicable to the proposed Project. Regulatory requirements related to environmental noise are typically promulgated at the local level. However, Federal and State agencies also provide standards and guidelines to the local jurisdictions. 5.5.2.1 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers guidelines for community noise exposure in the publication Noise Effects Handbook – A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. These guidelines consider occupational noise exposure as well as noise exposure in homes. The EPA recognizes an exterior noise level of 55 dB CNEL as a general goal to protect the public from hearing loss, activity interference, sleep disturbance, and annoyance. The EPA and other Federal agencies have adopted suggested land use compatibility guidelines that indicate that residential noise exposures of 55 to 65 dB CNEL are acceptable. The EPA notes, however, that these levels are not regulatory goals, but are levels defined by a negotiated scientific consensus, without concern for economic and technological feasibility or the needs and desires of any particular community. 5.5.2.2 State of California California Environmental Quality Act CEQA was enacted in 1970 and requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts. Under CEQA, a project has a potentially significant noise impact if the project exposes people to noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. Additionally, under CEQA, a project would have a potentially significant noise impact if the project creates a substantial increase in the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. If a project has a potentially significant impact, mitigation measures must be considered. If mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than significant are not feasible due to economic, social, environmental, legal, or other conditions, the most feasible mitigation measures must be considered. California Government Code California Government Code Section 65302 (f) mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of their comprehensive general plan. The local noise City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.5-5 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.5 Noise Draft EIR element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services as shown in Table 5.5‐2, CALIFORNIA LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS. Table 5.5-2 California Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (LDN OR CNEL, DBA) LAND USE CATEGORY NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE Residential ‐Low Density, Single‐Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes 50 – 60 55 ‐70 70‐75 75‐85 Residential ‐Multiple Family 50 – 65 60 ‐70 70 – 75 70 ‐85 Transient Lodging ‐Motel, Hotels 50 – 65 60 ‐70 70 – 80 80 ‐85 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 – 70 60 ‐70 70 – 80 80 ‐85 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50 ‐70 NA 65 ‐85 Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50 ‐75 NA 70 ‐85 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 – 70 NA 67.5 – 75 72.5 ‐85 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50 – 70 NA 70 – 80 80 ‐85 Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional 50 – 70 67.5 ‐77.5 75 – 85 NA Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 – 75 70 ‐80 75 – 85 NA NA: Not Applicable Normally Acceptable ‐Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable ‐New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable ‐New Construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the the design. Clearly Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: General Plan Guidelines, Office of Planning and Research, California, October 2003. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.5-6 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.5 Noise Draft EIR The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable” and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types. Single‐family homes are “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Multiple‐family residential uses are “normally acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries and churches are “normally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial and professional uses. 5.5.2.3 Local Jurisdiction City of Bakersfield General Plan Local agencies, such as the City of Bakersfield, may regulate most noise level sources not regulated by the Federal government by providing standards for insulation of noise receivers, either within the structure or by placement of noise barriers, such as walls. Furthermore, a local agency may adopt land use use decisions or project‐related conditions that may reduce noise impacts by separating noise generators from noise sensitive uses. Applicable standards for noise levels that apply to the Project are those within the General Plan and the Municipal Code. Mobile noise sources (e.g., traffic and railway noise), the Noise Element of the General Plan sets a standard of 65 dB CNEL at the exterior of noise‐sensitive uses (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals, and recreation areas). For non‐transportation noise sources (e.g., commercial properties), the Noise Element applies hourly noise levels performance standards at residential and other noise‐sensitive uses. Table 5.5‐3, HOURLY NOISE LEVEL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS – METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN, lists the hourly standards applied to any hour the noise source is operating, and are 5 dBA more restrictive during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Table 5.5-3 Hourly Noise Level Performance Standards – Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE NOISE LEVEL, DBA MIN./HR. (LN) DAY (7:00 AM – 10:00 PM) NIGHT (10:00 PM – 7:00 AM) 30 (L50) 55 50 15 (L25) 60 55 5 (L8.3) 65 60 1 (L1.7) 70 65 0 (Lmax) 75 70 Note: Ln means the percentage of time the noise level is exceeded during an hour. L50 means the level was exceeded 50% of the hour; L25 is the level was exceeded 25% of the hour, etc. Source: Brown‐Buntin Associates, Inc., October 3, 2005. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.5-7 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.5 Noise Draft EIR Table 5.5‐4, CHANGES IN NOISE EXPOSURE, generally applies to transportation noise that is expressed in terms of average noise exposure during a 24‐hour period, such as the Day/Night Average Level (Ldn) or the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Changes in noise levels that exceed those in Table 5.5‐4, CHANGES IN NOISE EXPOSURE, are considered to be substantial and therefore constitute a significant impact. Table 5.5-4 Changes in Noise Exposure AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL WITHOUT PROJECT (LDN OR CNEL) SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ASSUMED TO OCCUR IF PROJECT INCREASES AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL BY: < 60 dB + 5.0 dB or more 60 – 65 dB + 3.0 dB or more > 65 dB + 1.5 dB or more Source: City of Bakersfield. The General Plan also provides goals, policies, and implementation measures in order to reduce noise impacts. Applicable goals relative to the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance include the following: • Ensure that residents of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area are protected from excessive noise and existing moderate levels of noise are maintained. • Protect the citizens of the Planning area from the harmful effects of exposure to excessive noise, and protect the economic base of the area by preventing the encroachment of incompatible land uses near known noise‐producing roadways, industries, railroads, airports and other sources. Section VII, Noise Element, of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan identifies the following noise policies: It is the policy of the City to: • Identify noise‐impact areas exposed to existing or projected noise levels exceeding 65 dB CNEL (exterior) or the performance standards described in Table VII‐2 (contained within Table VII‐2 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan). The noise exposure contour maps on file at the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern indicate areas where existing and projected noise exposures exceed 65 dB CNEL (exterior) for the major noise sources identified. • Prohibit new noise‐sensitive land uses in noise‐impacted areas unless effective mitigation measures are incorporated into project design to reduce noise to acceptable levels. • Review discretionary industrial, commercial or other noise‐generating land use projects for compatibility with nearby noise sensitive land uses. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.5-8 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.5 Noise Draft EIR • Additionally, the development of new noise‐generating land uses which are not preempted from local noise regulation will be reviewed if resulting noise levels will exceed the performance standards (contained within Table VII‐2 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan) in areas containing residential or other noise‐sensitive land uses. • Encourage vegetation and landscaping along roadways and adjacent to other noise sources in order to increase absorption of noise. • Encourage interjurisdictional coordination and cooperation with regard to noise impact issues. • Establish threshold standards for the determination of the existence of cumulative noise impacts that are significant, and will therefore require mitigation to achieve acceptable noise standards that do not exceed the standards contained in the Noise Element. Municipal Code Often communities will implement noise ordinances or standards for noise abatement and attenuation, in order to reduce potential health hazards associated with high noise levels. Noise ordinances are typically directed at controlling noise from stationary sources and its intrusion onto adjacent properties. It should be noted that Federal and State laws regulate noise from transportation sources on a CNEL basis. Refer also to Table 5.5‐2, CALIFORNIA LAND USE COMPATIBILITY NOISE FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS. In addition to the General Plan standards provided above, the Municipal Code provides additional standards for construction. Section 9.22.050, Noise During Construction, of the Municipal Code states the following: (a) Except as provided herein or in subsection B, C or D of this section, it is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, demolish, alter or repair any building, or to grade or excavate land, streets or highways, other than between the hours of 6:00 AM and 9:00 PM on weekdays, and between 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM on weekends; provided, however, that City crews and those of the City’s contractors performing street work between 9:00 PM and 6:00 AM are exempt herefrom if the City engineer has directed that work be performed between such hours to alleviate potential traffic congestion. (b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, if the City Manager determines that the public health and safety will not be impaired by the erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or the excavating and grading of land, streets or highways between the hours of 9:00 PM and 6:00 AM, and if he or she further determines that loss or inconvenience would result to any party in interest by virtue of the requirements provided in subsection A of this section, he or she may grant a permit for such work to be done between the hours of 9:00 PM and 6:00 AM, upon application being made at the time the permit for the City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.5-9 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.5 Noise Draft EIR work is awarded or during the progress of the work. Such permit may be granted for a period not to exceed three days, and may be extended by the City manager for a period not to exceed three days. (c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any work of construction performed one thousand feet or more from the nearest residential dwelling. (d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to performance of emergency work as defined in this chapter (ORoad 3924 §3 (part), 1999). 5.5.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.5.3.1 Sensitive Receptors Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise, including schools, hospitals, rest homes, long‐term medical and mental care facilities, and parks and recreation areas. Residential areas are also considered noise sensitive, especially during the nighttime hours. Sensitive receptors within the Project vicinity are primarily residential homes. 5.5.3.2 Ambient Noise Measurements Ambient noise level is the sound pressure level at a given location. Existing ambient noise measurements are typically used as a reference point when analyzing a new intrusive sound source. Existing ambient noise levels for the City of Bakersfield have been included in the General Plan EIR. However, as future development within the HD Zone occurs over upcoming years, ambient noise levels within the proposed Project area would increase over time with the introduction of additional noise sources. As such, utilizing the existing ambient noise levels as a baseline for future development within the proposed Project area would result in an inaccurate depiction of existing ambient noise levels for future developments. In order to ensure that ambient noise levels for future developments within the HD Zone are accurate, each project would, on a case by case basis, be required to complete a noise analysis to accurately identify ambient noise levels at the time an application for development is submitted. 5.5.3.3 Mobile Noise Sources Mobile noise sources in the City of Bakersfield include roadways, railroad operations, and aircraft overflights. The noise associated with these sources may represent a short‐term or longterm/continuous noise occurrence and may have variable sound levels. 5.5.3.4 Stationary Noise Sources The primary sources of stationary noise in the Project vicinity are generated from residential activities (i.e., air conditioners). The noise associated with these sources may represent a singleevent noise occurrence, or short‐term or long‐term/continuous noise. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.5-10 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.5 Noise Draft EIR 5.5.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Environmental Checklist form. The Environmental Checklist form includes questions relating to noise. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this Section. Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental impact if it would: • Expose persons to, or generate, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; • Expose persons to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels; • Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • 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, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or, • For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. As stated above, a Project is considered to have a significant noise impact if it causes an adopted noise standard to be exceeded for the Project site or for adjacent sensitive receptors. The criteria used by the City of Bakersfield are indicated in Table 5.5‐3, HOURLY NOISE LEVEL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS – METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN and Table 5.5‐4, CHANGES IN NOISE EXPOSURE, and would be utilized to evaluate potential noise impacts resulting from future development within the HD Zone. 5.5.5 IMPACTS Construction-Related Noise 5.5‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in grading or construction within the Project area that would result in temporary noise and/or vibration impacts on nearby noise sensitive receptors. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The Project affects approximately 6,531 acres of the City’s hillsides. Construction activities generally have a short and temporary duration, lasting from a few days to a period of several months. Groundborne noise and other types of construction‐related noise City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.5-11 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.5 Noise Draft EIR impacts typically occur during the initial site preparation, which can create the highest levels of noise, but is also generally the shortest of all construction phases. High groundborne noise levels and other miscellaneous noise levels can be created by the operation of heavy‐duty trucks, backhoes, bulldozers, excavators, front‐end loaders, compactors, scrapers and other heavy‐duty construction equipment. Table 5.5‐5, TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS, indicates the typical equipment noise levels during construction. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Table 5.5-5 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels TYPE OF EQUIPMENT MAXIMUM LEVEL (DBA AT 50 FEET) Bulldozers 87 Heavy Trucks 88 Backhoe 85 Pneumatic Tools 85 Grader 87 dBA = A‐weighted decibel. Source: Cyril M. Harris, Handbook of Noise Control, 1979. Section 9.22.050 of the Municipal Code prohibits construction or repair work between the hours of 9:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. daily, except for weekends when the prohibition runs from 9:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M. Additionally, implementation of standard noise reduction measures (i.e., engine muffling, placement of construction equipment, and strategic stockpiling and staging of construction vehicles), combined with compliance with the Municipal Code and General Plan requirements, further reduce potentially significant noise levels resulting from construction. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the Project area. The Project would not result in an increase in noise levels, as compared to conditions that would occur with the original HD Ordinance. As such, impacts would be considered less than significant, as no noise‐generating sources or sensitive receptors would result with the Project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Traffic-Related Noise 5.5‐2 Traffic generated by implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not significantly contribute to the existing traffic noise levels within the City. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.5-12 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.5 Noise Draft EIR Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical construction within the HD Zone, as the Ordinance is intended to act as a document to guide future development within the City’s hillside areas. The Ordinance would not result in a change to the underlying General Plan land use or zoning designations, and therefore, the Project would not result in an increase in planned growth projections. It is anticipated that an overall reduction in the number of units that could potentially be built within the HD Zone would occur, due to increased site design restrictions. As such, the overall number of vehicle trips associated with such development would be reduced, along with the resultant noise potentially generated by these vehicle trips. Implementation of the proposed Project would therefore not significantly contribute to an increase in mobile source noise levels within the area. The General Plan Update EIR identifies a number of existing and future roadways within the Bakersfield area that would be significantly impacted by noise from future traffic volumes as buildout of the General Plan occurs. Future development would exacerbate this condition, and may expose additional sensitive land uses, primarily residential uses, to increased noise levels due to increases in traffic. The General Plan provides goals and policies to reduce the severity of such noise levels as buildout occurs. The General Plan Update EIR states that the goals, policies, and associated implementation measures given in the General Plan Update would not reduce potential noise levels to less than significant levels. Therefore, a significant and unavoidable noise impact would occur with buildout of the General Plan. However, as implementation of the proposed Project would not result in physical development that would generate traffic volumes, impacts resulting from traffic noise would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Onsite Noise 5.5‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in an increase in ambient noise levels due to the generation of onsite noise. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Noise typical of residential uses includes automobile traffic, as well as other noises such as children playing, pet noise, amplified music, car repair, pool and spa equipment, and home repair. Noise from residential stationary sources primarily occurs during the “daytime” activity hours of 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. The General Plan also states that exterior noise levels on residential property shall not exceed the basic noise standard of 45 dBA for interior noise and 65 dBA for exterior noise at the residential property line. As implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in physical development of residential or other uses within the HD Zone, no new stationary noise sources would be City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.5-13 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.5 Noise Draft EIR generated. The Amended HD Ordinance would not result in conditions that would increase noise levels over that which would result with the original HD Ordinance. As such, Project impacts would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.5.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.5‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, combined with cumulative projects, would not increase the ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to regulate future development to reduce impacts on the City’s hillside areas. As no development within the HD Zone would directly occur with implementation of the Ordinance, it is not anticipated that the Project would contribute to any short‐term construction or long‐term stationary noise impact on a cumulative basis. In this regard, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Nothing in the scope of the Amended HD Ordinance would cause an increase in traffic, which could lead to an increase in ambient noise levels. In addition, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would result in a reduction in the overall number of units that could potentially be constructed within the HD Zone, due to additional site design restrictions, thereby reducing project‐related traffic and resultant traffic noise along the City’s roadways. All future development within the cumulative study area would be subject to environmental and design review by the City to determine potential noise impacts and identify appropriate measures to reduce such impacts to less than significant, or to the extent possible. All such development would be subject to the goals and policies of the General Plan, mitigation given in the General Plan Update EIR, and Municipal Code standards aimed at the reduction of noise generation and potential impacts to existing ambient noise levels, as applicable. Appropriate mitigation measures and adherence to conditions of approval would be required to reduce the cumulative effects of noise to the extent possible. As no physical development that would generate noise would result from Project implementation, the Project is not considered to contribute to a cumulative increase in the ambient noise levels within the Project vicinity. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.5-14 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.5 Noise Draft EIR 5.5.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts associated with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would be reduced to less than significant with adherence to the City’s Municipal Code with regard to noise. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.5-15 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.5 Noise Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.5-16 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.6-1 Section 5.6 Air Quality 5.6 AIR QUALITY This Section provides an analysis of potential short‐term air quality impacts generated by construction activities, as well as long‐term local and regional air quality impacts associated with Project operation. Mitigation measures are recommended, if appropriate, to avoid or lessen the significance of impacts on air quality. Information in this Section is based primarily on the Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) prepared by Insight Environmental Consultants in October 2008; refer to Appendix 13.4 of this EIR. Refer also to Appendix 13.5, Analysis of Slope and Visual Resource Protection Area Potential Housing Yield, which was prepared by the City of Bakersfield to assess potential effects of the Amended HD Ordinance on the buildout potential of lands within the boundaries of the HD Zone. Additional data sources include the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), January 10, 2002 Revision, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 5.6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.6.1.1 Climate As noted previously, the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is located in the San Joaquin Valley portion of Kern County, which lies in the central region of the State of California. The Valley is generally bounded to the east by the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range; to the west by the Coastal Mountain Range; and, to the south by the Tehachapi Mountains. Average high temperatures during the summer months within the Project area can reach 100 degrees Fahrenheit (oF) with low relative humidity, but can drop dramatically as nightfall occurs, often dropping into the upper 60s. Average high temperatures in the winter months can reach into the mid‐50s, with average low temperatures dropping into the mid‐30s. 5.6.1.2 Wind Winds occurring in the Valley during the summer blow generally up‐valley in a northwesterly direction, direction, with predominant surface winds flowing out of the northwest from the Carquinez strait and toward the Tehachapi Mountains. In the fall months, nocturnal, down‐valley (southeasterly) winds occur and tend to become progressively more predominant as winter approaches. Wind speeds are generally highest during the spring and lightest in fall and winter. Within the San Joaquin Valley, weather patterns are strongly affected by the semi‐permanent subtropical high‐pressure cell, referred to as the ʺPacific High.ʺ The Pacific High generally diverts ocean‐derived storms to the north during the summer months, causing the Valley to experience little, if any, precipitation. However, during the winter months (December through Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR April), the Pacific High is positioned further to the south, allowing storms to occur which provide the majority of the annual rainfall within the area. During winter months, a second high‐pressure cell, the ʺGreat Basin High,ʺ develops to the east of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. This cell often results in the formation of a layer of cool, damp air that becomes trapped within the basin, causing extensive fog to occur. Such inversions can cause pollutant emissions to become trapped against the mountains beneath the inversion layer, causing a decline in regional air quality conditions. Inversions that are shallow and surface‐based are present on many mornings during the winter months within the Valley, but generally disperse after relatively short periods of time. Inversions that are elevated occur less frequently, but generally tend to last longer and cause a more severe stagnation of the air. Vertical mixing of the air is, therefore, poorest during the winter months. 5.6.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX office is responsible for regulatory oversight of the SJVAPCD at the Federal level. Similarly, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for such issues at the State level, while the SJVAPCD is responsible for such oversight at the regional level. The area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). 5.6.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) acts as the principal mechanism for regulating air quality, particularly the 1990 amendments to the CAA and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that the Act establishes. These standards identify levels of air quality for “criteria” pollutants, which are considered the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. The criteria pollutants are ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2, which is a form of nitrogen dioxides [NOX]), sulfur dioxide (SO2 is a form of sulfur oxides [SOX]), particulate matter less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively), and lead (Pb). Refer to Table 5.6‐1, FEDERAL AND CALIFORNIA STANDARDS ‐AMBIENT AIR QUALITY, for a summary of pollutants and their corresponding national and state ambient air quality standards. The EPA also has regulatory and enforcement jurisdiction over emission sources beyond State waters (outer continental shelf) and those that are under the exclusive authority of the Federal government, such as aircraft, locomotives, and interstate trucking. Based on monitoring data recorded throughout the United States, the U.S. EPA identifies air sheds that are achieving the NAAQS and designates them as being in attainment. Other regions may also be designated as non‐attainment or unclassified based on available data, and because they have levels above the NAAQS or have not been classified and are treated as attainment. Areas designated non‐attainment are further defined by classifications ranging from sub marginal to extreme. The year in which the attainment is reached determines the nonattainment classification, i.e., serious, severe, and extreme. Each specific classification has defined time periods for reaching attainment and various sanctions for failure to make progress. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.6-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR The area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance has been designated as unclassified/attainment for the NAAQS for CO, NOx, and SO2. The area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance has been designated as non‐attainment/serious for the O3 eight‐hour average standard and non‐attainment for the PM2.5 standard. A Federal designation for lead has not been made, and NAAQS do not exist for O3 (1‐hour average), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), sulfates, visibility reducing particles, or vinyl chloride. Table 5.6-1 Federal and California Standards – Ambient Air Quality1 CONCENTRATION STANDARDS POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME FEDERAL CALIFORNIA 8 Hour 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) 8 Hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) Carbon Monoxide 1 Hour 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) Annual Average 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) 0.030 ppm (56 μg/m3) Nitrogen Dioxide 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (338 μg/m3) Annual Average 0.03 ppm (80 μg/m3 ) 24 Hour 0.14 Sulfur Dioxide ppm (365 μg/m3) 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m3 Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 Hour 150 μg/m3 50 μg/m3 Annual Arithmetic Mean 15 μg/m3 12 μg/m3 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 Hour 35 μg/m3 Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3 Calendar Quarter 1.5 μg/m3 Lead 30 Day Average 1.5 μg/m3 Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) Vinyl Chloride (chloroethene) 24 Hour 0.010 ppm (26 μg/m3) Visibility Reducing particles 8 Hour (1000 to 1800 PST) (See Note 1) ppm = parts per million; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; μg/m 3= micrograms per cubic meter 1 Statewide VRP Standard (except Lake Tahoe Air Basin): Particles in sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. This standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10‐mile nominal visual range. 1 http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aqs.htm City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.6-3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR 5.6.2.2 California Air Resources Board The California Air Resources Board (CARB) represents a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). CARB is responsible for overseeing air quality planning and control on a State‐wide basis. The primary responsibility of CARB is the implementation of the 1989 amendments to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), responding to the Federal CAA requirements, and regulating emissions from motor vehicles sold in California and emissions from various types of equipment available commercially. CARB also establishes fuel specifications aimed at greater reduction of vehicular emissions. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established through amendments to the CCAA, with a legal mandate to achieve these standards by the earliest practicable date. These standards apply to the same criteria pollutants as are regulated by the Federal CAA, and also include sulfate, visibility, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. They are also more stringent than the Federal standards, and in the case of PM10, far more stringent. The Basin is designated as in nonattainment according to the State standards for Ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. Concentrations of all other pollutants meet State standards. In addition, the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act ([AB] 2588, 1987, Connelly) was enacted in 1987 to establish a formal air toxics emission inventory risk quantification program. Regulations pertaining to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are the responsibility of CARB. As amended, AB 2588 requires that stationary emission sources report the type and quantities of certain substances that their facilities routinely release into the Basin. AB 2588 is intended to result in the collection of emission data, identify facilities having localized impacts, ascertain health risks, notify nearby residents of significant risks, and reduce the potential health risk to below a level of significance. Owners of facilities found to pose significant risks by an air district must prepare and implement a risk reduction audit plan within six months of the determination. Each air pollution control district ranks the data into high, intermediate, and low priority categories. When considering the ranking, the potency, toxicity, quantity, volume, and proximity of the facility to receptors are given consideration by an air district. 5.6.2.3 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District The primary responsibility of air districts is to control air pollution from a variety of emission sources, including vehicular emissions. The SJVAPCD has implemented the Indirect Source Rule (ISR) 9510 which allows the District to assess fees based on mobile source emissions related to new development projects and to utilize a portion of the collected fees on air emission reduction projects. Air districts adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve State and Federal ambient air quality standards and enforce applicable State and Federal law. State law recognized that air pollution does not respect political boundaries and therefore required CARB to divide the State into separate air basins that each have similar geographical and meteorological conditions (California Health and Safety Code Section 39606 [a]). Originally, air pollution was regulated separately by county Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs). Although this is still the practice in most counties in California, many county agencies began to City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.6-4 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR realize that air quality problems are best managed on a regional basis and began to combine their regulatory agencies into regional agencies. This was the case for the Basin, where until 1991 each county operated a local APCD. At that time, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (currently named San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District) was formed. The Environmental Review Guidelines of the SJVAPCD state that CEQA applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The SJVAPCD prepared its Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) in August of 1988 to provide lead agencies, consultants, and project applicants with analysis guidance and uniform procedures for addressing air quality in environmental documents. As a guidance document, local jurisdictions are not required to utilize the methodology provided by the Guide. The document describes criteria used by the District when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of environmental documents. The Guide recommends thresholds for use in determining whether or not projects would have significant adverse environmental impacts, identifies methodologies for predicting project emissions and impacts, and identifies measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts. The GAMAQI was last updated in of January 10, 2002. In addition, the SJVAPCD has created an Integrated Air Toxic Program to meet the requirements of Federal and State law. This program serves as a tool for implementation of the requirements outlined in Title III of the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments. The goals of SJVAPCD risk management efforts are to: 1) minimize increases in toxic emissions associated with new and modified sources of air pollution; and 2) ensure that new and modified sources of air pollution do not pose unacceptable health risks at nearby residences and businesses. In order to achieve these goals, the SJVAPCD reviews the risk associated with each permitting action where there is an increase in emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants. SJVAPCD staff, as part of the engineering evaluation for these projects, performs this risk management review. The risk management review is performed concurrently with other project review functions necessary to process permit applications with the SJVAPCD. Under the SJVAPCD’s risk management policy, Best Available Control Technology (BACT) must be applied to all units that, based on their potential emissions, may pose greater than de minimus risks. Facilities that pose health risks above SJVAPCD action levels are required to submit plans to reduce their risk. Action levels for risk were established in the SJVAPCD’s Board‐Approved Risk Reduction policy. The action level for cancer risk is 10 cases per million exposed persons, based on the maximum exposure beyond facility boundaries at a residence or business. The action level for non‐cancer risk is a hazard index of 1.0 1.0 at any point beyond the facility boundary where a person could reasonably experience exposure to such risk. The SJVAPCD maintains a stationary source permitting program that includes New Source Review Rules, which are in the approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). These rules require offsets of emissions of ozone and particulates precursors at a ratio of greater than one to one, when ten tons and fifteen tons are exceeded. The rules also require that each new stationary source, which exceeds two pounds per day of pollutants, to install BACT. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.6-5 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR 5.6.2.4 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan provides goals and policies to guide decision‐makers making long‐range plans that may affect the future character of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Planning Area. The General Plan provides goals, policies, and implementation measures intended to reduce potential impacts of projects on air quality. Applicable goals relative to the Amended HD Ordinance within these elements are listed in Table 5.6‐2, CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS WITH METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES FOR AIR QUALITY. A brief explanation of how the Amended HD Ordinance would comply with the goals and policies is also provided. Table 5.6-2 Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Air Quality GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Conservation/Air Quality Element Goals Conservation /Air Quality Goal #1: “Promote air quality quality that is compatible with health, well being, and enjoyment of life by controlling point sources and minimizing vehicular trips to reduce air pollutants.” The Project would not directly result in physical development or other land improvements within the HD Zone. As such, no land uses (i.e. residential units) that would generate traffic would occur, and therefore, pollutant emissions from vehicular trips would not result with the Project. In addition, the Project would not involve the establishment of land uses that would create point sources (i.e. mechanical equipment) for emissions. The Project would therefore not conflict with Conservation /Air Quality Goal #1. Conservation /Air Quality Goal #2: “Continue working toward attainment of Federal, State and Local standards as enforced by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.” As stated above, the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development or other land improvements within the HD Zone. As such, no land land uses (i.e. residential units) that would generate traffic would occur, and therefore, pollutant emissions from vehicular trips would not result with the Project. In addition, the Project would not involve the establishment of land uses that would create point sources (i.e. mechanical equipment) for emissions. The Amended HD Ordinance would not contribute to potential air quality issues within the Bakersfield area, or on a regional scale, and therefore, would not influence the attainment status of Federal, State or local standards within the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. The Project would not conflict with Conservation /Air Quality Goal #2. Conservation /Air Quality Goal #3: “Reduce the amount of vehicular emissions in the planning area.” As stated above, the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development or other land improvements within the HD Zone. As such, no land uses (i.e. residential units) that would generate traffic are proposed, and City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.6-6 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR Table 5.6-2, Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Air Quality, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.6-7 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY therefore, pollutant emissions from vehicular trips would not result with the Project. The Amended HD Ordinance would not contribute to vehicular emissions within the Bakersfield Planning Area. The Project would not conflict with Conservation /Air Quality Goal #3. Conservation /Air Quality Goal #4: “Reduce air pollution associated with agricultural activities.” Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the development or operation of agricultural activities within the HD Zone. As such, the operation of machinery for agricultural purposes (i.e., plowing) would not be required, and associated vehicular emissions would not occur. As the Project would not involve the physical improvement or disturbance of lands within the HD Zone, potential effects relative to long‐term release of Valley Fever spores would also be minimized. The Project would not conflict with Conservation /Air Quality Goal #4. Conservation/Air Quality Element Policies Conservation/Air Quality Policy #2: “Encourage land uses and land use practices which do not contribute significantly to air quality degradation.” Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development of land within the HD Zone, and would therefore not establish land uses or associated operations that would contribute to the degradation of air quality within the Valley. The Project would therefore not conflict with Conservation /Air Quality Policy #2. Conservation /Air Quality Policy #3: “Require dust abatement measures during significant grading and construction operations.” The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development or other land improvements within the HD Zone. As such, significant grading and/or construction operations would not occur, and no associated dust abatement measures would be required with Project implementation. The Project would therefore not conflict with Conservation /Air Quality Policy #3. Conservation /Air Quality Policy #4: “Consider air pollution impacts when evaluating discretionary permits for land use proposals. Considerations should include: a) Alternative access routes to reduce traffic congestion, b) Development phasing to match road capacities, c) Buffers including increase vegetation to increase emission dispersion and reduce impacts of gaseous or particulate matter on sensitive uses.” Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone, and no discretionary permits for land use proposals would be required. As the Project would not result in land uses that would emit pollutants, the Project would not contribute to air quality impacts within the Bakersfield area, or on a regional scale. The Project would not conflict with Conservation /Air Quality Policy #4. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR 5.6.2.5 Global Climate Change Regulatory Programs Assembly Bill 1493 AB 1493 is the successor bill to AB 1058, and was enacted on July 22, 2002, by Governor Gray Davis. AB 1493 mandates that CARB develop and implement greenhouse gas limits for vehicles beginning in model year 2009. Subsequently, as directed by AB 1493, the CARB on September 24, 2004, approved regulations limiting the amount of greenhouse gas that may be released from new passenger cars, sport utility vehicles, and pickup trucks sold in California in model year 2009. The automobile industry subsequently sued, and claimed AB 1493 was a measure designed to impose gas mileage standards on automobiles. A federal district court ruled on December 12, 2007 that the state and federal laws could co‐exist. However, on December 19, 2007, the EPA denied Californiaʹs request for the necessary waiver to implement its law, claiming that local emissions had little effect on global climate change, and that the conditions in California were not ʺcompelling and extraordinaryʺ as required by law. California intends to sue the EPA to force reconsideration, given the precedent of Massachusetts v. EPA2, which ruled that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant which EPA had authority to regulate. Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Washington are also interested in adopting Californiaʹs automobile emissions standards. Assembly Bill 32 The Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32, Nunez), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which Governor Schwarzenegger signed on September 27, 2006, to further the goals of Executive Order S‐3‐05. AB 32 represents the first enforceable statewide program to limit greenhouse gas emissions from all major industries with penalties for noncompliance. CARB has been assigned to carry out and develop the programs and requirements necessary to achieve the goals of AB 32. The foremost objective of CARB is to adopt regulations that require the reporting and verification of statewide greenhouse gas emissions. This program will be used to monitor and enforce compliance with the established standards. The first greenhouse gas emissions limit is equivalent to the 1990 levels, which are to be achieved by 2020. CARB is also required to adopt rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost effective greenhouse gas emission reductions. AB 32 allows CARB to adopt market‐based compliance mechanisms to meet the specified requirements. Finally, CARB is ultimately responsible for monitoring compliance and enforcing any rule, regulation, order, emission limitation, emission reduction measure, or market‐based compliance mechanism adopted. In order to advise CARB, it must convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and an Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee. CARB has approved a 2020 emissions emissions limit of 427 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. By January 2009, CARB must adopt mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of 5.6-8 2 Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S.; 127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007). City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR greenhouse gases and also a plan indicating how reductions in significant greenhouse gas sources would be achieved through regulations, market mechanisms, and other actions. Executive Order S-20-04 Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S‐20‐04 (The California Green Building Initiative) establishing the State’s priority for energy and resource‐efficient high performance buildings on December 14, 2004. The Executive Order sets a goal of reducing energy use in state‐owned and private commercial buildings by 20 percent in 2015 using non‐residential Title 20 and 24 standards adopted in 2003 as the baseline. The California Green Building Initiative also encourages private commercial buildings to be retrofitted, constructed, and operated in compliance with the State’s Green Building Action Plan. Executive Order S-3-05 In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets in Executive Order S‐3‐05. The Executive Order established the following goals: Greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010; greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and, greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (the Secretary) is required to coordinate efforts of various agencies in order to collectively and efficiently reduce greenhouse gases. Some of the agencies involved in the greenhouse gas reduction plan include the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, the Secretary of Department of Food and Agriculture, the Secretary of Resources Agency, the Chairperson of CARB, the Chairperson of the Energy Commission, and the President of the Public Utilities Commission. The Secretary is required to submit a biannual progress report to the Governor and State Legislature disclosing the progress made toward greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. targets. In addition, another biannual report must be submitted illustrating the impacts of global warming on California’s water supply, public health, agriculture, the coastline and forestry and report possible mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. Executive Order S-1-07 On January 18, 2007, California further solidified its dedication to reducing greenhouse gases by setting a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard for transportation fuels sold within the State. Executive Order S‐1‐07 sets a declining standard for greenhouse gas emissions measured in carbon dioxide equivalent gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The target of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard is to reduce the carbon intensity of California passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard applies to refiners, blenders, producers and importers of transportation fuels and will use market‐based mechanisms to allow these providers to choose how they reduce emissions during the “fuel cycle” using the most economically feasible methods. The Executive Order requires the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate with actions of the California Energy Commission, CARB, the University of California and other agencies to develop a protocol to measure the “life cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. In response to this Executive City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.6-9 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR Order, CARB identified the Low Carbon Fuel Standard as an early action item with a regulation to be adopted and implemented by 2010. Senate Bill 97 SB 97 of 2007 requires the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop CEQA guidelines for analysis and, if necessary, the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions to the Resources Agency by July 1, 2009. These guidelines for analysis and mitigation must address, but are not limited to, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. Following receipt of these guidelines, the Resources Agency must certify and adopt the guidelines prepared by OPR by January 1, 2010. In his signing statement, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger noted: Current uncertainty as to what type of analysis of greenhouse gas emissions is required under CEQA has led to legal claims being asserted which would stop these important infrastructure projects. Litigation under CEQA is not the best approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and maintain a sound and vibrant economy. To achieve these goals, we need a coordinated policy, not a piecemeal approach dictated by litigation. The OPR has begun the process of formulating the guidelines called for in SB 97. Part of that effort included a survey of existing climate change analyses performed by various lead agencies under CEQA. OPR’s effort revealed many questions surrounding such analyses, including, among others, what is a “new” greenhouse gas emission, what is the appropriate baseline for a climate change analysis, and when would emissions become significant under CEQA. As such, OPR has identified a suggested means of how a lead agency complying with CEQA can formulate an approach for performing a climate change analysis for projects that generate GHG emissions. A consistent approach should be based on the best available information. For such projects, OPR suggests that three basic steps be implemented as follows: 1) identify and quantify the GHG emissions; 2) assess the significance of the impact on climate change; and, 3) if the impact is found to be significant, identify alternatives and/or mitigation measures to reduce the impact below significance. OPR suggests that lead agencies identify whether GHG emissions may be generated by a project, and if so, to quantify or estimate the GHG emissions by type and source. In addition, the lead agency should determine whether emissions are individually or cumulatively significant. When assessing whether a project’s effects on climate change are “cumulatively considerable,” the lead agency should consider the effects of a project when viewed in connection with past, current, and probable future projects. In addition, if a lead agency determines that the GHG emissions from a project are potentially significant, means to avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate the impacts of such emissions should be identified and implemented. 5.6.2.6 Local Regulations The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Conservation Element/Air Quality contains goals, policies, objectives, and implementation measures that comprehensively address general conditions and site specific circumstances that may affect air quality. While the Air Quality Element of the General Plan does not specifically mention greenhouse gas emissions, these City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.6-10 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR measures reduce vehicle trips, miles traveled and result in a reduction in fuel combustion, and will therefore result in a reduction in greenhouse gases. 5.6.3 LOCAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY The SJVAPCD, along with the CARB, operates an air quality monitoring network that provides information on average concentrations of those pollutants for which State or Federal agencies have established ambient air quality standards. Similar to the EPA, CARB designates “attainment” (air pollutant levels consistently below the standard); “nonattainment” (levels of air pollutant consistently violate the standard); or, “unclassified, based on ambient air data that has been collected in the applicable area. Table 5.6‐3, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS DESIGNATIONS, lists the State and Federal attainment status by pollutant. To achieve attainment for State and National air quality standards, the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan Plan (Extreme OADP) and the 2003 PM10 Plan were published by the SJVAPCD and approved by CARB and EPA. The Extreme OADP was prepared to fulfill the requirements of the CAA to attain the federal one‐hour ozone ambient air quality standards in the Basin by November 15, 2010. The Plan identifies control measures necessary to reduce emissions and projects future air quality with implementation of those controls. In addition, the SJVAPCD and CARB implement control measures needed to achieve emission reductions. The SJVAPCD has implemented some of the control measures as listed in the Extreme OADP as rules. Table 5.6-3 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status Designations POLLUTANT FEDERAL DESIGNATIONa STATE DESIGNATIONb Ozone – 1 hour No Federal Standardf Non‐attainment/Severe Ozone – 8 hour Non‐attainment/Seriouse Non‐attainment PM10 Attainmentc Non‐attainment PM2.5 Non‐attainmentd Non‐attainment Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment Lead (particulate) No Designation/Classification Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.6-11 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR Table 5.6-3, San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status Designations, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.6-12 POLLUTANT FEDERAL DESIGNATIONa STATE DESIGNATIONb Visibility‐Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment a See 40 CFR Part 81 b See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200‐60210 c On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley area to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAWS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan. d The Valley is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 federal standards. EPA designations for the 2006 PM2.5 standards will be finalized in December 2009. The District has determined, as of the 2004‐2006 PM2.5 data, that the Valley has attained the 1997 24‐Hour PM2.5 standard. e On April 30, 2007 the Governing Board of the SJVAPCD voted to request EPA to reclassify the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin as extreme nonattainment for the federal 8‐hour ozone standards. CARB approved this request on June 14, 2007. This request must be forwarded to EPA by CARB and would become effective upon EPA final rulemaking after a notice and comment process; it is not yet in effect. f Effective June 15, 2005, EPA revoked the federal 1‐hour ozone standard, including associated designations and classifications. However, EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for this standard. Many applicable requirements for extreme 1‐hour ozone nonattainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB. Source: SJVAPCD 2008 (http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm). 5.6.3.1 Description of Criteria Pollutants The following is a general description of the sources and the physical and health effects for air pollutants that could potentially be associated with the proposed Project. Ozone San Joaquin Valley experiences high concentrations of O3 which result in air quality problems. Symptoms from ground‐level ozone include cough, chest tightness, pain upon taking a deep breath, worsening of wheezing, and other asthma symptoms, stuffy nose, eye irritation, reduced resistance to colds and other infections. Many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are also aggravated by exposure to high ozone levels. Ozone also accelerates aging and exacerbates pre‐existing asthma and bronchitis, and in cases of high concentrations can lead to the development of asthma in active children. High levels of O3 can also affect plants and materials, causing particular damage to grapes, lettuce, spinach and many other types of garden flowers and shrubs. O3 is not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is a secondary pollutant produced through photochemical reactions involving hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Significant O3 generation requires about one to three hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. For this reason, the months of April through October comprise the ʺozone season.ʺ O3 is a regional pollutant because O3 precursors are transported and diffused by wind concurrently with the reaction process. Data contained in Table 5.6‐4, BACKGROUND Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA – OZONE, shows that for the 2005 through 2007 period, the Project area exceeded the Federal one‐hour average ambient O3 standard, the State one‐hour average ambient O3 standard, and the Federal eight‐hour average ambient O3 standard. Table 5.6-4 Background Ambient Air Quality Data – Ozone3 NUMBER OF DAYS EXCEEDING 1-HOUR NAAQS (0.12 PPM) NUMBER OF DAYS EXCEEDING 1-HOUR CAAQS (0.09 PPM) MAXIMUM 1-HOUR CONCENTRATION (PPM) CARB AIR MONITORING STATION 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 Bakersfield – California Avenue 0 0 0 28 52 4 0.117 0.123 0.117 Bakersfield – Golden St. Hwy. 0 0 1 7 15 1 0.110 0.108 0.127 Oildale 0 0 0 21 38 11 0.109 0.118 0.112 Arvin 6 12 3 64 66 51 0.133 0.135 0.129 Edison 0 9 1 38 51 29 0.124 0.141 0.138 Shafter – Walker St. 0 0 0 14 20 3 0.104 0.106 0.111 Hydrocarbons and Other Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) Motor vehicles are the major source of reactive hydrocarbons in the Basin. Other sources include evaporation of organic solvents and petroleum production and refining operations. Certain hydrocarbons can damage plants by inhibiting growth and by causing flowers and leaves to fall. The primary health effects of hydrocarbons result from the formation of ozone and its related health effects. High levels of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing the amount of available oxygen through displacement. Carcinogenic forms of hydrocarbons are considered Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), or air toxics. In addition, some compounds that make up ROGs are also toxic. An example is benzene, which is a carcinogen. The SJVAPCD has established an ROG emissions significance threshold for development projects covered by the GAMAQI of 10 tons per year. There are no health standards for ROGs separately. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Internal combustion engines, principally in vehicles, produce carbon monoxide due to incomplete fuel combustion. Various industrial processes also produce 3 California Air Resources Board Website Data as of May 2008. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.6-13 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR carbon monoxide emissions through incomplete combustion. Gasoline‐powered motor vehicles are typically the major source of this contaminant. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. Wind speed and atmospheric mixing also influence CO concentrations. However, under inversion conditions prevalent in the valley, CO concentrations may be more uniformly distributed over a broad area. CO enters the bloodstream and binds more readily to hemoglobin than oxygen, reducing the oxygen‐carrying capacity of blood, thus reducing oxygen delivery to organs and tissues. The health threat from CO is most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. Healthy individuals are also affected, but only at higher levels of exposure. Carbon monoxide binds strongly to hemoglobin, the oxygen‐carrying protein in blood, and thus reduces the blood’s capacity for carrying oxygen to the heart, brain, and other parts of the body. At high concentrations, CO can cause heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases, and can impair mental abilities. Exposure to elevated CO levels is associated with visual impairment, reduced work capacity, reduced manual dexterity, poor learning ability, difficulty performing complex tasks, and death. The SJVAPCD has not established a CO emissions significance threshold for development projects covered by the SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). Table 5.6‐5, BACKGROUND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA – CO, shows that CO levels at two Bakersfield monitoring stations are well below the standards for the three‐year period of 2005 through 2007. Therefore, the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is expected to be even lower than levels measured in Bakersfield. Table 5.6-5 Background Ambient Air Quality Data – CO4 NUMBER OF DAYS EXCEEDING NAAQS (>9.0 PPM) NUMBER OF DAYS EXCEEDING CAAQS (>9.0 PPM) MAXIMUM 8-HOUR CONCENTRATION NAAQS (9.0 PPM) CAAQS (9.0 PPM) CARB AIR MONITORING STATION 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 Bakersfield – California Ave. 0 NR NR 0 NR NR 2.20 NR NR Bakersfield – Golden St. Hwy. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.10 2.19 1.97 Source: Air Quality Impact Assessment, October 2008. NR = Not Reported 4 California Air Resources Board Website Data as of May 2008. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.6-14 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR Nitrogen Oxides (NO2) NO2 is the ʺwhiskey brownʺ colored gas readily visible during periods of heavy air pollution. Mobile sources and oil and gas production account for nearly all of the countyʹs nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, most of which is emitted as NO2. High combustion temperatures in both external combustion sources and internal combustion sources cause nitrogen and oxygen to combine and form nitric oxide. Further reaction produces additional oxides of nitrogen. Combustion in motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries and other industrial operations are the primary sources in the region. Railroads and aircraft are other potentially significant sources of combustion air contaminants. Oxides of nitrogen are direct participants in photochemical smog reactions. The emitted compound, nitric oxide, combines with oxygen in the atmosphere in the presence of hydrocarbons and sunlight to form nitrogen dioxide and ozone. Nitrogen dioxide, the most significant of these pollutants, can color the atmosphere at concentrations as low as 0.5 ppmv on days of 10‐mile visibility. NOx is an important air pollutant in the region because it is a primary receptor of ultraviolet light, which initiates the reactions producing photochemical smog. It also reacts in the air to form nitrate particulates. NOX can irritate the lungs, cause lung damage, and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. The effects of short‐term exposure are still unclear, but continued or frequent exposure to concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may cause increased incidence of acute respiratory illness in children. Health effects associated with NOX are an increase in the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may lead to eye and mucus membrane aggravation, along with pulmonary dysfunction. NOX can cause fading of textile dyes and additives, deterioration of cotton and nylon, and corrosion of metals due to production of particulate nitrates. Airborne NOX can also impair visibility. NOX is a major component of acid deposition in California. NOX may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. NOX in the air is a potentially significant contributor to a number of environmental effects such as acid rain and eutrophication in coastal waters. Eutrophication occurs when a body of water suffers an increase in nutrients that reduce the amount of oxygen in the water, producing an environment that is destructive to fish and other animal life. The SJVAPCD has established a NOx emissions significance threshold for development projects covered by the GAMAQI of 10 tons per year. Kern County has been designated as an attainment/unclassified area for the NAAQS for NO2. In addition, Table 5.6‐6, BACKGROUND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA – NOX, shows that no excesses of the Federal or State NO2 standards have been recorded at the Arvin, Oildale, or the three Bakersfield area‐monitoring stations investigated over the three‐year period of 2005 through 2007. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.6-15 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR Table 5.6-6 Background Ambient Air Quality Data – NOx5 ANNUAL AVERAGE (PPM) NUMBER OF DAYS EXCEEDING CAAQS (0.25 PPM) MAXIMUM 1-HOUR CONCENTRATION CAAQS (0.25 PPM) CARB AIR MONITORING STATION 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 Bakersfield – California Ave. 0.018 0.017 0.017 0 0 0 0.074 0.073 0.072 Bakersfield – Golden St. Hwy. 0.021 0.021 NR 0 0 0 0.078 0.076 0.069 Oildale 0.011 NR NR 0 NR NR 0.063 NR NR Arvin 0.009 0.008 0.008 0 0 0 0.050 0.047 0.052 Edison 0.012 0.011 0.010 0 0 0 0.059 0.066 0.048 Shafter – Walker St. 0.015 0.019 0.014 0 0 0 0.063 0.100 0.101 Source: Air Quality Impact Assessment, October 2008. NR = Not Reported Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) Particulate matter consists of particles in the atmosphere resulting from many kinds of dust and fume‐producing industrial and agricultural operations, from combustion, and from atmospheric photochemical reactions. Natural activities also increase the level of particulates in the atmosphere; wind‐raised dust and ocean spray are two sources of naturally occurring particulates. In the respiratory tract, very small particles of certain substances may produce injury by themselves, or may contain absorbed gases that are injurious. Particulates of aerosol size suspended in the air can both scatter and absorb sunlight, producing haze and reducing visibility. They can also cause a wide range of damage to materials. Although a threshold was not established in GAMAQI by the SJVAPCD, a 15‐ton per year threshold for PM10 was utilized in this analysis. This threshold was established by SJVAPCD as the limit at which an impact to the SJVAB may occur. Kern County Planning Department has also established a 15‐ton per year significance threshold for PM10 emissions for development projects. Both state and Federal particulate standards now apply to particulates under 10 microns (PM10) rather than to total suspended particulate (TSP), which includes particulates up to 30 microns in diameter. Continuing studies have shown that the smaller‐diameter fraction of TSP represents the greatest health hazard posed by the pollutant; therefore, EPA has recently established 5 California Air Resources Board Website Data as of May 2008. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.6-16 5.6 Air Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update Quality Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.6-17 ambient air quality standards for PM2.5. The area within the Project vicinity is classified as attainment for PM10 and non‐attainment for PM2.5. The largest sources of PM10 and PM2.5 in Kern County are vehicle movement over paved and unpaved roads, demolition and construction activities, farming operations, and unplanned fires. PM10 and PM2.5 are considered regional pollutants with elevated levels typically occurring over a wide geographic area. Concentrations tend to be highest in the winter, during periods of high atmospheric stability and low wind speed. Table 5.6‐7, BACKGROUND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA ‐PM10, shows that PM10 levels at three monitoring stations regularly exceeded the corresponding state ambient standard over the three‐year period of 2005 through 2007 and has not exceeded the Federal ambient standards. Table 5.6‐8, BACKGROUND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA – PM2.5, shows that PM2.5 exceedances of the state ambient standard were not recorded over the three‐year period of 2005 through 2007 but levels have exceeded the Federal ambient standards. Similar levels can be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site. Sulfur Oxides SO2 is the primary combustion product of sulfur, or sulfur containing fuels. Fuel combustion is the major source of this pollutant, while chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing facilities are minor contributors. Gaseous fuels (natural gas, propane, etc.) typically have lower percentages of sulfur containing compounds than liquid fuels such as diesel or crude oil. SO2 levels are generally higher in the winter months. Decreasing levels of SO2 in the atmosphere reflect the use of natural gas in power plants and boilers. The major health concerns associated with exposure to high concentrations of SOX include effects on breathing, respiratory illness, alterations in pulmonary defenses, and aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease. disease. Major subgroups of the population that are most sensitive to SOX include individuals with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease (such as bronchitis or emphysema) as well as children and the elderly. Emissions of SOX also can damage the foliage of trees and agricultural crops. Together, SOX and NOX are the major precursors to acid rain, which is associated with the acidification of lakes and streams, and accelerated corrosion of buildings and monuments. The SJVAPCD has not established a SOx emissions significance threshold for development projects covered by the GAMAQI. Refer to Table 5.6‐9, BACKGROUND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA – SOx). Fuel combustion for oil and gas production and petroleum refining account for nearly all of the Countyʹs SO2 emissions. Kern County has been designated as an attainment/unclassified area for the NAAQS for SO2. Table 5.6‐9, BACKGROUND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA – SOX, shows no excesses of the more stringent state air quality standard over the three‐year period in in Bakersfield. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update ty Draft EIR City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-18 Table 5.6-7 Background Ambient Air Quality Data – PM106 DAYS EXCEEDING NAAQS (50 μG/M3) ANNUAL ARITHMETIC MEAN NAAQS (μG/M3) DAYS EXCEEDING CAAQS (>50 μG/M3) MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION (μG/M3) CARB AIR MONITORING STATION 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 Bakersfield – California Avenue 0 0 0 40.2 48.9 45.6 14 22 24 108.0 159.0 118.0 Bakersfield – Golden St. Hwy. 0 1 0 43.2 55.4 54.8 20 27 28 109.0 162.0 135.0 Oildale 0 1 0 41.1 49.7 45.0 14 19 21 109.0 161.0 108.0 Table 5.6-8 Background Ambient Air Quality Data – PM2.57 DAYS EXCEEDING NAAQS (65.5 μG/M3) ANNUAL ARITHMETIC MEAN NAAQS (μG/M3) DAYS EXCEEDING CAAQS (>50 μG/M3) MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION (μG/M3) CARB AIR MONITORING STATION 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 Bakersfield – California Avenue 5 4 14 18.0 18.7 22.0 NR NR NR 85.7 77.7 85.8 Bakersfield – Golden St. Hwy. 4 2 4 19.1 18.6 19.9 NR NR NR 83.6 76.4 86.6 Bakersfield – E. Planz Rd. 3 1 5 19.8 19.3 21.8 NR NR NR 77.5 78.6 90.7 NR = Not Reported 6 California Air Resources Board Website Data as of May 2008. 5.6 Air Quali 7 Ibid Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR Table 5.6-9 Background Ambient Air Quality Data – SOx8 DAYS EXCEEDING CAAQS 24-HOUR STANDARD (>0.04 PPM) ANNUAL AVERAGE NAAQS (0.030 PPM) MAXIMUM 24-HOUR CONCENTRATION NAAQS (0.014 PPM) CAAQS (0.04 PPM) CARB AIR MONITORING STATION 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 Bakersfield – California Avenue NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR = Not Reported Lead and Suspended Sulfate Ambient lead (Pb) levels have dropped dramatically due to the increase in the percentage of motor vehicles that run exclusively on unleaded fuel. Ambient Pb levels in Bakersfield are well below the ambient standard and are expected to continue to decline as demonstrated in Table 5.6‐10, BACKGROUND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA – LEAD. Suspended sulfate levels have stabilized to the point where no excesses of the State standard are expected in any given year. Short‐term exposure to high levels of lead can cause vomiting, diarrhea, convulsions, coma, or even death. However, even small amounts of lead can be harmful, especially to infants, young children and pregnant women. Symptoms of long‐term exposure to lower lead levels may be less noticeable but are still serious. Anemia is common and damage to the nervous system may cause impaired mental function. Other symptoms are appetite loss, abdominal pain, constipation, fatigue, sleeplessness, irritability, and headache. Continued excessive exposure, as in an industrial setting, can affect the kidneys. Lead exposure is most serious for young children because they absorb lead more easily than adults and are more susceptible to its harmful effects. Even low‐level exposure may harm the intellectual development, behavior, size, and hearing of infants. During pregnancy, especially in the last trimester, lead can cross the placenta and affect the fetus. Female workers exposed to high levels of lead have been found to have a greater risk for miscarriages and stillbirths. 8 Data not available after 2001 as of May 2008. City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-19 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR Table 5.6-10 Background Ambient Air Quality Data – Lead9 DAYS EXCEEDING CAAQS 30-DAY STANDARD (>1.5 μG/M3) CALENDAR QUARTER NAAQS (1.5 μG/M3) MAXIMUM 30-DAY CONCENTRATION NAAQS (1.5μG/M3) CAAQS (1.5 μG/M3) CARB AIR MONITORING STATION 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 Bakersfield – California Avenue NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR = Not Reported Global Climate Changes Gases The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere is called the “greenhouse effect.”10 The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a three fold process as follows: Short wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long wave radiation; and, greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere absorb this long wave radiation and emit this long wave radiation into space and toward the Earth. This “trapping” of the long wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average temperature would be approximately 18 degrees Celsius (°C) (0°F) instead of its present 14°C (57°F). The most abundant greenhouse gases are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Many other trace gases have greater ability to absorb and re‐radiate long wave radiation; however, these gases are not as plentiful. For this reason, and to gauge the potency of greenhouse gases, scientists have established a Global Warming Potential for each greenhouse gas based on its ability to absorb and re‐radiate long wave radiation. The Global Warming Potential of a gas is determined using carbon dioxide as the reference gas with a Global Warming Potential of 1. Greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, the following:11 • Water vapor (H2O). Although water vapor has not received the scrutiny of other greenhouse gases, it is the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect. Natural processes, such as evaporation from oceans and rivers and transpiration from plants, contribute 90 percent and 10 percent of the water vapor in our atmosphere, 9 Data not available after 2002 as of May 2008. 10 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth’s surface to 10 to 12 kilometers. 11 All Global Warming Potentials are given as 100 year GWP. Unless noted otherwise, all Global Warming Potentials were obtained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, The Science of Climate Change – Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, 1996). City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-20 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR respectively. The primary human related source of water vapor comes from fuel combustion in motor vehicles. However, this is not believed to contribute a significant amount (less than one percent) to atmospheric concentrations of water vapor. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has not determined a Global Warming Potential for water vapor. • Carbon dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide is primarily generated by fossil fuel combustion in stationary and mobile sources. Due to the emergence of industrial facilities and mobile sources in the past 250 years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 35 percent.12 Carbon dioxide is the most widely emitted greenhouse gas and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential of 1) for determining Global Warming Potentials for other greenhouse gases. • Methane (CH4). Methane is emitted from biogenic sources, incomplete combustion in forest fires, landfills, manure manure management, and leaks in natural gas pipelines. In the United States, the top three sources of methane come from landfills, natural gas systems, and enteric fermentation. Methane is the primary component of natural gas, which is used for space and water heating, steam production, and power generation. The Global Warming Potential of methane is 21. • Nitrous oxide (N2O). Nitrous oxide is produced by both natural and human related sources. Primary human related sources include agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. The Global Warming Potential of nitrous oxide is 310. • Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is growing as the continued phase out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) gains momentum. The Global Warming Potential of HFCs range from 140 for HFC‐152a to 6,300 for HFC‐236fa. • Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Perfluorocarbons are compounds consisting of carbon and fluorine. They are primarily created as a byproduct of aluminum production and semi conductor manufacturing. Perfluorocarbons are potent greenhouse gases with a Global Warming Potential several thousand times that of carbon dioxide, depending on the specific PFC. Another area of concern regarding PFCs is their long atmospheric lifetime (up to 50,000 years).13 The Global Warming Potential of PFCs range from 5,700 to 11,900. 5.6-21 12 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004, April 2006, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. 13 Energy Information Administration, Other Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, and Sulfur Hexafluoride, October 29, 2001, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg00rpt/other_gases.html. City of Bakersfield December 2008 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR • Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Sulfur hexafluoride is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It is most commonly used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment that transmits and distributes electricity. Sulfur hexafluoride is the most potent greenhouse gas that has been evaluated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with a Global Warming Potential of 23,900. However, its global warming contribution is not as high as the Global Warming Potential would indicate due to its low mixing ratio compared to carbon dioxide (4 parts per trillion [ppt] in 1990 versus 365 parts per million [ppm]).14 In addition to the six major greenhouse gases discussed above (excluding water vapor), many other compounds have the potential to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Some of these substances were previously identified as stratospheric ozone depletors. Therefore, their gradual phase out is currently in effect. The The following is a listing of these compounds: • Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, all developed countries that adhere to the Montreal Protocol are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out of HCFCs. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by 2030. The Global Warming Potentials of HCFCs range from 93 for HCFC‐123 to 2,000 for HCFC‐142b.15 • 1,1,1 trichloroethane. 1,1,1 trichloroethane or methyl chloroform is a solvent and degreasing agent commonly used by manufacturers. The Global Warming Potential of methyl chloroform is 110 times that of carbon dioxide.16 • Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CFCs are used as refrigerants, cleaning solvents, and aerosols spray propellants. CFCs were also part of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Rule (57 FR 3374) for the phase out of ozone depleting substances. Currently, CFCs have been replaced by HFCs in cooling systems and a variety of alternatives for cleaning solvents. Nevertheless, CFCs remain suspended in the atmosphere contributing to the greenhouse effect. CFCs are potent GHGs with Global Warming Potentials ranging from 4,600 for CFC 11 to 14,000 for CFC 13.17 • Ozone. Ozone occurs naturally in the stratosphere where it is largely responsible for filtering harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation. In the troposphere, ozone acts as a greenhouse gas by absorbing and re‐radiating the infrared energy emitted by the Earth. As a result of the industrial revolution and rising emissions of oxides of 5.6-22 14 United States Environmental Protection Agency, High GWP Gases and Climate Change, October 19, 2006, http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html#sf6. 15 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Global Warming Potential for Ozone Depleting Substances, November 7, 2006, http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA AIR/1996/January/Day 19/pr 372.html. 16 Ibid. 17 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Class I Ozone Depleting Substances, March 7, 2006, http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ods.html. City of Bakersfield December 2008 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (ozone precursors), the concentrations of ozone in the troposphere have increased. Due to the short life span of ozone in the troposphere, its concentration and contribution as a greenhouse is not well established. 5.6.4 ANALYSIS APPROACH AND METHODOLOGIES As noted previously, the Amended HD 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 general public from the threat of wildfire, hillside instability and landslides.”18 In particular, the Amended HD Ordinance seeks to fulfill the implementation measures of the Open Space Element of the General Plan. An Air Quality Impact Analysis was prepared to evaluate potential impacts to air quality within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, and was based on several assumptions with regard to future development within the HD Zone to determine potential effects on air quality. In preparing the analysis, Insight Environmental consulted with the City of Bakersfield Planning Department along with several local engineering and construction firms19 to determine the appropriate approach for the analysis. The area affected by the HD Zone encompasses a total area of approximately 6,531 acres. With implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, approximately 2,160.22 acres would be excluded from future development, due to the proposed additional site development restrictions intended for protection of the City’s hillsides20. With consideration for the acreage that would be displaced within the HD Zone, the potential density of the displaced residences as a factor of the number of residences ultimately displaced was determined. Based on the impacted acreage, and the historical densities within the City allowed on similar terrain, the Planning Department determined the maximum number of residential units that would potentially be displaced due to implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance. This number of single‐family and multi‐family units was then used to predict potential air quality impacts within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Refer to Table 5.6‐11, DISPLACED RESIDENTIAL UNITS. 5.6-23 18 City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. Chapter 17.66, HD (Hillside Development) Combining Zone. 19 Firms consulted were Sikand Engineering, McIntosh & Associates, Hendrickson Engineering and Turman Construction. 20 City of Bakersfield Planning Department – Analysis of Slope Protection Area Potential Housing Yield. City of Bakersfield December 2008 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR Table 5.6-11 Displaced Residential Units REASON FOR DISPLACEMENT SINGLEFAMILY UNITS MULTI-FAMILY UNITS TOTAL Slope Protection Area 2,059 229 2,288 Class I Visual Resource Area 533 0 533 Class II Visual Resource Area 378 0 378 Total Displaced Residential Units: 3,199 5.6.4.1 Displaced Residential Unit Area Absorption In evaluating the potential air quality impacts resulting from the Amended HD Ordinance, it was necessary to consider the potential for the displaced units to be relocated to other areas of the City, where greater vehicular use (and therefore, potentially greater generation of emissions) would be required in order to reach one’s destination within the City. As discussed previously within the EIR, the City has identified an estimated 13,211 residential lots that are residentially zoned and available for construction of residential units within its northeast quadrant. According to the City’s Planning Department, the northeast quadrant provides a distinctive geographic setting that distinguishes it from other areas within the City due to its proximity to the Sierra Nevada Mountains, large areas of open space views, rolling topography, and resulting climate. Based on information provided by local realtors21, residents attracted to the northeast for its unique characteristics would desire to purchase a residence within the northeast area whether or not the Amended HD Ordinance is enacted. As such, the housing units potentially displaced by implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would be absorbed within other approved or planned developments within the City’s northeast quadrant.22 It should be noted that the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in the physical construction of any residential units within the HD Zone; rather, the Amended HD Ordinance is intended to provide design standards and application information restrictions to provide for greater protection of the City’s hillsides and the residents with regard to geologic conditions, wildfire, and scenic resources. The Air Quality Impact Assessment also considered potential air quality impacts associated with the development of urban areas and resulting density issues. According to a recent publication “Creating Great Neighborhoods: Density and Your Community,” September 2003, the U.S. EPA, National Association of Realtors and the Local Government Commission claim that “Compact, higher density developments lessen the impact on air quality as well. Building at higher densities expands transportation options and reduces distances between destinations – both 21 Correspondence with James Saberon, Associate Planner, City of Bakersfield Planning Department, 10/02/08. 22 Ibid. City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-24 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR factors help minimize air pollution.”23 Several factors relative to density can affect potential vehicular use, and therefore emissions, generated by a project. Such factors typically include: • Proximity to employment; • Proximity to goods and services (retail/commercial); • Potential for reduced mileage traveled by residents to reach employment and commercial/retail centers; and, • Proximity of available public and mass transportation. 5.6.4.2 Methodology to Determine Resulting Air Quality Impacts of the Ordinance To determine potential impacts to air quality that would be caused by implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, potential construction (short‐term) and area (long‐term) emissions from the point sources (residential units) were modeled using the URBEMIS 2007 v. 9.2.4 Model (URBEMIS). Using the assumptions discussed above regarding the geographical area impacted by the Amended HD Ordinance, the resulting density of development in the northeast quadrant, the number of housing units displaced, and the City’s finding that the majority, if not all, of the displaced units would be absorbed in the northeast quadrant, emissions were estimated under two scenarios. First, emissions for the estimated number of single‐family and multi‐family residences that were to be displaced were modeled as if they would be constructed as planned, without the Amended HD Ordinance (no slope‐based restrictions). These results were then compared to the modeled emissions from the same number of units constructed throughout the northeast quadrant. The potential impact caused by implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would be to displace the units that could possibly have been built in areas of the northeast quadrant proposed for restriction under the proposed ordinance and compare these results to the same number of units being constructed at other locations within the northeast quadrant. The impacts on air quality within the SJVAB caused by implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would then be represented by the difference between these two sets of emissions. 5.6.4.3 URBEMIS 2007 and GAMAQI The Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) considers construction emissions and operational emissions as separate: • Construction emissions are considered short‐term impacts and are temporary in nature. URBEMIS estimates construction related emission as if all construction were ongoing at the same time with all paving and architectural coatings applied in the last year. 5.6-25 23 U.S. EPA Publication: “Creating Great Neighborhoods: Density in Your Community, September 2003 City of Bakersfield December 2008 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR • URBEMIS operational emissions are comprised of two separate sources, area sources (those emissions from space heating, landscape maintenance, etc.) and mobile sources (vehicles which travel throughout the City and County). These emissions are calculated for the build out period and take into account future fleet mixes and emission controls. These are depicted as long‐term impacts. URBEMIS typically analyzes construction and operational emissions separately. For project build‐outs longer than five years, an interim year analysis is recommended by GAMAQI. URBEMIS was developed to provide meaningful analysis of both short and long term urban impacts, and to encourage mitigations such as trip reduction during project planning. Discrete URBEMIS analysis is limited to annual periods. GAMAQI recommends that the short‐term construction output from the model not be combined with the operational model without creating a new combinatorial combinatorial model. URBEMIS uses a simplified set of emission factors to estimate impacts separately for predetermined construction periods and for operational periods as independent events and does not factor in: small discrete periods of project overlap, incremental periods smaller than one year, individual build out rates for each particular element of construction, schedule utilization of individual pieces of equipment, pro‐ration for occupancy rate, retrofit technology over the life of equipment, pollutant reactivity, pollutant transport, adjustments for construction program constraints due to localized conflicts between both resident’s quiet enjoyment and the construction effort. To estimate emissions associated with the Amended HD Ordinance, several changes were made to the standard defaults provided in the URBEMIS2007 v. 9.2.4 Mathematical Model (URBEMIS). These changes are detailed within the modeling program results that are provided in Attachment E of Appendix 13.4, Air Quality Impact Analysis. 5.6.5 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS The SJVAPCD identifies a sensitive receptor as a location where human populations (especially children, senior citizens, and sick persons) are present, and where there is a reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure to pollutants, according to the averaging period for ambient air quality standards, such as 24 hours, 8 hours, or one hour. Examples of sensitive receptors include residences, hospitals, and schools; industrial and commercial uses are not considered sensitive receptors. A number of sensitive receptors may occur within or adjacent to the area affected by the HD Zone. However, due to the scope of the Amended HD Ordinance, the presence of such receptors in relation to a particular project would be identified and evaluated at the time when future development is proposed, as surrounding conditions may change over time. City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-26 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR 5.6.6 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 5.6.6.1 Measures Adopted for the Evaluation of Air Quality Impacts Under CEQA In order to maintain consistency with CEQA, the SJVAPCD has adopted guidelines24 to assist Lead Agencies in complying with the various requirements. According to the District’s GAMAQI, potentially significant air quality impacts are identified as effects that would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Cause a violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality standard; • Cause a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is designated non‐attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or, • Cause the the creation of objectionable odors that affect a substantial number of people. The GAMAQI thresholds are designed to implement the general criteria for air quality emissions as required in the State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G25 and as encouraged by CEQA26. As such, SJVAPCD thresholds provide a means by which the general standards set forth by Appendix G may be used to quantitatively measure the air quality impacts of a specific project. 5.6.6.2 Measures Based on Ambient Air Quality Impacts Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project that would “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation” would be considered to create significant impacts on air quality. Therefore, an air quality impact analysis should determine whether the emissions from a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the National (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) when added to existing ambient concentrations. In order to determine what comprises “significant impact levels” the U.S. EPA has established the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to assess whether a project should be required to conduct a detailed cumulative increment analysis in areas deemed to be in attainment with the NAAQS. A project’s impacts are considered negligible if emissions are below PSD significant impact levels (SIL) for a particular pollutant. When a SIL is exceeded, an 5.6-27 24 SJVAPCD Guidelines for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), August 20, 1998 (Revised January 10, 2002). 25 State of California CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Paragraph III. 26 State of California CEQA Guidelines, §15064.7. City of Bakersfield December 2008 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR additional “increment analysis” is required. The increment analysis encompasses both the project and certain other existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable projects. Incremental increases in deterioration of air quality may be considered minor or insignificant. Emissions impacts below these thresholds are considered insignificant on both a project level and a cumulative level. The projected emissions for the proposed project are significantly below levels that would require analysis under the federal PSD program. Similarly, the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is classified as non‐attainment for the ozone NAAQS and, as such, is subject to “nonattainment new source review” (NSR). PSD SILs and increments are more stringent than the state or NAAQS and represent the most stringent significance criteria. As the proposed Project would not be considered a “stationary source” under NSR, it would not be subject to either PSD or NSR review. 5.6.6.3 Measures Used in Areas with Severe Air Quality Issues Several special interest groups have suggested what has come to be known as the “onemolecule theory.” This theory supposes that the addition of even one molecule of a criteria pollutant in a non‐attainment air basin would constitute a significant increase. While these groups have attempted to enforce this theory in various jurisdictions, the Court of Appeals has held that CEQA does not require this approach. One court has stated, “the ‘one [additional] molecule rule’ is not the law” (Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency 2002, 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 119). Therefore, the Measures of Significance included in the following tables were applied to determine the level of significance of potential impacts resulting from implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance. Table 5.6-12 Measures of Significance – Ozone (ROG and NOx Emissions) AGENCY LEVEL DESCRIPTION Measures Adopted for the Evaluation of Impacts Under CEQA 10 tons/yr yr NOx SJVAPCD 10 tons/yr ROG SJVAPCD Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, August 20, 1998 (Revised January 10, 2002). SJVAPCD Not Significant If construction emissions do not exceed CEQA Guide for Ozone Precursors During Operation, then construction impacts are assumed to be less than significant when compliance with Regulation VIII is achieved and the control measures of GAMAQI Tables 6‐3 and 6‐4 are implemented as appropriate. Table 5.6-13 Measures Based on Ambient Air Quality Impacts (NOx) AGENCY LEVEL DESCRIPTION CARB 470 μg/m3 California One‐Hour AAQS for NO2 USEPA 100 μg/m3 National annual AAQS for NO2 USEPA 1.0 μg/m3 Class II significant impact level for PSD USEPA 25 μg/m3 Class II increment for PSD City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-28 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR Table 5.6-14 Measures of Significance – Carbon Monoxide (CO) AGENCY LEVEL DESCRIPTION Measures Adopted for the Evaluation of Impacts Under CEQA 9 ppm, 8‐hr avg SJVAPCD 20 ppm, 1‐hr avg SJVAPCD Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, August 20, 1998 (Revised January 10, 2002). SJVAPCD Not Significant If construction emissions do not exceed CEQA Guide for Ozone Precursors During Operation, then construction impacts are assumed to be less than significant when compliance with Regulation VIII is achieved and the control measures of GAMAQI Table 6‐4 are implemented as appropriate. Measures Based on Ambient Air Quality Impacts 10,000 μg/m3 California 1‐hour AAQS for CO CARB 23,000 μg/m3 California 8‐hour AAQS for CO Table 5.6-15 Measures of Significance – Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) AGENCY LEVEL DESCRIPTION Measures Adopted for the Evaluation of Impacts Under CEQA SJVAPCD Not Significant If construction emissions do not exceed exceed CEQA Guide for Ozone Precursors During Operation, then construction impacts are assumed to be less than significant when compliance with Regulation VIII is achieved and the control measures of GAMAQI Table 6‐4 are implemented as appropriate. Measures Based on Ambient Air Quality Impacts 655 μg/m3 California 1‐hour AAQS for SO2 CARB 105 μg/m3 California 24‐hour AAQS for SO2 1,300 μg/m3 National 3‐hr AAQS for SO2 80 μg/m3 National annual AAQS for SO2 25 μg/m3 3‐hr Class II significant impact level for PSD 5 μg/m3 24 hr Class II significant impact level for PSD 1.0 μg/m3 Annual Class II significant impact level for PSD 512 μg/m3 3‐hr Class II increment for PSD 91 μg/m3 24 hr Class II increment for PSD USEPA 50 μg/m3 Annual Class II increment for PSD City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-29 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR Table 5.6-16 Measures of Significance – Respirable Particulates (PM10) AGENCY LEVEL DESCRIPTION Measures Adopted for the Evaluation of Impacts Under CEQA SJVAPCD 15 tons/yr PM10 This threshold was established by SJVAPCD as the limit at which an impact to the SJVAB may occur. Kern County Planning Department has also established a 15‐ton per year significance threshold for PM10 emissions for development projects. SJVAPCD Not Significant If construction emissions do not exceed CEQA Guide for Ozone Precursors During Operation, then construction impacts are assumed to be less than significant when compliance with Regulation VIII is achieved and the control measures of GAMAQI Tables 6‐2 and 6‐3 are implemented as appropriate. Measures Based on Ambient Air Quality Impacts 50 μg/m3 California 24 hour AAQS for PM10 CARB 20 μg/m3 California Annual AAQS for PM10 5 μg/m3 24 hr Class II significant impact level for PSD 1 μg/m3 Annual Class II II significant impact level for PSD 30 μg/m3 24 hr Class II increment for PSD USEPA 17 μg/m3 Annual Class II increment for PSD Table 5.6-17 Measures of Significance – Respirable Particulates (PM2.5) AGENCY LEVEL DESCRIPTION Measures Adopted for the Evaluation of Impacts Under CEQA SJVAPCD Not Significant If construction emissions do not exceed CEQA Guide for Ozone Precursors During Operation, then construction impacts are assumed to be less than significant when compliance with Regulation VIII is achieved and the control measures of GAMAQI Tables 6‐2 and 6‐3 are implemented as appropriate. Measures Based on Ambient Air Quality Impacts CARB 12 μg/m3 California Annual AAQS for PM2.5 35 μg/m3 National 24 hr AAQS for PM2.5 USEPA 15 μg/m3 National Annual AAQS for PM2.5 City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-30 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR Table 5.6-18 Measures of Significance – Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) AGENCY LEVEL DESCRIPTION Measures Adopted for the Evaluation of Impacts Under CEQA Not Significant If construction emissions do not exceed CEQA Guide for Ozone Precursors during operation, then construction impacts are assumed to be less than significant when compliance with Regulation VIII is achieved and the control measures of CEQA Appendix G Tables 6‐3 and 6‐4 are implemented as appropriate. 10 in one million Carcinogenic Risk Limit for Maximally Exposed Individual. SJVAPCD Hazard Index >1 Chronic and Acute Hazard Index Risk for Maximally Exposed Individual. 5.6.7 IMPACTS As stated previously, an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) was prepared by Insight Environmental Consultants in October 2008. The AQIA considered two scenarios: one in which the Amended HD Ordinance is implemented, and one in which the Amended HD Ordinance is not implemented and lands within the HD Zone would be developed as allowed by existing General Plan land use and zoning designations. As such, the following analysis includes consideration for the potential impacts resulting from future development of lands within the HD Zone, although implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the affected area. The following discussion summarizes the findings of the AQIA with regard for the significance criteria given in Section 5.6.6, above. Construction Emissions (Short-Term) 5.6‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not create significant temporary construction‐related dust and vehicle emissions during site preparation and project construction. Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), does not necessarily require a quantification of construction emissions for all projects. Quantification is generally only required at the request of the lead agency. Fugitive Dust Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust (PM10) emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the vicinity. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut‐and‐fill operations, and truck travel on unpaved roadways (including demolition as well as construction activities). Dust emissions also vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-31 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR Fugitive dust from future grading and construction activities within the HD Zone is expected to be short‐term and would cease following completion of such improvements. Additionally, the majority of this material is inert silicates that are less harmful to health than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources. Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Of particular health concern is the amount of PM10 generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions. As previously discussed, PM10 poses a serious health hazard, alone or in combination with other pollutants. SJVAPCD Regulation VIII specifies control measures for specified outdoor sources of fugitive particulate matter emissions: Rule 8011 contains administrative requirements, Rule 8021 applies to construction activities, and Rule 8071 applies to vehicle and equipment parking, fueling, and service areas. The SJVAPCD does not require a permit for these activities, but does impose measures to control fugitive dust, such as the application of water or a chemical dust suppressant. Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust Exhaust emissions from future construction activities would include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from lands within the HD Zone, emissions produced onsite as equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to and from the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance. Examples of these emissions include CO, ROG, NOx, and PM10. Standard SJVAPCD regulations would be adhered to such as maintaining all construction equipment in proper tune, shutting down equipment when not in use for extended periods of time, and other similar measures aimed at reducing potential emissions from operation of construction equipment. Future development within the HD Zone would be reviewed by the City on a project‐specific basis to ensure that construction equipment exhaust would cause not cause an exceedance of the SJVAPCD’s thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant. Total Daily Construction Emissions Short‐term emissions are primarily related to the grading and construction phases of a project and are recognized to be short in duration and without lasting impacts on air quality. Based on the two scenarios considered for the AQIA, the potential construction emissions attributable to each scenario were determined. Construction Emissions Without the Amended HD Ordinance Without implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, future construction within the HD Zone would be allowed as would otherwise occur under current conditions. The areas restricted from construction under the Amended HD Ordinance represent the geographically diverse (i.e., hilly) terrain within the HD Zone where the topography would make it difficult for construction to occur. Based on information provided by the City’s Planning Department, as City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-32 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR well as local engineering and construction firms,27 it was assumed that land development within these areas would require from 30% to 50% more time and effort than construction of the same number of residential units on flat or less hilly terrain. As such, the AQIA evaluated this scenario using additional construction equipment that would typically be required due to the terrain, and lengthened the grading portion of the construction period by 40% to conservatively estimate potential grading emissions. Construction and paving phase emissions were based on estimates provided by the Planning Department for the area. The Planning Department estimates that the 3,199 (3,200 for the purposes of the AQIA) “displaced” residential units within the HD Zone could be constructed within a 10.19‐year period. This estimate was based on the median of the last five years (2002 through 2007) of development activity within the Northeast Quadrant of of Metropolitan Bakersfield.28 Future emissions from construction within the HD Zone are expected to vary substantially on a daily basis; however, they are expected to be approximately equal over the course of the construction period. Many variables are factored into the calculation of construction emissions such as length of the construction period, number of each type of equipment, site characteristics, area climate, and construction personnel activities. In order to present the most conservative approach to estimating construction emissions from each scenario, the AQIA assumed that equipment would be used for eight cumulative hours per day at full power. In reality, the majority of this equipment would be used significantly less than this, due to idling time, operator breaks, equipment breakdowns, etc. Table 5.6‐19, CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS WITHOUT THE AMENDED HD ORDINANCE, provides the estimated, unmitigated and mitigated short‐term emissions, based on the expected 10.19‐year buildout period. As can be seen, emissions would exceed thresholds for NOx and PM10 both with or without mitigation. Table 5.6-19 Construction Emissions Without the Amended HD Ordinance POLLUTANT (TONS/YEAR) EMISSIONS SOURCE ROG NOX CO* SOX* PM10 PM2.5* Unmitigated Emissions Construction Emissions – 2009 2.64 23.95 11.91 0.00 1,410.42 295.28 Construction Emissions – 2010 4.10 19.53 37.61 0.03 805.62 168.88 Construction Emissions – 2011 7.61 13.86 66.44 0.07 1.04 0.74 Construction Emissions – 2012 7.37 12.68 61.31 0.07 0.99 0.70 Construction Emissions – 2013 7.12 11.47 56.25 0.07 0.94 0.65 27 Discussions were held with Sikand Engineering and Turman Construction to estimate the additional equipment, time and effort required to construct residential units on flat terrain as opposed to hilly terrain. Planning Department staff was also queried based on their experience and knowledge of the development plans for the estimated 13,211 remaining residential lots within the northeast quadrant of Metropolitan Bakersfield. 28 Email from Karl Davisson, GIS Analyst, City of Bakersfield Planning Department, dated September 10, 2008. City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-33 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR TABLE 5.6-19, CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS WITHOUT THE AMENDED HD ORDINANCE, CONTINUED POLLUTANT (TONS/YEAR) EMISSIONS SOURCE ROG NOX CO* SOX* PM10 PM2.5* Construction Emissions – 2015 6.67 9.22 47.11 0.07 0.85 0.57 Construction Emissions – 2016 6.48 8.23 43.44 0.07 0.81 0.53 Construction Emissions – 2017 6.28 7.30 39.68 0.07 0.77 0.49 Construction Emissions – 2018 6.61 7.36 37.11 0.07 0.079 0.51 Construction Emissions – 2019 4.28 4.43 22.14 0.05 0.50 0.32 SJVAPCD Annual Threshold 10 10 NA NA 15 NA Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation? No Yes ‐‐Yes ‐Mitigated Emissions Construction Emissions – 2009 2.64 23.95 11.91 0.00 151.76 32.42 Construction Emissions – 2010 2.88 19.53 37.61 0.03 87.08 18.82 Construction Emissions – 2011 3.42 13.86 66.44 0.07 1.04 0.74 Construction Emissions – 2012 3.17 12.68 61.31 0.07 0.99 0.70 Construction Emissions – 2013 2.92 11.47 56.25 0.07 0.94 0.65 Construction Emissions – 2014 2.69 10.31 51.49 0.07 0.89 0.6 Construction Emissions – 2015 2.47 9.22 47.11 0.07 0.85 0.57 Construction Emissions – 2016 2.28 8.23 43.33 0.07 0.81 0.53 Construction Emissions – 2017 2.09 7.30 39.68 0.07 0.77 0.49 Construction Emissions – 2018 2.41 7.36 37.11 0.07 0.79 0.51 Construction Emissions – 2019 1.47 4.43 22.14 0.05 0.50 0.32 SJVAPCD Annual Threshold 10 10 NA NA 15 NA Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? No Yes ‐‐Yes ‐NOTE: * The SJVAPCD has not established significance thresholds for CO, SOx, PM2.5. Construction Emissions With the Amended HD Ordinance If the Amended HD Ordinance is implemented and construction within the hillside areas is further restricted as proposed, it is anticipated that the 3,199 displaced residential units would be constructed on the existing and available 13,211 lots or tracts in the City’s northeast quadrant, as discussed above. Construction of these units is anticipated to take less time since development would instead occur on lands in the less hilly terrain and would therefore not require as extensive earthwork, cut and fill, or compaction as construction would within the HD Zone due to site topography. Table 5.6‐20, CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS WITH THE AMENDED HD ORDINANCE, provides the potential unmitigated and mitigated short‐term emissions, based on the expected full 10.19‐year buildout period of the displaced units to be City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-34 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR constructed outside the HD Zone. As can be seen, emissions would exceed thresholds for NOx and PM10 both with or without mitigation. Table 5.6-20 Construction Emissions With the Amended HD Ordinance EMISSIONS POLLUTANT (TONS/YEAR) SOURCE ROG NOX CO* SOX* PM10 PM2.5* Unmitigated Emissions Construction Emissions – 2009 1.94 17.77 8.36 0.00 1,410.16 295.04 Construction Emissions – 2010 6.44 15.36 64.60 0.06 168.44 35.73 Construction Emissions – 2011 7.61 13.86 66.44 0.07 1.04 0.74 Construction Emissions – 2012 7.37 12.68 61.31 0.07 1.00 0.70 Construction Emissions – 2013 7.12 11.47 56.25 0.07 0.94 0.65 Construction Emissions – 2014 6.90 10.31 51.49 0.07 0.89 0.60 Construction Emissions – 2015 6.67 9.22 47.11 0.07 0.85 0.57 Construction Emissions – 2016 6.49 8.23 43.33 0.07 0.81 0.53 Construction Emissions – 2017 6.29 7.30 39.68 0.07 0.77 0.49 Construction Emissions – 2018 7.04 8.12 37.56 0.08 0.84 0.55 Construction Emissions – 2019 1.15 1.12 6.47 0.01 0.14 0.08 SJVAPCD Annual Threshold 10 10 NA NA 15 NA Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation? No Yes ‐‐Yes ‐Mitigated Emissions Construction Emissions – 2009 1.94 17.77 8.36 0.00 151.5 32.18 Construction Emissions – 2010 3.32 15.36 64.6 0.06 18.95 4.51 Construction Emissions – 2011 3.42 13.86 66.44 0.07 1.04 0.74 Construction Emissions – 2012 3.17 12.68 61.31 0.07 1.00 0.70 Construction Emissions – 2013 2.92 11.47 56.25 0.07 0.94 0.65 Construction Emissions – 2014 2.69 10.31 51.49 0.07 0.89 0.60 Construction Emissions – 2015 2.47 9.22 47.11 0.07 0.85 0.57 Construction Emissions – 2016 2.28 8.23 43.33 0.07 0.81 0.53 Construction Emissions – 2017 2.09 7.30 39.68 0.07 0.77 0.49 Construction Emissions – 2018 2.84 8.12 37.56 0.08 0.84 0.55 Construction Emissions – 2019 0.27 1.12 6.47 0.01 0.14 0.08 SJVAPCD Annual Threshold 10 10 NA NA 15 NA Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? No Yes ‐‐Yes ‐NOTE: * The SJVAPCD has not established significance thresholds for CO, SOx, PM2.5. City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-35 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR Actual Short‐Term Impacts to Air Quality If Amended HD Ordinance Enacted If the Amended HD Ordinance is implemented and the number of potential units constructed within the HD Zone is reduced by an estimated 3,199 residential units, it is anticipated that the displaced units would be constructed within the northeast quadrant of Metropolitan Bakersfield. As shown in Table 5.6‐21, INCREMENTAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS INCREASE/DECREASE WITH ORDINANCE, based on the difference in construction emissions required for these types of construction, future development within the HD Zone is not anticipated to result in a net increase in criteria pollutant emissions over the criteria pollutant emissions which would otherwise exist without the anticipated future development under the Amended HD Ordinance. Therefore, with conformance with SJVAPCD standards and the City’s Municipal Code, construction‐related emissions resulting from future development within the HD Zone would be less than significant. Table 5.6-21 Incremental Construction Emissions Increase/Decrease With Ordinance EMISSIONS POLLUTANT (TONS) SOURCE ROG NOX CO* SOX* PM10 PM2.5* Mitigated Emissions Total Construction Emissions Without Amended HD Ordinance (2009 – 2019) 28.44 128.34 474.38 0.64 246.42 56.35 Total Construction Emissions With Amended HD Ordinance (2009 – 2019) 27.41 115.44 482.6 0.64 177.73 41.6 Incremental Increase (1.03) (12.9) 8.22 0 (68.69) (14.75) NOTE: * The SJVAPCD has not established significance thresholds for CO, SOx, PM2.5. Valley Fever Coccidioidomycosis, more commonly known as “Valley Fever,” is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of the Coccidioides immitis fungus. The fungus is present in the soils of California’s San Joaquin Valley, particularly in Kern County. The ecologic factors that appear to be most conducive to survival and replication of the spores are high summer temperatures, mild winters, sparse rainfall, and alkaline, sandy soils. The The soils in the area of Sharks Tooth Hill in northeast Bakersfield, which is endemic for San Joaquin Valley Fever, are primarily sourced from the decomposed marine Round Mountain Silt Member of the Miocene Monterey Formation. The soil in the vicinity of the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is derived from decomposing non‐marine Quaternary fluvial, alluvial and terrace deposits as sourced from the Sierra Nevada Mountains, composed of Cretaceous granites. This rock type would lead to similar soils based upon the similar mineralogical and consequent chemical content. With conformance to SJVAPCD Regulation VIII dust control measures, the risk of contacting Valley Fever in connection with future development within the City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-36 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR HD Zone is considered to be unlikely. Refer also to Section 5.13, Public Health and Safety, for additional discussion. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Long-Term Impacts (Operational) 5.6‐2 The Project would not result in an overall increase in the local and regional pollutant load due to direct impacts from vehicle emissions and indirect impacts from electricity and natural gas consumption. Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: As future development occurs within the HD Zone, normal day‐to‐day activities would result in operational long‐term emissions generated by both stationary (area) and operational mobile sources. However, it should be noted that the Amended HD Ordinance is a revision and clarification of the existing Hillside Development Ordinance and amendments to the Municipal Code. The Amended HD Ordinance proposes additional development standards relative to geologic hazards, risk of wild fire, grading limits, and to protect scenic views within the City’s hillside areas. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in development within the HD Zone that would contribute to potential air quality impacts on the SJVAB. Area Source Emissions Pollutant emissions associated with energy demand (i.e., electricity generation and natural gas consumption) are considered regional stationary source emissions. Criteria pollutant area source emissions can be generated by increased concentration of electrical energy and natural gas with the development of a project site. Electric power generating plants are distributed throughout the Basin and western United States. Electricity is considered an area source since it is produced at various locations within, as well as outside of the SJVAB. Since it is not possible to isolate where electricity is produced, these emission are conservatively considered to occur within the Basin and are regional in nature. The primary use of natural gas by future land uses within the HD Zone would be primarily for combustion to produce space heating, water heating, other miscellaneous heating, or air conditioning, consumer products, and landscaping. Operational (Long‐Term) Emissions Under the two scenarios evaluated in the AQIA, each considers the long‐term area and operational emissions generated by the approximately 3,200 residential units (2,971 singlefamily and 229 multi‐family units) that would be potentially displaced with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance. Based on the City’s assumption that these units would be constructed within the northeast quadrant, regardless of whether or not the Amended HD Ordinance was adopted, the long‐term emissions impacts for both scenarios would be essentially the same. However, minor differences in vehicular emissions based on travel travel to City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-37 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR slightly higher elevations (areas specifically excluded from development by the Amended HD Ordinance) are so small as to be inconsequential for the purposes of this analysis. As shown in Table 5.6‐22, LONG‐TERM EMISSIONS, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, and subsequent development within the HD Zone, would not result in a substantial incremental increase in long‐term area and operational emissions within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Impacts would be less than significant. Table 5.6-22 Long-Term Emissions EMISSIONS POLLUTANT SOURCE ROG NOX CO* SOX* PM10 PM2.5* Without Amended HD Ordinance Area Source Emissions 27.89 4.49 13.93 0.00 0.04 0.04 Operational (Vehicle) Emissions 26.19 33.48 324.17 0.42 38.72 8.36 Total Annual Long‐Term Emissions (tons/year)1 54.08 37.97 338.10 0.42 38.76 8.40 With Amended HD Ordinance Area Source Emissions 27.89 4.49 13.93 0.00 0.04 0.04 Operational (Vehicle) Emissions 26.19 33.48 324.17 324.17 0.42 38.72 8.36 Total Annual Long‐Term Emissions (tons/year)1 54.08 37.97 338.10 0.42 38.76 8.40 Incremental Difference Posed by Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance 0 0 0 0 0 0 SJVAPCD Threshold (tons/year) 10 10 NA NA 15 NA Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? No No ‐‐No ‐NOTES: 1 Numbers may not add due to rounding by the URBEMIS for Windows 9.2.4 Model. * The SJVAPCD has not established significance thresholds for CO, SOx, or PM2.5. Impacts to the Ambient Air Quality The AQIQ evaluated the potential for implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance to impact ambient air quality through a violation of established ambient air quality standards or a substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality standard. As shown in Table 5.6‐ 22, LONG‐TERM EMISSIONS, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in a significant change to long‐term air quality impacts within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin from future construction of units potentially displaced by implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance. The long‐term air quality impacts would remain the same, regardless of whether or not the Amended HD Ordinance is implemented. Therefore, based on the City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-38 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR predicted incremental difference representing potential air quality impacts of the Amended HD Ordinance being implemented versus non‐implementation, the Amended HD Ordinance is not expected to result in adverse impacts on the ambient air quality within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Impacts would be less than significant. Carbon Monoxide – Mobile Sources As noted earlier, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development of any structures within the HD Zone and would therefore not create uses that would generate vehicle trips. Therefore, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not create CO‐generating sources. However, future development within the HD Zone would result in an increase in vehicle trips within the area. Ambient carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations typically correspond with the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. In addition, concentrations of of CO are also influenced by wind speed and atmospheric mixing. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations along a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels for sensitive receptors, e.g. children, the elderly, hospital patients, etc. This localized impact can result in elevated levels of CO, or “hotspots” even though concentrations at the closest air quality monitoring station may be below state and federal standards. Where inversion conditions occur within the Valley, CO concentrations may be more uniformly distributed over a broad area. Localized impacts typically depend on whether ambient CO levels within the vicinity of a project would be above or below Federal air quality standards. If ambient levels are below the established standards, significant impacts would occur if project emissions would result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If If ambient levels already exceed a State standard, project emissions would be considered significant if they would increase one‐hour CO concentrations by 10 ppm or more or eight‐hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. There are two criteria established by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), January 10, 2002 Revision by which CO “Hot Spot” modeling is required: I. A traffic study for a project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity would be reduced to LOS E or F; or, II. A traffic study indicates that a project would substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the construction of any residential units nor would it modify or change the current or future traffic volumes or Levels of Service of any intersection or roadway segment within the HD Zone or San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Therefore, CO “Hotspot” Modeling was not conducted for the Amended HD City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-39 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR Ordinance, and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are anticipated to be caused by implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance. Future individual development projects would be required to demonstrate their potential to generate CO Hotspots on a project‐specific basis. Mitigation measures would be required, as appropriate, to reduce or eliminate such impacts. Impacts associated with the Project are therefore considered to be less than significant. Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) The GAMAQI states, “when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs, Lead Agencies should consider both of the following situations: 1) A new or modified source of HAPs is proposed for a location near an existing residential area or other sensitive receptor; and, 2) A residential development or other sensitive receptor is proposed for a site near an existing source of HAPs.”29 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in physical construction within the HD Zone, nor would it result in the emission of HAPs. As development occurs within the HD Zone in the future, individual development projects would be required to demonstrate their potential to generate HAPs and to identify potential impacts as a result. As appropriate, mitigation measures would be required to eliminate or reduce such impacts to less than significant. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the emission of HAPs within the air basin. Impacts associated with the Project are therefore considered to be less than significant. Sensitive Receptors Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in development within the HD Zone that would result in potential impacts on sensitive receptors. As discussed previously, the incremental difference between emissions resulting with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance were implemented and if the Ordinance were not implemented, has been demonstrated to be zero. As such, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance is not expected to pose any additional risk to any sensitive receptors within the HD Zone. Additionally, residential units to be constructed under either scenario are not expected to be a source of odors, as defined by the GAMAQI30, and as further discussed below. Therefore, based on the anticipated incremental difference representing potential air quality impacts of the Amended HD Ordinance being implemented, the Amended HD Ordinance is not expected to have any adverse impacts on any known sensitive receptors. All future development within the HD Zone would be evaluated on a project‐specific basis with consideration for project characteristics and adjacency to sensitive receptors to determine if potential impacts would 29 SJVAPCD GAMAQI ‐Page 52 30 SJVAPCD GAMAQI ‐Table 4‐2, Page 27. City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-40 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR occur. Mitigation measures would be implemented as necessary to reduce impacts to less than significant. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Odors 5.6‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in significant long‐term odor impacts. Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) GAMAQI states that an evaluation “should be conducted for both of the following situations: 1) a potential source of objectionable odors is proposed for a location near existing sensitive receptors, and 2) sensitive receptors are proposed to be located near an existing source of objectionable odors.”31 Criteria for such an evaluation are based on the Lead Agency’s determination of the proximity to one another of the proposed project and the sensitive receptors. The SJVAPCD identifies a sensitive receptor as a location where human populations, especially children, senior citizens and sick persons, are present, and where there is a reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure to pollutants, according to the averaging period for ambient air quality standards, i.e. the 24‐hour, 8‐hour or 1‐hour standards. Odor is strongest at its source and dissipates with increasing distance. The offensiveness and degree of odor depends on the sensitivity of the receptors exposed to the odor. According to the SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), facilities located one mile or less from a sensitive receptor may create a significant significant odor impact. The SJVAPCD’s guidance indicates that a detailed analysis would include evaluating whether complaints have been filed with the SJVAPCD for similar existing operations. The AQIA considered the effects of potential odor impacts in accordance with the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI and concluded that odorous compounds associated with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance are not anticipated, as the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the generation of a source of objectionable odors or odorous compounds,32 nor would it cause sensitive receptors to be located near an existing source of 5.6-41 31 SJVAPCD GAMAQI ‐Page 50 32 SJVAPCD GAMAQI ‐Table 4‐2, Page 27. City of Bakersfield December 2008 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR objectionable odors. Therefore, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not create adverse odors. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Air Quality Management Plan Consistency 5.6‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would be consistent with the applicable air quality attainment plan (AQAP) criteria. Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: As noted under the Significance Criteria discussion, a potentially significant impact on air quality would occur if a project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable AQAP. Although it was determined that implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in an adverse impact on the ambient air quality within the SJVAB, potential impacts must must also be considered on a regional air quality planning level and properly reduced as feasible. Evaluation of project consistency with the applicable AQAP is therefore necessary to determine if conflicts would occur with those planned impacts that have been anticipated, versus that which would result from a proposed project. The purpose of determining consistency is to identify whether a project is inconsistent with the assumptions or objectives of applicable regional air quality plans, and whether it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. If a project is inconsistent, local governments are required to consider modifications or inclusion of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize such an inconsistency. However, even if a project is found to be consistent, it can still have a significant impact on air quality under CEQA. Consistency with the AQAP means that a project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions in the respective plan plan to achieve the Federal and State air quality standards. Policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the Metropolitan Bakersfield and Kern County General Plans control potential air quality impacts from proposed development projects within Kern County. Each project within the SJVAPCD is required to demonstrate consistency with the SJVAPCD’s adopted AQAP for ozone and PM10. To demonstrate progress in achieving attainment for all criteria pollutants, the SJVAPCD is required to submit a “Rate of Progress” document to the CARB. Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), air pollution control districts with severe or extreme air quality problems are required to seek a five percent reduction in non‐attainment emissions per year. The AQAP prepared for the San Joaquin Valley by the SJVAPCD complies with this requirement. The document is submitted to CARB for review, approval or amendment. CARB then submits the AQAP to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) for final review and approval within the SIP. In addition, stationary air pollution sources are regulated through the permitting authority of the SJVAPCD under the New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule (SJVAPCD Rule 2201). All new or modified equipment that emits, reduces or controls air contaminants, unless City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-42 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR exempted by the SJVAPCD, would be required to apply for an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate (SJVAPCD Rule 2010). In addition, specific types of stationary equipment may require the implementation of best available control technology to offset both stationary source emission increases along with increases in cargo carrier emissions, if established threshold levels are exceeded (SJVAPCD Rule 2201, 4.7.1). As such, the SJVAPCD would utilize this mechanism to ensure that all potential stationary sources within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance would be subject to the requirements of the SJVAPCD to ensure that new development does not contribute to a net increase in stationary sources of criteria air pollutants. The Federal Clean Air Act (Sections 176 and 316) and CEQA Guidelines require that a project be evaluated for consistency with the applicable AQAP. To evaluate such consistency, CARB utilizes the following criteria: • Determination that an AQAP is being implemented in the area where the project is being proposed. • The proposed project must be consistent with the growth assumptions of the applicable AQAP. • The project must contain in its design all reasonably available and feasible air quality control measures. The SJVAPCD has implemented the current, modified AQAP as approved by the CARB. The current AQAP is also currently under review by the U.S. EPA. Therefore, the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is located within an area in which an AQAP applies. In addition, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would regulate uses within the HD Zone, which would act as an overlay zone. No changes to the underlying zone or General Plan land use designations for properties within the HD Zone are proposed. Although the Amended HD Ordinance would result in a reduction in the number of homes potentially constructed within the HD Zone, it is anticipated that construction of these homes would instead occur on on other available residentially zoned properties within the Northeast Quadrant, consistent with the City’s growth projections as identified in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and Kern County General Plan, and the growth assumptions of the AQAP. In addition, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not alter or affect policy or rule‐required air‐quality control measures. As discussed earlier, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in exceedances of SJVAPCD thresholds for criteria pollutants, and overall potential short‐term construction emissions would actually be reduced with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would result in a potential reduction in the overall number of units constructed within the HD Zone in the future, due to the more restrictive development standards contained within the Amended HD Ordinance. As such, Project implementation would constitute a less intensive land use than what was originally anticipated under the General Plan, and therefore, air quality impacts associated with the assumed buildout of the City, and in particular, the Northeast Quadrant, would be reduced. As City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-43 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR such, the Amended HD Ordinance would not conflict with the applicable AQAP. Impacts would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.6.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Under CEQA, the GAMAQI defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The document also states that “any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact... would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. Impacts of local pollutants (CO, HAPs) are cumulatively significant when modeling shows that the combined emissions from the project and other existing and planned projects will exceed air quality standards.”33 The following discussion considers whether implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would have an adverse effect on air quality within the SJVAB when considered with future development within the HD Zone, without the restrictions imposed by the Ordinance. Short-Term Cumulative Construction Impacts 5.6‐5 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would result in a reduction of short‐term cumulative construction emissions within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Grading and construction activities required for site development generally result in short‐term emissions that may affect air quality. However, such activities are typically short in duration and are not generally considered to result in lasting effects on air quality. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in construction or land development activities within the HD Zone. However, as discussed previously, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would result in a potential reduction in the number of units built within the HD Zone by an estimated 3,199 units. As such, overall construction emissions would also be reduced, based on shorter, less arduous grading and construction efforts required for residential units in less hilly terrain. As construction emissions would be potentially reduced under the Amended HD Ordinance, short‐term cumulative construction impacts would also be reduced. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with short‐term construction activities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.6-44 33 JVAPCD GAMAQI ‐Table 4‐2, Page 29 City of Bakersfield December 2008 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR Long-Term Cumulative Impacts 5.6‐6 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in an incremental difference in long‐term area and operational cumulative emissions within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Each of the two scenarios evaluated in the Air Quality Impact Assessment considers the long‐term area and operational emissions generated by the approximately 3,200 residential units (2,971 single‐family and 229 multi‐family units) that could potentially be constructed within the northeast quadrant of the City. Based on the City’s assumption that these 3,200 units would be constructed within the northeast quadrant, regardless of whether or not the Amended HD Ordinance was adopted, long‐term emissions impacts for both scenarios would be essentially the same. Therefore, the Amended HD Ordinance would not contribute to an incremental difference in long‐term area and operational cumulative emissions within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Global Climate Change 5.6‐7 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in an incremental difference in area and operational greenhouse gas emissions to the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: In addition to the criteria pollutants for which direct regulatory standards have been established, future construction and operation of uses within the HD Zone would involve the production of a variety of other gases, such as carbon dioxide, that are believed to influence ongoing climate change. Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may potentially result from natural factors, natural processes within the climate system, and/or human activities (anthropogenic activities). Atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) and clouds within the Earth’s atmosphere influence the Earth’s temperature by absorbing most of the infrared radiation rising from the Earth’s sun‐warmed surface that would otherwise escape into space. This process through which heat is retained in the troposphere is commonly known as the greenhouse effect.34 Greenhouse gases increase the earth’s ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere and are global in their effect. Because primary greenhouse gases have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 by the United Nations to address potential impacts of global warming and to identify methods through which nations 5.6-45 34 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth’s surface to 10 to 12 kilometers. City of Bakersfield December 2008 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR could reduce the effects of climate change on a global scale. The United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change held in 1992, which resulted in the signing of an agreement by various world leaders aimed at controlling greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of greenhouse gases in the United States. The plan consists of more than 50 voluntary programs. Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. The Montreal Protocol stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete ozone in the stratosphere (i.e., chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) were to be phased out by the year 2000. On September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (the Act) was enacted by the State of California. The legislature stated, “global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well‐being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California.” AB 32 charges CARB with the responsibility to monitor and regulate sources of greenhouse gas emissions in order to reduce those emissions. The Act defines greenhouse gas emissions as all of the following gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexaflouride. This agreement represents the first enforceable statewide program in the U.S. to cap all GHG emissions from major industries that includes penalties for non‐compliance. While acknowledging that national and international actions will be necessary to fully address the issue of global warming, AB 32 lays out a program to inventory and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California and from power generation facilities located outside the state that serve California residents and businesses. AB 32 primarily provides a timeframe for establishing plans, policies, and studies to address global climate change. However, AB 32 does not provide thresholds or methodologies for analyzing a project’s impacts regarding global climate change. AB 32 required that by July 1, 2007, CARB adopt a list of discrete early action measures that could subsequently be adopted and implemented prior to January 1, 2010 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By January 1, 2008, CARB was required to define the 1990 baseline emissions for California, and to adopt that baseline as the 2020 statewide emissions cap. CARB is then responsible for conducting rulemaking, culminating in rule adoption by January 1, 2011, for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to achieve the emissions cap by 2020. The rules must take effect no later than 2012. In designing emission reduction measures, CARB must aim to minimize costs, maximize benefits, improve and modernize California’s energy infrastructure, maintain electric system reliability, maximize additional environmental and economic co‐benefits for California, and complement the state’s efforts to improve air quality. Although there are no established criteria for determining the significance of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions, the Amended HD Ordinance would not cause or contribute to a significant impact on global climate change. The Amended HD Ordinance is an overlay ordinance which would not change the existing underlying General Plan designation or zoning of property located in the HD zone. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in development or construction activities other than those that already are permitted City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-46 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR under the existing General Plan designation and zoning. However, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would potentially reduce future housing density within the HD Zone, consequently also reducing potential population growth and resultant traffic and pollutant emissions within the area. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance would provide measures to reduce fire risk in a high‐fire risk area, thereby contributing to a potential reduction in greenhouse gases released during wildfire events, particularly those large in scale. It is therefore reasonable to predict that implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would reduce the potential for significant negative impacts with respect to climate change to occur. A number of factors are available for estimating the GHG from mobile sources. Not all GHG exhibit the same ability to induce climate change. As a result, GHG contributions are commonly quantified in carbon dioxide equivalencies (CO2e). The CO2e portion of GHG resulting from implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance were estimated using the URBEMIS program and the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol. The results are given in Table 5.6‐23, ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (TONS/YEAR), and also can be found in Attachment E of Appendix 13.4, Air Quality Impact Analysis. Table 5.6-23 Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tons/Year) WITHOUT AMENDED HD ORDINANCE WITH AMENDED HD ORDINANCE INCREMENTAL SOURCE CHANGE CO2E CO2E CO2E Total Construction Emissions (2009 ‐2019)* 74,406 72,858 (1,548) Operational Emissions* 43,003 43,003 0 Area Emissions* 5,577 5,577 0 Electricity Generation Emissions** 8,944 8,944 0 Notes: *Calculated using URBEMIS2007 v9.2.4; **Calculated using CCAR Protocol Table 5.6‐23, ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (TONS/YEAR), indicates that implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would result in a potential overall reduction of GHG emissions during future construction by approximately 1,548 tons if the future displaced residential units are constructed outside the designated Slope Protection Areas. The potential construction of these units would not result in the emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), or sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), the other gases identified as GHG in AB 32. Future residential construction occurring outside of the Slope Protection Areas would be subject to future regulations developed under AB 32, as developed by CARB. Because implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would result in a decrease in construction‐related GHGs, no significant cumulative impacts would occur as the result of the Project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-47 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.6 Air Quality Draft EIR Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.6.9 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts associated with the implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. City of Bakersfield December 2008 5.6-48 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-1 Section 5.7 Biological Resources 5.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.7.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Section is to identify existing biological resources within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance, analyze potential biological impacts, and recommend mitigation measures (if necessary) to reduce the significance of those impacts identified. Information in this Section is based on the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, adopted December 2002, the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR, adopted December 11, 2002, the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), adopted August 10, 1994 (date the Implementing Agreements were approved), and the Kern River Plan Element, adopted August 19, 1985. 5.7.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.7.2.1 Climate The mean elevation of the City of Bakersfield is approximately 400 feet above mean sea level (msl). Climate within the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley is generally characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters. Precipitation generally falls beginning in September, and ceases in March during dry years, spanning to May in wet years. Average precipitation within Bakersfield typically reaches 6.24 inches annually. Tule fog, which is a dense, persistent ground fog, often occurs within the Valley during the winter months. Freezing temperatures can occur during the winter months of December and January. Mean temperature in January is 47.9°F; mean temperature in July is 83.8°F. 5.7.2.2 Setting As stated in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR, approximately 408 square miles of both City and County lands within the eastern portion of southern San Joaquin Valley are included as part of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update. Over time, development within the Valley has resulted in changes to the natural habitat originally found within the Project area. Activities such as agriculture and oil and gas extraction, combined with with the effects of urban development, have physically altered the biological and physical setting of the area. In addition, exotic and invasive plant species have been introduced and have resulted in the decline of native plant communities. Furthermore, the general presence of humans has also influenced the lives of many animal species, in the form of restricting natural travel patterns, increasing exposure to man‐made light and noise, and creating potential hazards, such as air and water pollution and conflicts with vehicles. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR 5.7.2.3 Vegetation Types Within the area affected by the HD Zone, a variety of vegetation types occur. Dominant habitat includes grassland, ruderal, agriculture, wetland, open water, developed areas. These habitats are described briefly below, and in greater detail within the General Plan Update EIR. Grassland – Although grassland habitat is now largely found within the northeastern portion of Bakersfield, it once dominated much of the City’s Planning Area. These grasslands support sparse to dense groundcover with annual blooms of native wildflowers during years with sufficient rainfall. Off‐road vehicle trails traverse the grasslands. The extent of this habitat has been reduced through the conversion of grasslands to agricultural uses and urban development. Introduced annual grasses largely comprise the grassland within the Bakersfield area, as well as native and non‐native species such as peppergrass, doveweed, and wild beet. The high percentage of introduced species within the grasslands is assumed to be the result of cattle grazing and other disturbances caused by humans in the area over the last 200 years. Grasslands within the Bakersfield area typically support a variety of mammal populations, including the California ground squirrel, black‐tailed jackrabbit, Herman kangaroo rat, and Botta’s pocket gopher. Common reptile species include the blunt‐nosed leopard lizard, sideblotched lizard and gopher snake. Due to the general lack of water within the Planning Area, amphibians are generally not present. Birds commonly occurring within the grasslands include the western meadowlark, lark sparrow, mourning dove, burrowing owl, red‐tailed hawk, marsh hawk, barn owl, and Brewer’s blackbird. Avian species commonly present during seasonal months during the winter and spring include white‐crowned sparrow, western bluebird, and rough‐legged hawk. Refer to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR, for additional discussion of animal species typically occurring within the grassland habitat in the Bakersfield area. Ruderal – Ruderal vegetation generally consists of native and introduced species that occupy disturbed habitats. Ruderal vegetation is largely present in the northeastern portion of the City’s Planning Area, and includes a portion of the Kern River oil field. Other areas supporting ruderal vegetation include areas where grading, weed control, brush clearing, and mowing activities have occurred, such as along the edges of dirt roadways and within fallowed fields. Ruderal species include tumbleweed, burweed, red brome, as well as eucalyptus, black walnut, and mulberry trees. Common animal species inhabiting ruderal vegetation are similar to those that occupy grassland habitat. Agriculture – Agricultural uses within the Planning Area generally occur to the east and west of Highway 99. Typical tree crops in the Bakersfield area include almonds, oranges, and English walnuts, while row crops generally include alfalfa, grapes, cotton, and Kafir corn. Within the row crop areas, vertebrate species are somewhat limited, due to reduced insect populations, lack of vegetation diversity, and the effects plowing has on the potential for the soils to serve as habitat. Avian species typically include starling, western meadowlark, killdeer, and whitecrowed sparrow. Shorebirds and waterfowl may also be present during the winter months when flooding occurs. In areas where row crops occur, similar fauna to that of tree crops occurs, City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR with foliage‐gleaning birds and avian species utilizing the trees for nesting. Such species typically include red‐tailed hawk, barn owl, mockingbird, American robin, and scrub jay. Wetland – Areas where water is present either at or near the ground surface can potentially support wetland habitat. Two types of wetland habitat generally occur with the Bakersfield area. Riparian wetland habitat occurs in the form of woodland scrub, floodplain, and savannah and is associated with the Kern River. Riparian areas support a wide range of animal species, including raccoon, San Joaquin fox, western fence lizard, and deermouse. Avian species include great horned owl, scrub jay, redshouldered hawk, and mourning dove, while other avian species may be present with the varying seasons. Freshwater marsh wetland habitat is generally associated with the riparian vegetation along the Kern River in areas where standing or slowmoving water occurs, and supports principal vegetation species as tule, cattail, salt grass and yellow water weed. Typical species inhabiting freshwater marsh include long‐billed curlew, ring billed gull, and red‐winged blackbird. Other species include bullfrogs, western toads, common garter snake, muskrat and raccoon. Open Water ‐Lake Ming and Hart Park Lake represent the major open water habitats within the City’s Planning Area, along with other lesser waterways such as the Kern River and associated canals, and small ponds. Water is only present year‐round in limited water resources within the Planning Area. Typical waterfowl and shorebird species include coots, ruddy ducks, mallards, great blue heron, least sandpiper, western sandpiper, black‐necked stilt, long‐billed marsh wrens and American bittern. Common fish include channel catfish, white crappie, and fathead minnow. Developed Areas – Developed areas are represented by lands that support various types of development, including structures, roadways, and other improvements. As such, limited occurrence of both natural habitat and animals exists, due to the level of disturbance; however, the San Joaquin kit fox, as well as coyotes, are occasionally present along the perimeter of or further within the urban areas. 5.7.2.4 Wildlife Movement Wildlife movement corridors are defined as areas that connect suitable wildlife habitat areas in a region otherwise fragmented by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Natural features such as canyon drainages, ridgelines, or areas with vegetation cover provide corridors for wildlife travel. Wildlife movement corridors are important because they provide access to mates, food, and water; allow the dispersal of individuals away from high population density areas; and facilitate the exchange of genetic traits between populations. Wildlife movement corridors are generally considered sensitive by resource and conservation agencies. The fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization can create isolated ʺislandsʺ of wildlife habitat, with little or no linkage between the lands; however, wildlife corridors can reduce the potential effects of fragmentation by allowing animals to move between remaining habitat, thereby allowing depleted populations to be replenished. In addition, corridors can act as escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbance, thereby reducing the potential for such events to result in the extinction of a population or local species. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR Wildlife movement activities can typically be categorized as follows: 1) Dispersal (e.g., juvenile animals from natal areas or individuals extending range distributions); 2) Seasonal migration; and, 3) Movements related to home‐range activities (e.g., foraging for food or water, defending territories, or searching for mates, breeding areas, or cover). Based on their size, location, vegetation, and availability of food, some of these movement areas (e.g., large drainages and canyons) serve as source areas for food, water, and cover. This holds particularly true if the travel route is within a larger open space area; however, once open space areas are constrained or fragmented by development or construction of physical obstacles such as roads or highways, the remaining landscape features or travel routes that connect the larger open space areas can act as corridors if they offer adequate space, cover, food, and water and are free of obstacles or distractions (e.g., man‐made noise and lighting). Creeks can also act as natural corridors for wildlife movement, both in an undeveloped setting and when surrounded by physical development. These corridors can provide connection between larger, protected open space areas with no other linkage, allowing such wildlife movement corridors to become locally or even regionally important. Wildlife movement occurs within portions of the area affected by the HD Zone, particularly where lands remain undeveloped. In addition, large areas of undeveloped land and open space, as well as Kern Canyon, are located to the east of the Project site, and the Kern River generally forms the northern boundary of the HD Zone. To the south of the Project area lies generally undeveloped land, with several intervening residential subdivisions that have been recently constructed or are currently under construction. The majority of lands within the HD Zone do not form a wildlife movement corridor because of adjacent development and existing roadways, as well as interspersed agricultural lands that may further restrict movement. Other obstacles, such as fences on private ownerships, also reduce the potential for formation of a viable wildlife corridor. 5.7.2.5 Special Status Species and Habitats Special Status Species and Habitats include the following: • Species listed as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); • Species that are candidates for either State or Federal listing; • Species designated as Fully Protected, Species of Special Concern, or special status plants, or habitats as defined by the CDFG, USFWS, or California Native Plant Society (CNPS); or, • Other locally‐designated sensitive species or habitats that are listed by the CDFG in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), CNPS, or City lists (if available), but do not fall into any of the above categories. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-4 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR Definitions An Endangered species is a species that has been federally listed and is facing extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its geographic range. A Threatened species is a species that has been federally listed and is anticipated to become endangered within the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Proposed species are those species that are officially proposed by the USFWS for addition to the federal Threatened and Endangered species list. Endangered species are those species whose anticipated chance of survival and/or ability to successfully reproduce is in jeopardy. A Threatened species is a species that occurs in limited numbers throughout its habitat range and is anticipated to become an Endangered species in the near future unless special protection or management is provided. A Rare species is one whose population is small throughout its habitat range that it may become Endangered if conditions within its present environment continue to worsen. Federal Species of Concern are those species that have been given an informal designation by the USFWS. These species are not federal candidates at the time of designation, but are acknowledged in the CNDDB (CDFG 2003a). The USFWS does not actively maintain this list of species. California Species of Special Concern is an informal designation assigned by the CDFG for certain wildlife species that are in decline, but that are not eligible state candidates. California Fully Protected and Protected species are those species protected by special legislation, such as the mountain lion and white‐tailed kite. The California Native Plant Society has developed an inventory (list) of special status plant species within the state of California (CNPS 2003). Those plant species on List 1A are considered to be extinct within the state because they have not been observed in the wild for a length of time. List 1B plants species are considered to be rare, threatened, or endangered throughout their range. List 2 plant species are considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but occur more frequently outside of the state. List 3 plant species are those species that CNPS requires additional information. List 4 plant species are those which have limited distribution within the state, and for which the threat of decline is considered to be low at the time of listing. Vegetation types, associations, or subassociations that support concentrations of special status plant or wildlife species, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife are considered to be Special Status species. Species of special interest are species defined as those that have been given recognition by Federal, State, or local resource conservation agencies, organizations and/or jurisdictions. Included in these species are those listed as Rare, Threatened and/or Endangered by State and Federal resource agencies. These habitats or plant communities are considered to be either locally or regionally unique, relatively limited in distribution, or of particular value to wildlife species. Other special status and sensitive species are considered within this EIR, as they are viewed as indicators of overall biological resource conditions; however, only species listed as City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-5 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR Threatened or Endangered would require mitigation for potential impacts under the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts. Sensitive Biological Resources Sensitive Natural Communities Within the Metropolitan Bakersfield Area, a number of sensitive natural communities have been identified in the Natural Diversity Data Base. Table 5.7‐1, SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES KNOWN TO OCCUR OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE BAKERSFIELD AREA, identifies these species. This table includes several species that are not reported; however, they are included in the Table as it is anticipated that they occur within the Bakersfield Planning Area. The communities identified in the Table are considered to be rare enough to be included on the State inventory of natural communities. Table 5.7-1 Sensitive Natural Communities Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring in the Bakersfield Area Relictual Interior Dunes Alkali Seep Valley Sink Scrub Freshwater Seep Valley Saltbush Scrub Alkali Playa Sierra‐Tehachapi Saltbush Scrub Cismontane Alkali Marsh Upper Sonoran Subshrub Scrub Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Valley Needlegrass Grassland Vernal Marsh Valley Sacaton Grassland Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest Wildflower Field Great Valley Willow Scrub Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool Great Valley Mesquite Scrub Northern Claypan Vernal Pool Buttonbush Scrub Alkali Meadow Source: California Department of Fish and Game’s Natural Diversity Data Base. Plants of Concern A number of sensitive plants occur within the Bakersfield Planning Area and could potentially occur within the area affected by the HD Zone. These species are briefly discussed below and are listed in Table 5.7‐2, SENSITIVE ANIMAL AND PLANT SPECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE BAKERSFIELD AREA. Refer to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR for a more in‐depth discussion of these resources. Bakersfield Cactus (Opuntia treleasei) – The Bakersfield Cactus is a State‐and Federally‐listed endangered species. This species generally occurs along the lower hills (below 1,000 feet above mean sea level) in the area of the Kern River and Wheeler Ridge. The species is generally concentrated northeast of Oildale; the Kern River Bluffs east and northeast of Bakersfield; west City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-6 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR and north of Caliente Creek; Comanche Point; San Ridge; and, northwest of Wheeler Ridge. Development currently poses a potential threat to these areas. This species has been identified in the northern portion of the Northeast Focus area, outside of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) boundary, and outside of the MBHCP area in the Kern Front oil field. The species was also found within the MBHCP boundary in the Northeast Focus area. California Jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus) – The California Jewelflower is a State‐and Federally‐listed endangered species. The species historically occupied portions of Bakersfield in Kern County, as well as other areas within Fresno and Santa Barbara County. The population has since been reduced by agricultural conversion of natural lands, as well as the conversion of grasslands with non‐native plants. Historic populations in the Bakersfield area have not been recently identified, and it is assumed that the species has been destroyed, as suitable habitat is no longer present. San Joaquin Wooly‐threads (Lembertia congdonii) – The San Joaquin Wooly‐threads is a Federallylisted endangered species. Populations within the San Joaquin Valley are limited, as well as along the adjoining foothills from Panoche Pass in San Benito County southeasterly to Caliente Creek, located to the east of the City of Bakersfield, due to the agricultural land conversion. Three sightings of the species occurred in 1988 in the western portion of the Planning Area. Hoover’s Wooly‐Star (Eriastrum hoover) – This species is a Federally‐listed threatened species. This species was identified in the Southwest Focus area in the MBHCP surveys. Kern Mallow (Eremalche kernensis) – Kern mallow is a Federally‐listed endangered species. This species was not identified within the planning area in the surveys conducted for the MBHCP. Tulare pseudobahia (Pseudobahia peirsonii) – This species is a State‐listed endangered species and a Federally‐listed threatened species. This species was not identified within the planning area in the surveys conducted for the MBHCP. Striped Adobe Lily (Fritillaria straita) – The striped adobe lily is a State‐listed threatened species and a Federally‐listed Species of Concern, as well as a CNPS List 1B species, which is a plant considered rate or endangered in California and elsewhere. The species has been identified in the northeastern portion of the Planning Area; however, its habitat has largely been threatened by agricultural conversion and cattle grazing activities. Bakersfield Saltbrush (Atriplex tularensis) – The Bakersfield Saltbrush is a State‐listed endangered species. Within southern Kern County, this species has historically occurred along the borders of alkali sinks and on alkaline plains within the southern portion of Kern County. Only one population has been identified at the Kern Lake Preserve, while the CNPS Inventory lists extirpated, historic populations within the Weed Patch and Conner USGS quadrangles. Animals of Concern Table 5.7‐2, SENSITIVE ANIMAL AND PLANT SPECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE BAKERSFIELD AREA, gives the sensitive animal Species of Concern which have been historically present in the Metropolitan Bakersfield City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-7 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR Planning Area. These species are briefly discussed below and are discussed more extensively within the General Plan Update EIR. San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) – The San Joaquin kit fox is Federally‐listed as endangered, and is listed by the State as threatened. Historically, the range of the kit fox stretched from Tracy in San Joaquin County to Rose Station in southern Kern County, covering approximately 8,667 square miles within central California (USFWS 1983). Due to conversion of agricultural lands, it is estimated that approximately 41 percent of the kit fox population occurs within Kern County, with the remainder populating Tulare, Kings, San Luis Obispo, Fresno, and Monterey Counties. Kit foxes have been identified in and around the Bakersfield area, in particular in vacant lots, fallow fields, and open areas. Preparation of the MBHCP included surveys for the kit fox. Within the northeast and southwest areas of the Planning Area, evidence of the kit fox was found, thereby indicating that this species is present in these two areas. Areas west and east of the City, including Tupman Creek and Caliente Creek, have been identified as Essential Habitat areas by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for this species. Blunt‐nosed Leopard Lizard (Gambelia silus) – The blunt‐nosed leopard lizard is Federally‐listed as an endangered species, and is listed as fully‐protected by the State. The historic range for this species stretched over 7.5 million acres, and included the San Joaquin Valley; however, the range in 1985 was estimated to include only 415,680 acres, reduced largely due to the conversion of natural habitat to agricultural, industrial, and urban uses. This species was identified in the MBHCP surveys in the northeast and southwest areas of the planning area. Areas west and east of the City, including Tupman Creek and Caliente Creek, have been identified as Essential Habitat areas by the CDFG for this species. Tipton Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) ‐The Tipton kangaroo rat is listed as a Federal and State endangered species. It is estimated that only one percent of the historic population remains as the result of habitat loss caused by the agricultural conversion of land made possible by the Central Valley Project. Tipton kangaroo rats historically occupied portions of the Tulare Lake Basin. This species is present in low to moderate populations on several publicly owned parcels within the planning area, with numerous sightings within the southwest portion of the MBHCP area. The species has also been identified west of Bakersfield, particularly within the Kern River corridor west of Bakersfield, where areas of habitat are presently believed to serve as viable habitat for the Tipton kangaroo rat. Giant Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys ingens) ‐The giant kangaroo rat is both a State and Federallylisted endangered species. Historically, this species occupied an area from Merced County south to Kern County, among other regional areas. It is estimated that approximately 97 percent of its historic original habitat has been destroyed by the agricultural conversion of natural lands. Present‐day threats may include rodenticides, off‐road vehicles, and cattle grazing. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-8 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR Evidence of this species was found outside and southwest of the City of Bakersfield Planning Area. Populations are known to occur near the Oak Hills petroleum fields of Kern County. Potential habitat includes areas of flat to gently sloping terrain where annual grasses occur. San Joaquin Antelope Squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsoni) – The San Joaquin Antelope Squirrel is a State‐listed threatened species. Historically, this species was found in almost the entire San Joaquin Valley in Kern County and portions of Tulare County. The population of this species has since declined and its habitat limited, due to conversion of habitat to agricultural uses, urbanization, rodenticides, and potentially cattle grazing. This species is typically found in grassland and scrub areas where sandy, non‐flooded conditions occur. Surveys conducted for the MBHCP identified this species in the southwest portion of the study area, west of Interstate 5, as well as along the Kern River north of California State College campus. Table 5.7-2 Sensitive Animal and Plant Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring in the Bakersfield Area ANIMALS PLANTS State and Federally Listed Endangered or Threatened State and Federally Listed Endangered San Joaquin kit fox Blunt‐nosed leopard lizard Tipton kangaroo rat Giant kangaroo rat Bakersfield cactus Opuntia treleasei California jewelflower* Caulanthus californicus State Listed Threatened Federal Candidate for Listing Federally Listed Endangered or Threatened San Joaquin (Nelson’s) antelope squirrel San Joaquin wooly‐threads Lembertia congdonii Hoover’s wolly‐star Eriastrum hooveri Kern mallow* Eremalche kernensis State and Federal Candidate for Listing State Listed Threatened or Endangered Short‐nosed kangaroo rat* Tulare pseudobahia* Pseudobahia peirsonii Striped adobe lily Fritillaria straita Bakersfield saltbush* Atriplex tularensis City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-9 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR Table 5.7-2, Sensitive Animal and Plant Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring in the Bakersfield Area, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-10 ANIMALS PLANTS Federal Candidate for Listing Federal Candidate for Listing San Joaquin pocket mouse* Bakersfield saltbush* Atriplex tularensis Slough thistle* Cirsium crassicaule Recurved larkspur Delphinium recuvatum 5.7.3 REGULATORY SETTING Threatened and Endangered species are listed by the CDFG and the USFWS in the Project area. Three agencies generally regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas within the State of California. Activities pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act are regulated by the USACE Regulatory Branch. The CDFG is responsible for the regulation of activities under the Fish and Game Code Sections 1600‐1607, and the Regional Water Quality Control Control Board (RWQCB) regulates activities pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter‐Cologne Act. 5.7.3.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The United Stated Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) maintains regulatory authority over the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States, pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. The USACE and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently revised the definition of “fill material” to apply to any “material placed in waters of the United States where the material has the effect of: (i) Replacing any portion of a water of the United States with dry land; or (ii) Changing the bottom elevation of any portion of the waters of the United States.” Fill material may include sand, rock, clay, construction debris, wood chips, or other similar “materials used to create any structure or infrastructure in the waters of the United States.” The term “waters of the United States” includes the following: • All waters that have, are, or may be used in interstate or foreign commerce (including sightseeing or hunting), including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; • Wetlands; • All waters such as interstate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds; the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce; • All impoundments of water mentioned above; Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR • All tributaries of waters mentioned above; • Territorial seas; and, • All wetlands adjacent to the waters mentioned above. In the absence of wetlands, the USACE’s jurisdiction in non‐tidal waters extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), which is defined as “…that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding area (33 CFR ¤328.3(e)).” Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands are jointly defined by the USACE and EPA as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (33 CFR ¤328.3(b)).” On January 9, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army USACE of Engineers et al (SWANCC). As a result of this case, the scope of the USACE’s Section 404 CWA regulatory permitting program was limited, restricting USACE’s jurisdictional authority over isolated, non‐navigable, intrastate waters that are not tributary or adjacent to navigable waters or tributaries (i.e., wetland conditions). The Court held that Congress did not intend for isolated, non‐navigable water conditions to be covered within Section 404 of the CWA, as they are not considered to be true “waters of the U.S.” 5.7.3.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is the primary agency responsible for protecting water quality in California. The RWQCB regulates discharges to surface waters under the Federal CWA and the California Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The RWQCB’s jurisdiction extends to all waters of the State and to all waters of the United States, including wetlands (isolated and non‐isolated conditions). Through 401 Certification, Section 401 of the CWA allows the RWQCB to regulate any proposed federally permitted activity, which may affect water quality. Such activities include the discharge of dredged or fill material, as permitted by the USACE, pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. The RWQCB is required to provide “certification that there is reasonable assurance that an activity which may result in the discharge to waters of the United States will not violate water quality standards,” pursuant to Section 401. Water Quality Certification must be based on the finding that proposed discharge will comply with applicable water quality standards, of which are given as objectives in each of the RWQCB’s Basin Plans. In addition, pursuant to the Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the State is given authority to regulate waters of the State, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters. As such, any person proposing to discharge waste into a water body that could affect its water quality must first file a Report of Waste Discharge if a City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-11 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR Section 404 does not apply. ”Waste” is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, including fill material discharged into water bodies. 5.7.3.3 California Department of Fish and Game Historically, the State of California regulated activities in rivers, streams, and lakes pursuant to Sections 1600‐1607 of the California Fish and Game Code; however, on January 1, 2004, legislation went into effect that repealed Fish and Game Code Sections 1600‐1607 and instead, added Fish and Game Code sections 1600‐1616. This action eliminated the separation between private/public notifications (previously 1601/1603). Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify the CDFG before commencing any activity that would result in one or more of the following: • Substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; • Substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or, • Deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake. Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes within the State of California. While the jurisdictional limits are similar to the limits defined by USACE regulations, CDFG jurisdiction includes riparian habitat supported by a river, stream, or lake with or without the presence or absence of saturated soil conditions or hydric soils. CDFG jurisdiction generally includes to the top of bank of the stream, or to the outer limit of the adjacent riparian vegetation (outer drip line), whichever is greater. Any project that occurs within or in the vicinity of a river, steam, lake, or their tributaries typically requires notification of the CDFG, including rivers or streams that flow at least periodically or permanently through a bed or channel with banks that support fish or other aquatic life, and watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation. 5.7.3.4 Federal Endangered Species Acts The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (50 CFR 17) is aimed at the protection of plants and animals which have been identified as being at risk of extinction, and classified as either threatened or endangered. FESA also regulates the “taking” of any endangered fish or wildlife species, per Section 9 of the Act. As development is proposed, the responsible agency or individual landowners would be required to submit to a formal consultation with the USWFS to assess potential impacts to listed species as the result of a development project, pursuant to Sections 7 and 10 of the FESA. The USFWS is required to make a determination as to the extent of impact to a particular species a project would have. If it is determined that potential impacts to a species would likely occur, measures to avoid or reduce such impacts must be identified. As the area affected by the HD Zone is within the MBHCP area, such lands are therefore covered by and subject to conditions of the corresponding USFWS Section 10 Incidental Take Permit for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-12 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR 5.7.3.5 California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) of 1984, in combination with the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977, regulates the listing and take of plant and animal species designated as endangered, threatened, or rare within the State. The State of California also lists Species of Special Concern based on limited distribution, declining populations, diminishing habitat, or unusual scientific, recreational, or educational value. The CDFG is given the responsibility by the State to assess development projects for their potential to impact listed species and their habitats. State listed special‐status species are also addressed through the issuance of a 2081 permit (Memorandum of Understanding), consistent with the MBHCP which affects the Project area. 5.7.3.6 Fish and Game Code Within the State of California, fish, wildlife, and native plant resources are protected and and managed by the CDFG. The Fish and Game Commission and/or the CDFG are responsible for issuing permits for the take or possession of protected species. The following sections of the Code address the protected species: Section 3511 (birds), Section 4700 (mammals), Section 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and Section 5515 (fish). 5.7.3.7 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) was originally drafted to put an end to the commercial trade in bird feathers popular in the latter part of the 1800’s. The MBTA makes it illegal to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 C.F.R. Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products. The USFWS is responsible for enforcing the MBTA. 5.7.3.8 Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) was developed as part of a joint effort by the City of Bakersfield and Kern County. The MBHCP allows the City and County to acquire permits that allow for the take of Federally‐and State‐listed species identified within the MBHCP area. Under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (hereafter referred to as a 10(a) permit), and Section 2081 of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA 9322), these permits are issued. The MBHCP is intended to provide a means to offset potential impacts to biological resources as the result of the incidental take of listed species and habitat loss incurred through the authorization of otherwise lawful activities. The MBHCP provides a means by which to acquire, preserve, and enhance native habitat that supports special status species, while allowing development to proceed as intended by the City’s General Plan. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-13 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR The incidental take1 of certain species through the destruction or displacement of individuals of the species and from loss of open lands incidental to development is allowed through the MBHCP. Such “take” is permitted in accordance with the conditions of the permit as described in the MBHCP. The State and Federal permits cover the following species within the MBHCP area: San Joaquin kit fox, blunt‐nosed leopard lizard, Tipton kangaroo rat, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin antelope squirrel, Bakersfield cactus, California jewel‐flower, San Joaquin woollythreads, Hoover’s woollystar, Kern mallow (Eremalche kernensis), Tulare pseudobahia (Pseudobahia piersonii), striped adobe‐lily, and Bakersfield smallscale. Consistent with the requirements of the MBHCP, new construction within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area is subject to the payment of mitigation fees (on a one‐time basis). Upon payment of the mitigation fees and receipt of City project approval, applicants are allowed the “incidental take” of special status, in accordance with State and Federal endangered species laws. The mitigation funds are collected and deposited into a trust fund. These funds are administered by the Implementation Trust, which is composed of representatives from the City of Bakersfield and Kern County trustees, USFWS, CDFG, and members of the public acting as advisors. The mitigation fees are intended to provide for the acquisition and/or enhancement of natural and restorable lands for the purpose of creating preserves. The MBHCP also provides for the reduction of take within the developed areas through relocation or displacement of individuals in areas affected by development. In addition, the MBHCP provides for monitoring of the quality of habitat within the reserves, status of special status species, and habitat restoration and enhancement programs, which will be used to indicate the success or failure of the plan. The current MBHCP expires in the year 2014. Prior to the 2014 expiration date under the current MBHCP, projects may be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval, or building permit and pay fees. Only those development projects that are ready to be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval, or building permit prior to the 2014 expiration date will be eligible to pay fees under the current MBHCP. Early payment or prepayment of MBHCP fees will not be allowed. The ability of the City to issue urban development permits is governed by the terms of the MBHCP. Urban development permits issued after the 2014 expiration date may be subject to a new or revised Habitat Conservation Plan, if approved, or be required to comply directly with requests of the USFWS and the CDFG. Within the MBHCP area boundaries, six “distinct ecological communities” have been identified. These species include non‐native grassland; Valley sink scrub; Sierra‐Tehachapi saltbush scrub; Valley saltbrush scrub; great Valley mesquite scrub; and southern cottonwood‐willow riparian forest. Refer to the General Plan Update EIR for additional discussion of these habitat communities and their overall habitat quality within the MBHCP boundaries. 5.7-14 1 The term ʺtakeʺ is defined as an act to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct. Harm in this sense can include any disturbance to habitats used by the species during any portion of its life history. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR 5.7.3.9 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The Conservation Element of the General Plan addresses the City’s intent to provide long‐range protection of biological resources within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The Conservation Element provides goals, policies, and implementation measures to reduce potential impacts on biological resources as the result of future development. Applicable goals and policies given in the Conservation Element – Biological Resources are identified below. A brief explanation of the Project’s consistency with these goals and policies is also given. Table 5.7-3 Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Biological Resources GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Conservation/Biological Resources Element Goals Conservation/Biological Resources Goal #1: “Conserve and enhance Bakersfield’s biological resources in a manner which facilitates orderly development and reflects the sensitivities and constraints of these resources.” The area affected by the HD Zone is within the MBHCP. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in physical construction or land improvement activities within the HD Zone that would affect sensitive biological resources or disrupt the orderly development of lands affected by the Project. As such, the Project would not conflict with the goals and policies established by the MBHCP. The payment of biological impact mitigation fees to reduce project impacts on biological resources would not be required. Conservation/Biological Resources Goal #2: “To conserve and enhance habitat areas designated ‘sensitive’ animal and plant species.” As stated above, the area affected by the HD Zone is within the MBHCP. As no physical development would result from the Project, no impacts to sensitive plant or animal species within the HD Zone would occur. No construction or land improvement activities would occur with Project implementation, thereby maintaining the existing natural habitat within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance. Conservation/Biological Resources Element Policies Conservation/Biological Resources Policy #1: “Direct development away from ‘sensitive biological resource’ areas, unless effective mitigation measures can be implemented.” As no physical development would result from the Project, no impacts to sensitive biological resource areas within the HD Zone would occur. No construction or land improvement activities would result from Project implementation, thereby maintaining the existing natural habitat within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance. No mitigation measures would be required. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-15 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR Table 5.7-3, Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Biological Resources, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-16 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Conservation/Biological Resources Policy #5: “Determine the locations and extent of suitable habitat areas required for the effective conservation management of designated “sensitive” plant and animal species.” The area affected by the Hillside Development Zone is within the MBHCP. As no physical development would result from the Project, no impacts to sensitive plant or animal species within the HD Zone would occur. No construction or land improvement activities would result from Project implementation, thereby allowing existing habitat within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance to remain in its natural state. 5.7.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Environmental Checklist form. The Environmental Checklist form includes questions relating to biological resources. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this Section. Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental impact: • If the project has 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 CDFG or USFWS. • If the project has a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. • If the project has 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. • If the project interferes substantially with the movement of any native or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites. • If the project conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. • If the project conflicts with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Section 15065(a), Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if “the project has the potential to Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR substantially 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 an endangered, rare or threatened species.” Substantial impacts would occur if an action would substantially diminish, or result in the loss of, an important biological resource or those that would conflict with local, State or Federal resource conservation plans, goals, or regulations; however, it is possible for impacts to have a local, adverse effect, but not be significant, as they would not substantially diminish or result in the permanent loss of an important resource on a population‐or region‐wide basis. The “region” in this analysis is defined as the hillsides affected by the Amended HD Ordinance within the City of Bakersfield. 5.7.5 IMPACTS Both direct and indirect impacts on biological resources as the result of Project implementation were considered in the following impact discussion. Direct impacts are those impacts directly resulting from Project implementation, and cause a direct effect on habitat, vegetation, wildlife, or special‐status. Indirect impacts occur when Project‐related activities (i.e., construction or grading) or long‐term Project operation (i.e., lighting or increased human activity). “Substantial Adverse Effect.” A “substantial adverse effect” is considered to be the loss or harm of a magnitude that, based on current scientific data and knowledge, would substantially diminish the population numbers of a species or distribution of a habitat type within the project region, and/or eliminate the functions and values of a biological resource in the region. Short-term Impacts (Construction) 5.7‐1 Construction of the proposed Project would not result in temporary impacts on biological resources in the Project area. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The proposed Project would not result in physical development within the HD Zone, and therefore, would not result in construction activities that would have the potential to adversely affect biological resources, either directly or indirectly. No site clearing, grading, excavation, or other such activities would occur with the Project that would potentially result in disturbance to biological resources onsite or within adjacent areas. In addition, potential impacts resulting from construction noise would be significant if clearing or grading construction activities would exceed the City’s established noise limits for such activities, and mitigation measures would be required. Such activities may temporarily displace or disturb wildlife within the vicinity of areas affected by clearing or grading activities. However, as no construction would occur as part of the Project, potential impacts on biological resources from construction noise would also not result. As such, the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in temporary impacts on biological resources in the Project area, due to construction activities. Impacts would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-17 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Special Status Species 5.7‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly 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. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: 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 area are expected to provide nesting, foraging, and denning opportunities opportunities for wildlife species. According to the General Plan Update EIR, several sensitive plant and animal species (listed as threatened or endangered) occur or potentially occur in the Bakersfield Planning Area and may potentially occur within the City’s hillside areas. Future removal or alteration of native and non‐native habitats within or near the Project area could result in the temporary or permanent displacement of plants, vegetation types, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and other animals. Indirect impacts could potentially occur from increased noise, light, and glare associated with new, future development. Such activities may result in a substantial adverse impact, and would be considered significant. The City of Bakersfield adopted the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) in 1994. The MBHCP is designed to offset potential impacts resulting from the 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. Consistent with the requirements of the MBHCP, all development projects within the City of Bakersfield are required to pay mitigation fees that are used to buy habitat lands, as applicable. Nothing in the scope of the Amended HD Ordinance would negatively impact special status species within the HD Zone, because the purpose of the regulations is to regulate new development to reduce potential impacts along the City’s hillsides. In addition, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development or habitat modification within the HD Zone. The Ordinance would act as an overlay zone and would not physically alter or change the existing biological conditions within the area affected by the Project. Additionally, the the Amended HD Ordinance would result in a potential overall reduction in density of development within the HD Zone, due to additional lot design restrictions (i.e., City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-18 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR increased setbacks, etc.). This would effectively reduce the amount of land area within the City’s hillside areas that could potentially be developed with residential uses, thereby resulting in a reduced potential for the disturbance of flora and fauna. Under the Amended HD Ordinance, it is estimated that approximately 3,199 fewer potential residential units would be developed on lands affected by the HD Zone; however, it is anticipated that land zoned to allow for residential development within the northeastern quadrant could absorb the development of these homes, thereby preventing the relocation of such future development to the Valley floor, where greater sprawl or impacts to sensitive habitat could occur. Any publicly‐and privatelyowned lands reserved for flood control or habitat preservation purposes within the HD Zone would remain as such with the Project and would not be developed. Additionally, by slightly reducing the overall density of development within the City’s hillside areas, the Amended HD Ordinance would consequently decrease the amount of light originating from structures within the HD Zone, thereby reducing potential indirect impacts caused by light and/or glare. The Amended HD Ordinance would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat modification, 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. As no physical development would result from the HD Zone as part of the Project, no direct or indirect disturbance to biological resources would result. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be less than significant. Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Natural Communities 5.7‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not have a substantial adverse effect on 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. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to encourage development design that would maintain the integrity and natural characteristics of the City’s hillsides as an important natural resource. The Ordinance would act as an overlay zone and would not indirectly or directly result in disturbance to biological resources within the HD Zone. Although lands within the HD Zone are generally anticipated to support sensitive habitat, the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in construction or other land improvement activities that would potentially affect such resources. The Amended HD Ordinance includes additional design measures that would further restrict land development within the hillside areas in northeastern Bakersfield, as compared to such measures included in the original HD Ordinance. Design requirements included in the Amended HD Ordinance include measures to require setbacks from ridgelines, minimization of cut and fill slopes, contour grading techniques. The Amended HD Ordinance also encourages “maintenance of the integrity and natural City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-19 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR characteristics of vegetation and wildlife communities.” As the proposed design measures would further restrict development on individual ownerships within the HD Zone, a greater portion of lands within the HD Zone would remain undisturbed and in their natural state for the long‐term. As a result, potential impacts to sensitive habitat may be further reduced with the Amended HD Ordinance as compared to conditions resulting with the original HD Ordinance. Due to the nature of the Project, the Amended HD Ordinance would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Wetlands 5.7‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not 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 the direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: As the HD Zone applies to the hillsides in the northeast quadrant of the City, the potential for the occurrence of wetland habitat within the HD Zone is considered to be low. As stated above, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development or land improvement activities within the HD Zone. As such, the Project would not result in potential impacts to wetland habitat through the direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. No construction activities within jurisdictional areas of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineers (USACE) or California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) would occur with Project implementation, and no associated permits from the Wildlife Agencies or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) would be required. Due to the nature of the Project, the Amended HD Ordinance would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through the direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other activities. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-20 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR Wildlife Corridors 5.7‐5 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not 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. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: A wildlife corridor serves to link together areas of suitable wildlife habitat that would otherwise be separated by unsuitable habitat or physical barriers. The Project area is not a narrow area of wildlife habitat that connects two larger areas of habitat. The casual movement of wildlife through and across the area affected by the HD Zone may presently occur; however, this activity does not qualify the Project area as a wildlife corridor, no matter how persistent this activity may be. The Project area occurs along the hillsides in the City’s northeastern quadrant, quadrant, and lands within the HD Zone currently support development which may deter or reduce the potential for wildlife movement to occur. Because of the nature of the lands the HD Zone applies to (slopes of eight percent or greater), the boundary of the HD Zone is quite varied along the City’s hillsides. As such, when considered together, lands within the HD Zone do not form a well‐defined corridor that would effectively support wildlife movement. As the land area affected by the HD Zone lies in the northeastern quadrant of the City where undeveloped lands remain, it is anticipated that wildlife would continue to inhabit such lands as future development occurs, unless or until conditions did otherwise not support such activities. Although the measures given in the Amended HD Ordinance would restrict certain elements on individual properties within the HD Zone (i.e., placement of fences), implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical construction, and therefore, would not directly create physical elements within the landscape that would create a barrier to wildlife movement. The Amended HD Ordinance identifies certain measures aimed at the protection of the City’s hillsides for the purposes of public safety and aesthetics. As a result, additional land would remain undeveloped along the hillsides, providing ongoing opportunities for wildlife movement. In addition, any lands affected by the Kern River Plan Element within the HD Zone would be required to be consistent with the goals and policies given in the Element for the protection of lands within the river corridor. As no physical development would occur with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, the Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Accordingly, Project impacts with regard to restricting movement within wildlife corridors would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-21 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR Conflicts with Local Policies Protecting Biological Resources 5.7‐6 Implementation of the Amended Hillside Development Ordinance would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan identifies relevant objectives and policies pertaining to the protection of biological resources; refer to Chapter V – Conservation Element, A. Biological Resources. Goal 1 of the Biological Resources ‐Conservation Element states the City’s intent to “Conserve and enhance Bakersfield’s biological resources in a manner which facilitates orderly development and reflects the sensitivities and constraints of these resources.” In addition, Goal 2 states that it is the City’s intent “To conserve and enhance sensitive habitat areas for designated sensitive animal and plant species.” The Amended HD Ordinance is a regulatory measure intended to serve as an implementation tool to allow for safe and visually attractive development in the hillside areas of northeast Bakersfield over future years. The Amended HD Ordinance would not conflict with local policies or ordinances aimed at the protection of biological resources, as the Ordinance does not propose development or other land improvements that would interfere with such intentions. The Amended HD Ordinance would act as an overlay zone and would not change the existing underlying General Plan land use or zoning designations. As such, existing physical and biological conditions on lands within the HD Zone would remain unchanged with Project implementation, and no changes to any applicable plans or policies currently in effect would be required. As the Project would not result in physical development within the HD Zone, the Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Conflicts with Adopted Local, Regional, or State Conservation Plans or Policies 5.7‐7 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The MBHCP serves as a regional conservation plan that addresses the effect of urban growth on Federally‐and State‐protected plant and animal species within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan area. The MBHCP is a joint program between the City of Bakersfield and Kern County that was undertaken to assist applicants proposing new development in complying with Federal and State laws protecting endangered species laws. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-22 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR The MBHCP utilizes avoidance measures and requires that applicants pay mitigation fees for grading or building permits to fund the purchase and maintenance of habitat land to compensate for the adverse effects of urban development on endangered species habitat. If a project is developed on land within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, payment of a one‐time MBHCP habitat mitigation fee of $2,145 per gross acre is required. The Amended HD Ordinance would not conflict with any adopted or approved habitat conservation plans currently in place. As discussed above, the Amended HD Ordinance establishes a number of regulatory mechanisms and development standards specifically for the protection of the City’s hillsides. The Ordinance would not directly result in development within the HD Zone, and would therefore not establish land uses or require activities that would directly or indirectly disturb or destroy biological resources within the HD Zone. As stated above, the Amended HD Ordinance would act as an overlay zone and would not change the existing underlying General Plan land use or zoning designations. As such, existing physical and biological conditions on lands within the HD Zone would remain unchanged with Project implementation, and no changes to any applicable habitat conservation plans currently in effect would be required. Refer also to Section 5.1, Land Use and Planning, for a discussion of regional plans affecting the Project area. Due to the nature of the Project, the Amended HD Ordinance would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.7.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.7‐8 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the cumulative loss of biological resources within the City. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The City’s General Plan provides goals, policies and objectives to guide development within the City over upcoming decades. In preparation of the document, potential cumulative impacts to biological resources were considered within the context of the buildout of the City’s General Plan. The General Plan anticipates buildout of the land area affected by the HD Zone. The Amended HD Ordinance would impose additional site development restrictions that would reduce potential development density in the hillside areas in northeastern Bakersfield, thereby reducing potential biological impacts associated with development. As such, the Amended HD Ordinance would indirectly result in greater protection of biological resources within the HD Zone. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-23 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.7 Biological Resources Draft EIR The implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development or other land improvement activities on individual properties within the HD Zone. As such, the Project would not significantly impact sensitive biological resources within the area affected by the HD Zone, and no mitigation measures would be required. Biological conditions on lands within the HD Zone would remain in their present state. New development would continue to occur within the northeastern portion of the City, as allowed under the underlying zoning. Future land development projects within the cumulative study area would have the potential to impact sensitive biological resources, thereby contributing to a cumulative loss of sensitive animal species or habitat. Applicants for future land development projects within the cumulative study area would be required to provide mitigation to reduce significant impacts to biological resources on a project‐by‐project basis, consistent with the requirements of the MBHCP and with approval of the City and the Wildlife Agencies. Such mitigation would reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant, or to the extent practicable. However, as the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the disturbance or removal of sensitive biological resources, the Project would not contribute to a significant impact as the result of a cumulative loss of biological resources within the study area. As such, Project impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.7.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts associated with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would be considered less than significant. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.7-24 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.8-1 Section 5.8 Cultural Resources 5.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES 5.8.1 INTRODUCTION The analysis in this Section is generally based on information provided in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update and the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update (General Plan). The following discussion is intended to identify and assess the significance of cultural and historical resources that may potentially exist within the boundaries of the Hillside Development Zone and to provide an analysis of potential impacts that may occur with Project implementation. The following analysis has been prepared in accordance with §15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which considers potential impacts on prehistoric, historic, and paleontological resources. 5.8.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.8.2.1 Historical Context A variety of Native American groups previously inhabited the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley for thousands of years. The Yokut Native Americans, which consisted of the Northern, Southern Valley and Foothill divisions, each with a specific name, dialect and territory, generally occupied the Bakersfield region. In particular, the Southern Valley Yokuts occupied the region around the City of Bakersfield, as well as Tulare, Buena Vista, and Kern Lakes; sloughs that connected these resources; and, lower portions of the Kern, Tule, Kings, and Kaweah Rivers. According to the General Plan Update EIR, the Southern Valley Yokuts first encountered European contact in 1772. In the early 1800’s, a movement by the Catholic Church to establish missions in the area occurred and failed, eventually resulting in the escape of the Southern Valley Yokuts and other Native Americans from the mission system. This, combined with other introduced foreign practices, ultimately resulted in a complete cultural breakdown and neartotal disappearance of Native Americans. Ultimately, the annexation of California by the United States and the influx of settlers eventually resulted in the forced relocation of such peoples to established reservations. In the mid‐1800’s, the area that is today Bakersfield was originally known as Kern Island and was surrounded by swampy lands supporting forests composed of Poplar, Buttonwillow, Sycamore and other similar habitat. In 1857, the California State legislature passed the Swamp and Overflow Lands Act which allowed the State to offer a contract for the clearing of swamp and overflow lands in the southern San Joaquin Valley to allow for development. Colonel Thomas Baker purchased the contract and was responsible for draining a large portion of the swampy lands in the area. Subsequently, Baker surveyed a townsite and began to stimulate Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.8 Cultural Resources Draft EIR settlement in the area. The town eventually became Bakersfield, named for Colonel Baker, in 1868, and was later incorporated in 1898. The layout of the town was completed in 1869 and was arranged in grid form. The Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) reached Bakersfield in 1874. In addition, the San Francisco and San Joaquin Valley Railroad (which later became the Santa Fe Railroad) reached Bakersfield in 1898. The railroads provided new means of access to goods and services and resulted in rapid population growth within the area. In addition, in 1899, the discovery of recoverable oil was made in the Kern River Fields, located to the northwest of the City of Bakersfield. The oil fields attracted thousands of people to the area, resulting in rapid population growth and creating the need for housing, goods, and services to support such growth. The Bakersfield area has experienced several naturally‐occurring events that have influenced development within the City. Two major fires have occurred: one within the City in 1889 and one within East Bakersfield (Kern City), both of which caused substantial damage to commercial facilities. In addition, a major earthquake occurred in 1952 that resulted in millions of dollars in damage. Agriculture has played an important economic role in the history of the Bakersfield area. As mentioned, in 1857, the Swamp and Overflow Lands Act granted parcels of land to those who could channel water and create arable land, thereby influencing the use of area lands for agricultural purposes. Cotton farming and crop farming activities eventually overcame cattle ranching in the area. In 1912, the Rancho El Tejon property was sold to southern California investors, and the Tejon Ranch Company was created. The Ranch still exists today and retains vast land holdings in the southern San Joaquin Valley and Tehachapi Range. Lands within the Ranch support cattle ranching, as well as crop farming for cotton, alfalfa, grapes, walnuts, and vegetables. Additional lands within the Ranch support oil extraction, real estate, and other independent industries. Agriculture remains a major industry in the Bakersfield area, and is today largely dominated by cotton, almonds, walnuts, oranges, grapes, and raisins. Due to its varied history, the City of Bakersfield supports a number of identified historical landmarks at the local and State levels. These resources reflect the City’s history and heritage, and contribute to the existing character today. Such resources include, but are not limited to, Gordon’s Ferry on the Kern River, Colonel Thomas Baker Memorial, “China Alley,” Fox Theater, Kern County Hall of Records, and the Women’s Club. Refer also to Table 4.10‐1, Historical Landmarks, of the General Plan Update EIR for additional resources. Paleontological Resources The General Plan Update EIR identifies the general area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance as being underlain by sediments and rocks of the Quaternary age (1.8 million million years to present). Over the past 1.6 million years, such deposits have originated from the Kern River, associated streams, and lakes within the region. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.8-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.8 Cultural Resources Draft EIR The Quaternary age, the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley supported a series of lakes. Buena Vista Lake, Tulare Lake, and Tern Lake represent remnants of these lakes. In addition, during the Pleistocene age (1.8 million years to 10,000 years ago), many large and small animals inhabited the lands around these lakes. The remains of many of these species, including horses, sloths, elephants, camels, amphibians and rodents, which have long been extinct, have been discovered in these areas. Within the Metropolitan Bakersfield Planning Area, one of the most significant paleontological resource‐producing formations is referred to as the Shark Tooth Hill Bonebed, which is part of the “Round Mountain Silt Formation.” The General Plan EIR indicates that geologic records for the area suggest that the Bakersfield Planning Area is underlain by recent alluvial deposits that are likely to be reached during excavations occurring with land development projects. As these alluvial deposits are considered to be geologically young, they are anticipated to have a “low potential” to support significant fossil remains. Archaeological Resources Archaeological resources are defined as the material remains of an area’s pre‐historic (aboriginal/Native American) or historic (European and Euro‐American) human activity. The General Plan Update EIR indicates that the majority of previously‐recorded archaeological sites in the Planning Area are located outside of areas where urban development has occurred. Within the Planning Area, a number of pictographs have been identified near Kern Canyon. In addition, several archaeological sites are known to occur within the Planning Area, represented largely by bedrock mortars, habitation areas, burial sites, and lithic scatters. These artifacts are largely the remnants of the Yokuts Indians who occupied the area for several thousand years, with a limited number of artifacts from Hokan‐speaking Indians who occupied areas near the Kern River and the foothills of northeast Bakersfield. In addition, one major ethnic village, “Waycoya,” has been identified within the Planning Area. Refer to Section 4.10 of the General Plan Update EIR, Cultural Resources, which further discusses archaeological resources in the City. 5.8.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The analysis presented in this Section evaluates the lands and potential structures affected by the Amended HD Ordinance for cultural and historic significance under applicable statutes and regulations of CEQA, and the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). 5.8.3.1 Federal National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, established a national policy of historic preservation and encourages such preservation. NHPA established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and provided procedures for the agency to follow if a proposed action affects a property that is included, or or that may be eligible for inclusion, on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP was developed as a direct result of the NHPA. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.8-3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.8 Cultural Resources Draft EIR National Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of properties recognized for significance and worthiness of preservation. The National Register Criteria for Evaluation provides guidelines to be used by the Federal, State, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment. As established in the NHPA of 1966, to be listed in the NRHP or determined eligible for listing, properties must meet certain criteria for historic or cultural significance. Qualities of significance may be found in aspects of American history, architecture (interpreted in the broadest sense to include landscape architecture and planning), archaeology, engineering, or culture. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following criteria: • Criterion A It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. • Criterion B It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in our past. • Criterion C It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or it represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. • Criterion D It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory and history. To be eligible for listing on the NRHP, qualities of integrity must also be evident in the resource, measured by the degree to which it retains its historic location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. In general, the resource must be a minimum of 50 years of age to be considered for the NRHP, but there are exceptions and overriding considerations to this requirement. A property or structure that is listed on the NRHP does not in and of itself provide protection for a historic resource. The primary result of NRHP listing for the owners of these properties is the availability of financial and tax incentives for the rehabilitation or preservation of such resources. 5.8.3.2 State California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the lead agency must examine whether the project would have a significant adverse effect on unique historical and archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA §15064.5. CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b) states that a substantial adverse change means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration in the resource, such that the resource is “materially impaired.” An historical resource is City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.8-4 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.8 Cultural Resources Draft EIR considered to be materially impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters the physical characteristics that justify the determination of its significance. In addition, under CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)(3), a project that seeks to improve an historic resource in accordance with either of the following publications will be considered as mitigated to a level of less‐than‐significant: • Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings • Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings California Register of Historical Resources The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) established the California Register as an authoritative guide to historical resources in the State of California. Criteria used for inclusion of properties on on this listing are as follows: “While the significance criteria for the California Register are similar to those used by the NRHP this new California Register will document the unique history of the Golden State.” To qualify for listing in the California Register, the resource must retain integrity and meet at least one of the following criteria: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values; or, 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Integrity is defined in the NRHP program as a property’s ability to convey its significance. Evaluation of integrity may be a somewhat subjective judgment; however, it must be founded on “an understanding of a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance.” 5.8.3.3 Local A local register of historical resources, as defined by Public Resources Code (PRC) §5020.1(k), is “a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution.ʺ Consistent with the Cityʹs Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 15.72, Historical Preservation), an official register of historical resources has been compiled which designates “historic landmarks” located within the City limits. Such resources include, but are not limited to, China Alley, the McGill Building, Fox City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.8-5 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.8 Cultural Resources Draft EIR Theater, Curran House, and the Standard Oil Building;1 refer also to Table 4.10‐1, Historical Landmarks, of the General Plan Update EIR for additional historical resources within the City. The purpose of the Historic Preservation Ordinance is to “promote the public health, safety and general welfare by providing for the identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements, buildings, structures, signs, objects, features, sites, places and areas within Bakersfield that reflect special elements of the city’s architectural, artistic, cultural, engineering, aesthetic, historical, political, social and other heritage.”2 In addition, the General Plan includes a Historic Preservation Element, which establishes goals and policies that pertain to the long‐term preservation of historic resources within the City. 5.8.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA According to PRC §5020.1(j), an “historical resource” includes, but is not limited to, “any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.ʺ CEQA Guidelines state that the term ʺhistorical resourcesʺ applies to any such resources listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing, the California Register of Historical Resources; included in a local register of historical resources; or, determined to be historically significant by the Lead Agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)‐(3)). CEQA Guidelines require that ʺa resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ʹhistorically significantʹ if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resourcesʺ (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria: • Is associated with events that have have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Californiaʹs history and cultural heritage; • Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or, • Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1(c)). Appendix G, Initial Study Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines contains analysis guidelines related to the assessment of cultural impacts. As stated in Appendix G, a project would result in a significant impact if it would: 5.8-6 1 http://www.qualitycodepublishing.com/codes/baker sfield. Accessed August 7, 2008. 2 Ibid. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.8 Cultural Resources Draft EIR • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b); • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5; • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; and/or, • Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries feature. 5.8.5 IMPACTS Historical Resources 5.8‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The City of Bakersfield supports a number of historical resources considered important at the local and/or State levels; refer to Table 4.10‐1, Historic Landmarks, of the General Plan Update EIR. The General Plan also contains a Historic Preservation Element that provides measures aimed at the long‐term protection of historic resources within the City, as well as measures for rehabilitation, and structural and architectural compatibility. The absence or presence of historic resources within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is not entirely know at this time; however, it is known that Native American peoples historically traversed and/or occupied the general Bakersfield region. As noted above, the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance was historically inhabited and important to people during the prehistoric era. It is possible that erosional or depositional processes, or other land disturbing activities, may have obscured cultural resources or human remains that may be present. While it is unlikely that significant village or habitation sites exist within the Project area, there is the potential that unknown cultural or historic resources may be unearthed during future grading and/or excavation activities. Uncovering prehistoric and/or historic resources during excavation and/or grading activities could result in their damage or destruction, which would be considered a significant impact. Nothing in the scope of the Amended HD Ordinance would negatively impact historic resources within the HD Zone, as the purpose of the Ordinance is to regulate future development to reduce potential impacts to sensitive resources. The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to protect the hillsides as a scenic resource of the City and to enhance public safety with regard to wildfire or slope instability. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development or land disturbance activities within the Project area that would potentially impact known or unknown historic resources within the HD Zone. Impacts would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.8-7 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.8 Cultural Resources Draft EIR Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Archaeological Resources 5.8‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The material remains of an area’s prehistorical (aboriginal/native American) or historical (European and Euro‐American human activity) resources are generally considered to be archaeological resources. Primarily through conformance with CEQA, such resources are recognized as having significance or importance within human culture, and are given a greater level of protection under Federal and/or State law to minimize potential damage or loss. The General Plan Update EIR indicates that the general area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance in the northeastern portion of Bakersfield was once inhabited by Yokuts Indians and Hokanspeaking Indians. As a result, cultural artifacts utilized by these tribes may remain buried in the area. Excavation and/or grading activities have the potential to unearth previously unknown archaeological resources buried within the underlying soils. Uncovering archaeological resources during excavation and/or grading activities could result in potential damage or destruction to such resources, which would be considered a significant impact. As noted above, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development or land disturbance activities that could potentially uncover or damage known or unknown archaeological resources within the HD Zone. Instead, the Ordinance is intended to regulate future development within the HD Zone to reduce potential environmental impacts within the City’s hillside areas. The Amended HD Ordinance would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Paleontological Resources 5.8‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Plant and animal fossils dated 3.5 million to 7,000 years old are considered to be paleontological resources. Specifically, fossils that are the hardened remains of large and small vertebrates, plants, and invertebrates, or assemblages of plants and animals that are City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.8-8 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.8 Cultural Resources Draft EIR unique, rare, diagnostic, or stratigraphically important, (particularly those which add to existing scientific knowledge of geology, taxonomy, or evolutionary biology) are considered scientifically significant. Fossils that can provide scientific information critical to the interpretation of geology and paleoclimatology or the relationships of extinct or extant organisms are of particular importance. The General Plan Update EIR identifies the general area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance as being underlain by sediments and rocks of the Quaternary age (1.8 million years to present). Over the past 1.6 million years, such deposits have originated from the Kern River, associated streams, and lakes within the region. As noted earlier, one of the most significant paleontological resource‐producing formations in the Bakersfield area is referred to as the Shark Tooth Hill Bonebed, which is part of the “Round Mountain Silt Formation.” It is currently unknown whether significant paleontological resources are present within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance; however, the recent alluvial deposits which underlie the Bakersfield region to all depths are likely to be disturbed by future excavation activities. Disturbance generally occurs from the permanent modification of lands through grading required for building pads and excavation for the construction of buildings and installation of utilities, as well as the operation of construction equipment, storage of construction debris, and movement of construction truck traffic. As known vertebrate fossil occurrences have been identified in the contiguous deposits of the Kern River Formation, ground disturbance in the area affected by the HD Zone would have the potential to result in the discovery of significant, and perhaps rare, fossil vertebrate remains. Significant previously unknown paleontological resources may be uncovered at a greater depth in the underlying soils as future grading and/or excavation occur. Impacts to such resources from grading or excavation would be considered significant if such resources were discovered and prevention of damage to or loss of such resources was not undertaken at the time of encounter. The Amended HD Ordinance is aimed at the preservation and maintenance of hillsides within the northeast portion of the City for visual and public safety purposes. The Ordinance does not propose physical development or land disturbance activities that would potentially pose a threat to paleontological resources, identified or unidentified, as the result of grading, excavation, or construction. As such, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Disturbance of Human Remains 5.8‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: No known formal gravesites have been identified within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance. However, it is possible that human remains may be encountered City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.8-9 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.8 Cultural Resources Draft EIR during future grading and/or excavation activities. Potentially significant impacts may occur if human remains are disturbed or damaged. Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code requires that if human remains are uncovered, and of Native American origin, the NAHC must be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. The Code requires the project proponent to contact the individual identified by the NAHC to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased. The most likely descendant is given the responsibility of recommending to the project proponent the proper means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and the associated items that may have been buried with the deceased. Through this contact with the appropriate parties, and by allowing for such parties to make the determination of the appropriate location to ultimately relocate the remains to, Section 5097.98 ensures that the the proper action has been taken to protect such resources. This provides the City of Bakersfield with a mechanism for regulating the protection of these resources. It is not anticipated that Project implementation would disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, as the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development or land disturbance activities within the Project area. The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to provide for protection and maintenance of the hillsides within the northeastern portion of Bakersfield. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.8.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.8‐5 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in an adverse cumulative effect on cultural resources. Resources would be evaluated and mitigated on a project‐by‐project basis. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR previously took into account planned future development within the northeastern area of the City, in conjunction with potential impacts associated with ultimate buildout. The General Plan Update EIR determined that impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with compliance with applicable State and Federal regulations and implementation of mitigation measures, including site‐specific evaluation of paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources to determine potential impacts of a project on such resources. In addition, given that a decrease in total allowable residential dwelling units within the HD Zone would occur with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance due to site development restrictions, potential impacts on cultural resources would be further reduced as compared to that assumed in the General Plan Update EIR. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.8-10 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.8 Cultural Resources Draft EIR Potential impacts resulting from future development within the cumulative study area would be site‐specific and would require evaluation on a project‐by‐project basis. All future development projects within the cumulative study area would be required to comply with all applicable City, State, and Federal regulations concerning the preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural resources. If constraints are found on a subject property, the project proponent shall be required to identify and implement proper mitigation measures, prior to developing the land in order to avoid potential adverse effects such resources. As such, the City of Bakersfield is provided with a mechanism for regulating the protection of cultural, archaeological, and paleontological resources on affected lands. In consideration of these regulations, potential cumulative impacts on cultural resources caused by future development within the HD Zone, in combination with future development within the cumulative study area, would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.8.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts associated with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance with regard to cultural resources would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.8-11 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.8 Cultural Resources Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.8-12 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.9-1 Section 5.9 Public Services & Utilities 5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES This Section is intended to evaluate the potential effects that Project implementation would have on the City’s public services, utilities, and service systems. Potential Project effects on public service and utility agencies were evaluated based, in part, on correspondence with the local agencies that would provide such services to the Project area, information provided in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update and the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (General Plan). Public services include, but are not limited to, fire protection, police protection, and schools. Utilities and service systems include, but are not limited to, water, wastewater, solid waste disposal, and provision of natural gas and electricity. 5.9.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.9.1.1 Environmental Setting Fire Protection The City of Bakersfield Fire Department and the Kern County Fire Department are responsible for fire protection services, fire prevention, emergency medical and rescue services, arson investigation, and hazardous materials coordination with citizens within Kern County and the City of Bakersfield. The City of Bakersfield Fire Department primarily serves the City of Bakersfield and the Kern County Fire Department primarily serves the unincorporated communities within Metropolitan Bakersfield. However, a Joint Powers Agreement has been established between the City and County fire departments, which provides for the closest station response concept. The two fire departments have adopted non‐overlapping, but contiguous station response boundaries without regard to City or County jurisdictional limits.1 The National Fire Code set forth by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), California Fire Code, the California Building Code, and the Municipal Code are applied and utilized to regulate fire safety in in the City. Facilities and Services There are 15 fire stations located within the City of Bakersfield. The Project site would be served by Fire Station No. 10, located at 12100 Alfred Harrell Highway. Fire Station No. 12 is planned along Palodino and would also serve the Project area in the future when funding is available 1 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report, June 26, 2002. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR and the Station is constructed.2 Station No. 10 is equipped with one fire engine and three personnel.3 As increased development activity has recently occurred within the northeastern portion of Bakersfield, the volume and response times of emergency calls have gradually increased as a result. The City’s goal is for the first emergency response unit to arrive within seven minutes or less, approximately 90 percent of the time. However, the proposed Project area is generally located outside of the response time goals for the City. Response times for individual stations range from a low of three minutes to a high of 13 minutes. The Bakersfield Fire Department has recognized the need for an additional fire station as development grows within the northeastern portion of the City. However, as future development is proposed within the HD Zone, each project would require evaluation on a project‐by‐project basis by the City and the Fire Department to determine specific project impacts on fire protection services and demands on fire stations potentially providing service to the project. As it is difficult to determine how future development projects would affect such services, as such projects would range in scope, land use, and project design features, evaluation of such projects on project‐specific basis would allow appropriate determination of measures needed to reduce potential impacts on the City’s ability to provide adequate service. All City personnel who respond to fire suppression calls are trained to the Emergency Medical Technical (EMT) and combi‐tube (airway management) level. Personnel assigned to the Hazardous Materials Team are certified by the State of California as Hazardous Materials Technicians or Specialists. The Insurance Service Office (ISO) Grading Schedule is a means of classifying cities with reference to their fire defenses and physical conditions. Base fire insurance rates are rated on a scale of 1 to 10 with protection Class 1 affording the best (lowest) fire insurance rates. Factors considered in the rating include required fire flow for buildings, available water supplies, fire station locations, fire equipment and communication systems, fire inspection programs, and firefighter training programs. The insurance classification developed under this schedule is one of several elements used in the development of insurance rates. The City of Bakersfield has achieved and maintains a Class 3 protection rating through an extensive fire prevention program. The City reviews each new development proposed to ensure that all requirements for emergency access, fire hydrant location and spacing, fire flows and fire lanes are incorporated into a project design. City codes, guidelines, and fees are updated from time to time. In all cases, development projects, including the proposed Project, are required to incorporate the most current code requirements that are in effect at the time of map recordation or building permit issuance, respectively. The City’s Fire Department does not charge assessment fees at the present time; however, plan review and inspection fees are in place. In addition, the City of Bakersfield coordinates with 5.9-2 2 Letter from City of Bakersfield Fire Department, received October 2008. 3 Ibid. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR developers through Community Facility Districts (CFDs) to help fund the construction and staffing of additional fire stations required to address increased service levels on an as‐needed basis. Police Protection The City of Bakersfield Police Department and the Kern County Sheriff’s Department are responsible for providing law enforcement services through the enforcement of local, State, and Federal laws. The completion of this goal involves crime prevention, field patrol (ground and air), crime investigation, apprehension of offenders, regulation of non‐criminal activity, and performance of a number of related and support services. Traffic and parking control functions are also provided, with some investigation of property damage traffic accidents, and complete investigations of all injury, fatal, intoxication, and hit‐and‐run accidents. The City of Bakersfield Police Department provides law enforcement service service to all areas within the Bakersfield City limits, and the Kern County Sheriff’s Department provides law enforcement service to all unincorporated County areas. Within the City, the Bakersfield Police Department handles both crimes and traffic accidents. In the County, the California Highway Patrol is responsible for traffic accidents and violations, while the Kern County Sheriff’s Office is responsible for criminal matters.4 Uniformed officers and police service technicians in marked police vehicles provide the primary response calls for service and preventative patrol within the City.5 Facilities and Services The Bakersfield Police Department Main Station, located at 1601 Truxtun Avenue in Bakersfield, would serve the proposed Project. The Main Station is a full service police station which is comprised of Operations, Traffic, Animal Control, Investigations, and Support Systems. Police services are not divided into precincts or substations, but rather into 17 patrol districts that are manned 24 hours a day.6 The Bakersfield Police Department Main Station serves the area east of SR‐99 from the Kern River floodplain to Taft Highway/SR 119. The area is roughly 74 square miles of incorporated territory, with a population of approximately 130,000.7 The City is separated into 25 Police Beats. Each response beat is further divided by a grid network in order to allow the department to accurately and quickly direct patrol officers to calls for service. The beats are patrolled 24‐hours a day by uniformed police officers in overlapping 10‐hour shifts. Citywide statistics for the past three years show an average dispatch time to alarms and priority assignments of fewer than three minutes. Assignments not readily recognized as an immediate need for assistance are dispatched to the field officer in less than 4 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Environmental Impact Report, June 26, 2002. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Letter from the City of Bakersfield Police Department, dated July 2008. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.9-3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR twenty minutes. Report assignments are handled in just over an hour. The arrival times of the individual officer to an assignment averages between five to seven minutes.8 The City of Bakersfield Police Department uses a nine level prioritization system for dispatching calls. The nine‐level system allows for a more efficient response, avoiding confusion between the communications center and the field officer and providing an opportunity for the dispatcher to relate the potential gravity of a given situation with far less confusion. Priority 1 calls are issues that require an immediate response, including crimes which are in progress or just occurred; Priority 2 calls are considered active incidents that do not represent a significant immediate threat to life or property (i.e., in progress misdemeanor, fights); Priority 3 calls are minor in nature, requiring response of a Police Officer, Police Service Technician, or Animal Control unit when personnel available in reserve are adequate to handle more serious calls if necessary; Priority 4 calls are for service of a lesser significance (i.e., report calls, keep the peace, etc.); Priority 5 calls are typically calls reporting noise complaints, courtesy transports, etc.; Priority 6 calls include all other animal calls; Priority 7 calls are generally traffic related calls; Priority 8 calls are usually abandoned vehicles, illegal parking, mail, and telephonic reports; and Priority 9 calls are classified as false alarms.9 The Kern County Sheriff’s Department has approximately 1,050 sworn, non‐sworn, and civilian employees. The 452 authorized sworn (peace officer) positions are deployed as deputies in the Bakersfield metropolitan patrol, 14 substations, detentions, detectives and other support positions. The 14 Sheriffʹs Substations provide patrol services to remote areas of Kern County and to other areas that need focused services. Substations are also staffed with investigators and supervisors. Major crimes (such as homicides) are usually handled by specialized investigators from Sheriffʹs Headquarters.10 In addition to providing police services to the unincorporated portions of Kern County, the Sheriff has the responsibility for the jail system, providing bailiff and prisoner transportation service to the courts, search and rescue, coroner services, and civil process (serving lawsuit papers). The City of Bakersfield and County of Kern have a formal mutual aid agreement for law enforcement and emergency services. The Sheriff’s patrol units traveling through incorporated cities within the County will respond to observed police problems and then call for City police to follow up. The Bakersfield office of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) is the closest office and dispatch center to the proposed Project site. The office is located at 4040 Buck Owens Boulevard in Bakersfield. The CHP is the primary agency that provides traffic law enforcement, safety and management services within the unincorporated portions of Kern County. 5.9-4 8 Letter from the City of Bakersfield Police Department, dated July 2008. 9 Ibid. 10 Kern County Sheriff Website: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/sheriff/index.html City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR Schools Primary and secondary school facilities are provided throughout Metropolitan Bakersfield by several school districts and collegiate institutions. The educational institutions are responsible for the operation, staffing, and scheduling of more than 70 individual school facilities. Two of the key factors that affect existing and future school facilities are funding and student generation rates.11 The proposed Project is within the following school districts: the Bakersfield City School District and the Kern High School District. Bakersfield City School District The proposed Project area is located within the Bakersfield City School District (BCSD). The District provides pre‐Kindergarten through eighth grade education services to residents within its boundaries. BCSD is the largest, non‐unified pre‐Kindergarten through eighth grade district in California, and encompasses the Central and the rapidly growing northeast areas of Bakersfield. The Bakersfield City School District currently operates 33 elementary schools (pre‐Kindergarten – 6th grades) and eight junior high schools (6th – 8th grades). According to the District’s website, the District currently serves a population of approximately 27,401 students in grades Kindergarten through eight. The approximate enrollment for elementary schools is 20,149 students, and for middle schools it is 7,252 students. The District reports that approximately 40 of its schools are at or under maximum capacity, while three of their campuses are over capacity. The elementary schools that would serve the proposed Project area are the Cesar E. Chavez School, located at 4201 Mesa Marin Drive and Thorner Elementary School, located at 5501 Thorner Street. These elementary schools have a current enrollment of 527 and 770, respectively. Both schools are currently at capacity.12 The proposed Project area is located within the jurisdiction of Chipman Junior High School, located at 2905 2905 Eissler Street in Bakersfield. The school currently has an enrollment of 891 students.13 Kern County High School District The Kern County High School District currently operates 18 high schools which provide educational services to students attending ninth through 12th grade. The District is the largest 9th – 12th high school district in California with an estimated student population of 37,000. The proposed Project area would be served by Foothill Highland High School, Highland High School, and East High School. 11 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report, June 26, 2002. 12 Letter from Kern County Superintendent of Schools, dated August 6, 2008. 13 Ibid. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.9-5 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR In 2008, the student population located north of SR‐178 will transition attendance from East High School to Highland High School. Highland High School is located at 2900 Royal Scots Road in Bakersfield. In a year‐by‐year transition starting with incoming 9th grade students, by 2011, all students in the transition area would attend Highland High School. Foothill High School is located at 501 Park Drive in Bakersfield, and would service areas located south of SR‐178 in the Project vicinity. All Kern High School District schools are currently at capacity, although two new schools were opened within the District in August 2008. Similarly, all schools within the Bakersfield City District are also at or over capacity.14 Collegiate Institutions Higher education within Metropolitan Bakersfield is provided by Bakersfield College and California State University at Bakersfield (CSU Bakersfield). Bakersfield College is a two‐year community college, whereas CSU Bakersfield has four‐year and graduate degree programs.15 Parks and Recreation The Metropolitan Bakersfield area contains a total of 88 park facilities (18 mini‐parks, 50 neighborhood parks, 17 community parks, and four regional parks) encompassing a total of approximately 14, 871 acres at the time of the General Plan Update (2002). The City of Bakersfield has established guidelines for park and recreation services within the City. The minimum park size requirement for a neighborhood park is six acres, and the maximum park acreage for a community park (pursuant to Municipal Code §15.80) is upwards of 20 acres. Local parks generally range from one to two and a half acres (mini‐parks), to five to ten acres (neighborhood parks) to approximately 30 acres (community parks). Local parks generally serve a population within a 0.75‐mile radius. Regional parks can range anywhere from 20 to 1,000 acres and generally serve a population living within an hour’s distance. A significant significant portion of the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is located within the boundaries of the Northeast Bakersfield Specific Parks and Trails Plan.16 Numerous parks and trails are identified in this Plan. The City currently owns and maintains a trail head beginning on Rancheria Road just north of the Kern River, which provides access to the Kern River. The provision of regional parks has been primarily the responsibility of the County of Kern. Portions of the Project area are approximately 1.5 miles from Mesa Marin Sports Complex; approximately 0.5 mile from the Solera Gardens; and, approximately 1.0 miles from University Park.17 In addition, the Kern River Parkway generally forms the northern boundary of the area affected by the HD Zone. The Mesa Marin Sports Complex is currently undergoing renovation and is expected to re‐open in the Spring of 2009. The City of Bakersfield has also approved a regional sports facility that would serve not only Metropolitan Bakersfield, but also the entire 14 14 Letter from Kern County Superintendent of Schools, dated August 6, 2008. 15 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report, July 26, 2002. 16 City of Bakersfield – Parks and Recreation Department Questionnaire. July 2008. 17 Ibid. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.9-6 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR region. The proposed Sports Village complex is planned in southwest Bakersfield along Taft Highway. This 222‐acre recreational facility will include active and passive recreational facilities, multi‐purpose trails, venue parking, concession areas, picnic areas, restrooms, a lake, and two commercial areas. Water Resources The City water system provides water to approximately 35 percent of the City of Bakersfield. The remaining 65 percent of residents within the City of Bakersfield are supplied from other retail water companies including Cal Water, East Niles Community Service District, and Vaughn Mutual Water Company. The wholesale water entity that supplies imported water to the metropolitan area of the City of Bakersfield is the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) Improvement District No. 4. There are also agricultural water districts within the City limits.18 Additionally, the City has acquired water rights for Kern River flows for approximately 140,000 acre‐feet per year (af/yr). Together, with appropriate storage rights in Isabella reservoir, it currently subcontracts to provide water for irrigation to five agricultural water districts, utilizing the balance for groundwater recharge. The City also operates 2,800 acres of recharge ponds along the Kern River on the west side of the City. This spreading area provides groundwater recharge for Kern River flows, utilizing both its own water rights and agreements with other water agencies for “banking” their waters in the underground aquifer. This banking system is an important reliability feature in the City’s water supply system. The future use of this water for municipal and industrial purposes is a key factor in the long‐range adequacy of the urban water supply of the City’s Planning Area. The area affected by the proposed Project would be served domestic water by Cal Water. Cal Water plans to expand its Northeast Bakersfield Water Treatment Plant, initially designed to treat 20 million gallons per day (mgd) of water pumped from the Kern River. Through its longterm contract agreement with the City of Bakersfield, which holds primary rights to Kern River water, Cal Water will receive up to 67,200 acre‐feet per year (60 mgd) of Kern River water as the source of supply for the Northeast Bakersfield Water Treatment Plant. The Northeast Bakersfield Water Treatment Plant is intended to address the anticipated growth in the northeast section of the City of Bakersfield as well as provide replacement water for wells located further west that may be shut down due to water quality problems or age and to increase stored water in the groundwater basin for use during dry periods. Wastewater Services The Metropolitan Bakersfield area is served by five major wastewater treatment facilities: the City of Bakersfield’s Treatment Plant No’s. 2 and 3; the North of the River Sanitary District (NORSD) plant; the Mount Vernon/Panorama District plant; and the Lamont Public Utility District Plant Plant (located outside of the Metropolitan boundary). There are several small, temporary treatment facilities in the Rosedale area north of the Kern River and west of 5.9-7 18 City of Bakersfield 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Update, Stetson Engineers Inc., November 2007. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR NORSD’s service area boundaries. The City anticipates that the City’s Treatment Plant No. 2 would serve a portion of future development within the area affected by the HD Zone; however, the City has indicated that there are no sewer lines servicing the majority of the Project area at this time, and that future development would require further assessment to determine capacity of the City’s facilities at the time when development is proposed.19 The City of Bakersfield Public Works Department, Wastewater Division, provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal service within the City limits. The City owns and operates a wastewater collection 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. Solid Waste Solid waste is a mixture of items discarded as useless or unwanted arising from residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, agricultural, industrial and mining activities. These wastes include construction and demolition wastes, as well as inert wastes. The general waste classifications utilized by the Kern County Department of Public Works are: • Non‐hazardous solid waste consisting mostly of household garbage, commercial wastes, agricultural waste, and litter. • Special waste, which is any waste that requires special handling, includes infectious waste, pesticide containers, sewage sludge, oilfield waste, household hazardous waste, and asbestos waste. • Designated waste is a waste that consists of or contains pollutants that could be released at concentrations in excess of applicable water quality objectives and standards, or hazardous waste that has been granted a variance from hazardous waste management requirements. • Hazardous waste is a waste that, because of its quantity, concentration, concentration, physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may (a) either cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness; or, (b) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed. • Industrial wastes are hazardous and non‐hazardous by‐products produced by oil and gas extraction, pesticide, paper, petrochemical, rubber, plastics, electronics, and other industries. Not all of the above‐defined wastes may be disposed of at a landfill. State law regulates the disposal of wastes at landfills. Refer to the discussion below, Landfills, for additional discussion 5.9-8 19 Correspondence from City of Bakersfield Public Works Department Wastewater Division, July 31, 2008. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR of appropriate disposal methods for waste potentially generated by future uses within the Project area. The City of Bakersfield is responsible for meeting the California Integrated Wastewater Management Act of 1989, Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939). AB 939 requires that cities and counties reduce the amount of solid waste being sent to landfills by 50% by January 1, 2000, and requires cities and counties to prepare AB 939 solid waste planning documents. These documents include the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), the Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE), and the Non‐Disposal Facility Element (NDFE). Construction‐and demolition‐generated (C&D) waste is heavy, inert material. This material creates significant problems when disposed of in landfills. Since C&D debris is heavier than paper and plastic, it is more difficult for counties and cities to reduce the tonnage of disposed waste. For this reason, C&C&D waste debris has been specifically targeted by the State of California for diversion from the waste stream. Projects that will generate C&D waste should emphasize deconstruction and diversion planning, rather than demolition. Deconstruction is the planned, organized dismantling of a prior construction project, which allows maximum use of the deconstructed materials for recycling in other construction projects and transports a minimum of the deconstruction material to landfills. Operation of refuse collection services in the City of Bakersfield is managed by the City Sanitation Division through a system of collection and franchise agreements to control and manage waste collection. Within a district or franchise area, a waste hauler has exclusive rights to pick up residential and commercial wastes. Any customer desiring service must be provided service. In the permit areas, waste haulers also have exclusive territory rights. Refuse collected by the City or franchise hauler is transported to the Bena Sanitary Landfill, located about 18 miles east of downtown Bakersfield. Landfills The Kern County Waste Management Department (KCWMD) provides environmentally safe management of liquid and solid waste. The Department is responsible for operating seven landfills, five transfer stations, and four transfer bin sites. The Department also operates two special waste facilities and provides information to the residents of Kern County regarding recycling and ways to reduce waste.20 The Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan is the long‐term planning document for landfill facilities. Kern County also has a land use and gate fee program to pay for solid waste infrastructure improvements and operation. The Bena Sanitary Landfill, located at 2951 Neumarkel Road in Edison, California (approximately 18 miles east of Bakersfield), would most likely serve future development within the HD Zone.21 According to the KCWMD, in 2007, the incoming solid waste stream to 20 Kern County Waste Management Department: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/wmd/21 Letter from Kern County Waste Management Department, July 17, 2008. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.9-9 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR the Bena Sanitary Landfill was an average of 1,433 tons per day. The facility has a permitted daily capacity of 4,500 tons per day, and a remaining permitted capacity of 20,478,536 cubic yards with an estimated completion date of 2031.22 The KCWMD has indicated that the Bena Landfill has adequate capacity to accommodate future development within the proposed Project area.23 Bena is the County’s first fully lined landfill and serves the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Currently, the County has permission to develop 48 acres of the 2,165‐acre site for waste disposal. If the California Integrated Waste Management Board grants additional permits to develop the remainder of the site, and waste diversion stabilizes at 50 percent the potential total capacity for the Bena Landfill site would exceed 60 years. As discussed previously, State law regulates what type of waste items can be accepted at a landfill. The Bena Landfill is a Class III facility and municipal solid waste is the only waste stream acceptable for disposal. Municipal waste, more commonly known as trash or garbage, is defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consist of everyday items such as product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers, appliances, paint, and batteries.24 However, in order to comply with AB 939, portions of these materials are designated for diversion. These materials include, but are not limited to, tires, scrap metal, cathode ray tubes, inert materials, wood, grass, leaves and other materials suitable for acceptance at local composting facilities. The Bena Landfill can also accept triple‐rinsed pesticide containers and nonfriable asbestos; however, these items are accepted only by appointment. The KCWMD obtained special clearance to be able to accept these materials. Infectious medical waste is not accepted unless treated properly, contained, and labeled. Electrical Services Electricity is one of the major types of energy consumed in the City of Bakersfield. The majority of the City’s electrical energy is consumed by residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and transportation uses. Electric power supply and distribution for the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance would be furnished by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Although there are currently various electric distribution facilities within the vicinity of the proposed Project area, PG&E’s existing facilities in the proposed service area would not be able to adequately serve future development within the HD Zone if built out consistent with that anticipated by the General Plan. It is anticipated that the existing PG&E facilities would require upgrading and/or installation of new distribution and substation equipment in order to serve future development within the northeastern portion of the City. However, such deficiencies would be evaluated at the time when future development is proposed on a project‐by‐project basis, basis, as 5.9-10 22 Letter from Kern County Waste Management Department, July 17, 2008. 23 Ibid. 24 United States Environmental Protection Agency Municipal Solid Waste, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/nonhw/muncpl/facts.htm. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR new electrical transmission facilities may be installed in the meantime, allowing for adequate provision of electrical services. Natural Gas Natural gas is primarily consumed by the City’s residential land uses for heating and cooling purposes. PG&E would provide future service to those areas within the HD Zone within its service territory. There may also be areas affected by the proposed Project that would be located within open gas territory, where natural gas service would require further assessment. Evaluation of any deficiencies in PG&E’s ability to provide natural gas service to future development within the northeastern portion of the City would be evaluated at the time when new development is proposed on a project‐by‐project basis, as new facilities may be installed in the meantime, allowing for adequate provision of natural gas services. 5.9.1.2 Regulatory Setting Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The General Plan cites policies to provide decision‐makers with long‐range guidance affecting the future character of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Planning Area. The elements within the General Plan provide goals, policies, and implementation measures in order to ensure that public utilities and services have adequate capacity to service proposed projects. Applicable goals and policies relative to the proposed Project area within these elements are listed in Table 5.9‐1, CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS WITH METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES. Each is followed by a brief explanation of how the proposed Project would comply. It should be noted that implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development that would require the provision of public services or utilities. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.9-11 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR Table 5.9-1 Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Public Services and Utilities GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Public Services and Facilities (PSF) Utilities Element Policies PSF General Utilities Policy #5: “Require all new development to pay its pro rata share of the cost of necessary expansion in municipal utilities, facilities and infrastructure for which it generates demand and upon which it is dependent.“ The Amended HD Ordinance would not result in physical development within the HD Zone. Therefore, the provision of public services or utilities would not be required. Appropriate fees would be applied to future development projects within the HD Zone in order to accommodate the expansion of required utilities, facilities, and infrastructure, as appropriate. PSF Water Distribution Element Policies PSF Water Distribution Policy #3: “Require that all new development proposals have an adequate water supply available.” The Amended HD Ordinance would not result in physical development within the HD Zone. Therefore, the provision of public services or utilities would not be required. Cal Water has an adequate supply of water to serve future development within the Project area. However, extension of water system pipelines may be required to provide service to individual properties as future development is proposed within the HD Zone. PSF Sewer Service Goals PSF Sewer Services Goal #3: “Provide trunk sewer availability to and treatment/disposal capacity for all metropolitan urban areas, to enable cessation or prevention of the use of septic tanks where such usage crates potential public health hazards or may impair groundwater quality, and to assist in the consolidation of sewerage systems. Provide sewer service for urban development regardless of jurisdiction.” The Amended HD Ordinance would not result in physical development within the HD Zone. Therefore, the provision of public services or utilities would not be required. The City of Bakersfield has the capacity to service the area affected by the proposed Project. However, extension of sewer trunk lines may be required to provide service to individual properties as future development is proposed within the HD Zone. PSF Storm Drainage Goals PSF Storm Drainage Goal #1: “Ensure the provision of adequate storm drainage facilities to protect Planning area residents from flooding resulting from storm water excess.” The Amended HD Ordinance would not result in physical development within the HD Zone. Therefore, the provision of public services or utilities would not be required. Storm water facilities would be incorporated into the design of the infrastructure of future developments within the HD Zone. Additionally, all future development projects would be subject to the Bakersfield Municipal Code and City design review requirements. Final development plans would be reviewed by the Bakersfield Planning Commission on a a project‐by‐project basis, as development is proposed. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.9-12 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR Table 5.9-1, Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Public Services and Utilities, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.9-13 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY PSF Street Lighting Goals PSF Street Lighting Goal #1: “Provide uniform and adequate public lighting for all developed and developing portions of the Planning area.” The Amended HD Ordinance would not result in physical development within the HD Zone. Therefore, the provision of public services or utilities would not be required. Future development projects within the HD Zone would be subject to the Bakersfield Municipal Code and City design review requirements. Final development plans would be reviewed by the Bakersfield Planning Commission on a project‐by‐project basis, as development is proposed. PSF Lighting Element Policies PSF Street Lighting Policy #4: “Require developers to install street street lighting in all new development in accord with adopted city standards and county policies.” The Amended HD Ordinance would not result in physical development within the HD Zone. Therefore, the provision of public services or utilities would not be required. Future development projects within the HD Zone would be subject to the Bakersfield Municipal Code and City design review requirements. Final development plans would be reviewed by the Bakersfield Planning Commission on a project‐by‐project basis, as development is proposed. PSF Solid Waste Element Goals PSF Solid Waste Goal #1: “Ensure the provision of adequate solid waste disposal services to meet the demand for these services in the Planning area.” The Amended HD Ordinance would not result in physical development within the HD Zone. Therefore, the provision of public services or utilities would not be required. The City has adequate capacity in the Bena Sanitary Landfill to support future development projects within the area affected by the HD Zone. PSF Parks Element Policies PSF Park Policy #1: “Require that neighborhood parks be developed at a minimum rate of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population. This requirement may be met all or in part by on‐site recreation for such developments as Planned Unit Development. The City of Bakersfield may allow credit to meet the neighborhood parks requirement.” As the Project would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone, no provision of parks or park lands would be required with implementation. Future development within the HD Zone would be evaluated on a project‐by‐project basis, at the time when development is proposed, to determine whether new park facilities are required, based on the scope and type of project. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR Table 5.9-1, Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Public Services and Utilities, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.9-14 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY PSF Park Policy #3: “Require developers to dedicate land, provide improvements and/or in lieu fees to serve the needs of the population in newly developing areas.” As the Project would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone, no provision of parks or park lands would be required with implementation. Future development within the HD Zone would be evaluated on a project‐by‐project basis, at the time when development is proposed, to determine whether new park facilities are required, based on the scope and type of project. PSF Park Policy #4: “Require developers of new subdivisions to show and adhere to park locations (depicted on the Land Use Element). Variations may be allowed based on certain constraints.” As the Project would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone, no provision of parks or park lands would be required with implementation. Future development within the HD Zone would be evaluated on a project‐by‐project basis, at the time when development is proposed, to determine whether new park facilities are required, based on the scope and type of project. 5.9.2 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA In accordance with CEQA, the effects of a project are evaluated to determine whether they would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIR is required to focus on these effects and offer mitigation measures to reduce or avoid any significant impacts that are identified. The criteria (standards) used to determine the significance of impacts may vary depending on the nature of the project. Public services and utilities impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed Project could be considered significant if they cause any of the results listed below. 5.9.2.1 Public Services A significant impact would occur if the Project would: • Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities; or, • Result in the 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, including fire protection, police protection, or other public facilities. 5.9.2.2 Utilities A significant impact would occur if the Project: Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR • Exceeds wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; • Requires or results in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effect; • Has insufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlement and resources, and new or expanded entitlement is needed; • Results in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments; • Is served by a landfill that does not have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs; • Does not comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste; or, • Exceeds the capacity of the electrical and natural gas facilities within the Project area. 5.9.3 IMPACTS Fire Protection 5.9‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the need for additional fire facilities or personnel. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: As the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in development within the HD Zone, nothing in the scope of the 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 in the City’s hillside areas, while protecting the general public from the threat of wildfire. The Amended HD Ordinance provides additional requirements beyond the original Hillside Ordinance’s focus on grading, safe street grades, and fire protection. To further reduce the potential for wildfire, the Amended HD Ordinance requires that future development projects within the HD Zone provide information pertaining to landscape and vegetation details, roof classification of structures, fuel loading and model, type of ignition‐resistant construction of structures, and water supply systems. In addition, if required for fire safety, additional information is required to be provided on proposed development plans to address wildfire conditions beyond the property lines with regard to slopes, vegetation, fuel breaks, water supply systems and access ways. The Ordinance requires that a minimum 25‐foot setback be provided for structures on lots adjacent to open space, and measures are given for driveway requirements, secondary access, and fire apparatus access roads. Building construction, roofing City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.9-15 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR materials, and fire scape plant selections are also addressed within the Amended HD Ordinance. As such, these measures would reduce the potential for wildfire to occur within the HD Zone, thereby reducing future demands on the City Fire Department personnel and the need for additional facilities. 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 City of Bakersfield Fire Department has not established a ratio of staff to resident population, but the national industry standard is 1.0 fire personnel per 1,000 residents. Currently, the City of Bakersfield operates at approximately 0.79 fire personnel per 1,000 residents. As no physical construction would result with implementation of the proposed Project, the Project would not increase population or land uses within the HD Zone Zone that would create additional demand for City fire protection personnel and/or facilities. Similarly, traffic generated by such uses would not occur, thereby reducing potential traffic congestion along roadways within the HD Zone that may increase delays in emergency response times. Additionally, site design measures included in the Amended HD Ordinance would reduce the potential number of units that could ultimately be constructed within the HD Zone. As such, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would reduce the potential number of residential units and/or population within the area affected by the Project that would require fire protection services, thereby reducing demand on the City’s resources. The Amended HD Ordinance would not create conditions that would significantly increase the need for fire protection services as compared to conditions under the original 1999 HD Ordinance, and instead, includes design measures that would further reduce the potential for wildfire to occur on lands within the HD Zone. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Police Protection 5.9‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the need for additional police facilities or personnel. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: As the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in development within the HD Zone, nothing in the scope of the 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 in the City’s hillside areas. As future development within northeastern Bakersfield occurs, the population would continue to grow, thereby increasing the number of people potentially requiring police protection services, as well as the number of emergency calls that would occur. As such, the the need for City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.9-16 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR additional facilities or personnel to provide adequate services within the HD Zone may occur with buildout of the General Plan. The City of Bakersfield’s Police Department has indicated current staffing levels are below their staffing goal of 1.3 officers per 1,000 residents.25 Law enforcement will lag behind actual demand, due to lack of funds immediately available to hire officers. Short‐term cumulative demand will lag several years behind actual staffing needs. Development within the HD Zone would result in an incremental contribution to potential impacts on such services and would be mitigated through property tax revenues to a less than significance impact. General Plan implementation programs include that future City funding of police protection operations and maintenance costs would be provided through City General Fund Tax Revenues. Additionally, bond issues, development fees, land dedications and/or assessment districts would also facilitate police protection services. Equipment needs are appropriately included in the hiring, training, and maintenance cost of each officer on an annual basis. There are no foreseeable needs for physical additions to the Main Station at this time; however, due to the location of the HD Zone within the northeastern portion of the City where development continues to occur, a satellite station in conjunction with a fire station could potentially expedite police and/or fire services.26 The proposed Project would not increase adverse impacts associated with the provision of police protection services, as compared to the original 1999 HD Ordinance. No physical development would occur with Project implementation, and therefore, an increase in population or establishment of land uses that would require such services would not occur. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Schools 5.9‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not generate additional students beyond existing conditions. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development of residential units within the area affected by the HD Zone, and therefore would not contribute to an increase in the student population beyond existing conditions, thereby requiring the construction of additional school facilities to satisfy such increased demand. According to the General Plan Update EIR, many schools within the Planning 5.9-17 25 Correspondence from the City of Bakersfield Police Department, received August 2008. 26 Ibid. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR Area operate at or near capacity, and therefore, many of the existing facilities would not have sufficient capacity to serve additional students generated from buildout of the General Plan. In November 2006, the Bakersfield City School District passed Measure G, which provided $100 million in bond funds to build two new schools. All Kern High School District schools (grades 9‐12) are currently overcrowded.27 In addition, Kern High School District boundaries will undergo a transition during Fall 2008, which would affect areas within the HD Zone. Development north of SR‐178 would transition from East High School to Highland High School. In a year‐by‐year transition starting with incoming 9th grade students, by 2011, all students in the transition area would attend Highland High School. Highland High School’s current enrollment is 2,077.28 In addition, the Kern High School District adds capacity to existing schools schools and builds new sites as needed. The timeline for such changes is dependent on the rate of overall buildout of the General Plan Planning Area. Kern High School District opened two new schools in August 2008.29 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the generation of substantial numbers of students beyond existing conditions, due to the nature of the Project. As the Project would not result in physical development within the HD Zone, the Project would not cause a change in conditions, as compared to the original HD Ordinance, that would increase demand on public school facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Parks and Recreation 5.9‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not create additional demand on parks and recreation facilities. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Implementation of the proposed Project is within the City of Bakersfield Recreation and Parks Department’s jurisdiction. The City of Bakersfield has adopted the Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield, which defines trail and park locations within the City’s Planning Area. The majority of the HD Zone is affected by this Plan.30 As future development occurs within Northeast Bakersfield, the increase in population would create the need for additional parks and recreational facilities to serve the City’s residents. 5.9-18 27 Letter from Kern County Superintendent of Schools, August 2008. 28 Letter from Kern High School District, July 2008. 29 Ibid. 30 Questionnaire received from City of Bakersfield Parks and Recreation Department. August 2008. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR Population estimates for parkland are currently based on a ratio of 3.0 persons per household for both single‐family residential and 2.77 person per household for multi‐family residential uses. All residential development within the City is required to pay City park development fees (Municipal Code §15.82.010) at the time when a building permit is issued, in lieu of providing park facilities, and as determined appropriate. Compliance with the City’s park land and park development fee ordinances ensures that adequate park facilities are provided within the City and built in accordance with City standards, as described in the General Plan. As the Project would not result in the physical development within the HD Zone, the Project would not cause a change in conditions, as compared to the original HD Ordinance, that would increase the demand for additional public parks or recreational facilities within the City. In In addition, public facility improvements from future development within the northeastern portion of Bakersfield would result in an increase in park maintenance responsibilities and costs for the City of Bakersfield. This potential increase in maintenance services would be paid for by property tax revenues generated by development projects, or through the establishment of Maintenance Districts to be paid for by the homeowners. The establishment of future County regional park facilities would also result in an increase in usage and maintenance responsibilities for the County of Kern. However, the Amended HD Ordinance would not authorize new development within the HD Zone, nor would it result in development or construction activities that would increase the need for additional parks or park maintenance. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Water Resources 5.9‐5 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not require the expansion of existing water distribution or supply facilities within the Project area. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The area affected by the proposed Project is located within the California Water Service Company’s (Cal Water) service area in the Northeast section of the City of Bakersfield. It is anticipated that Cal Water has the water supply to meet demands of future development within the HD Zone, consistent with that anticipated with buildout of the General Plan, with consideration for Cal Water’s existing customers and other anticipated users under normal, single dry year conditions.31 Currently, there are no deficiencies within the water system in the Project area. All water supply would be required to conform with water quality standards of the Federal (United States Environmental Protection Agency), State (California Department of Health Services), and local agency (Kern County Health Department). 5.9-19 31 Questionnaire received from Cal Water. August 2008. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR The proposed Project is within the designated service area of the NE Bakersfield Water Treatment Plant.Cal Water has secured up to 67,200 acre‐feet (AF) of water to supply the NE Bakersfield Water Treatment Plant under a long‐term contract with the City of Bakersfield. The proposed Project would not result in physical construction within the HD Zone. As such, the Project would not result in any public facility improvements or an associated increase in maintenance responsibilities for Cal Water. The construction of additional infrastructure to distribute water to the area affected by the HD Zone would not occur as part of the Project. In addition, it is anticipated that implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would reduce the number of units that could potentially be constructed within the HD Zone by an estimated 3,199 units, thereby also reducing future overall water demand for the area. With regard for water water conservation, the Amended HD Ordinance places emphasis on revegetating disturbed areas with xeriscape plant selections to reduce water use requirements. The use of a mixture of native vegetation and xeriscape plant materials in City maintained areas is also encouraged, thereby also reducing the watering requirements and resultant taxpayer costs for landscape maintenance, as compared to other areas of the City where manicured exotic species have been installed. In addition, to assist in protecting slopes from soil erosion and to facilitate significant revegetation, the Amended HD Ordinance encourages the installation of low‐flow irrigation systems approved by the City’s Public Works Department on all slopes with required planting, along with sophisticated monitoring systems. The components and operation of the irrigation systems shall be designed to maintain slope stability and integrity and provide the ability to monitor and maintain the irrigation system on a slope. In all cases, the emphasis shall be toward using plant materials that would eventually not need to be irrigated. Water and energy conservation techniques would also be utilized including, but not limited to, such elements as drip irrigation systems and alluvial rockscape, which in turn would save significant amounts of water. Through implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, the potential for substantial adverse effects on water consumption with regard for future development in Northeast Bakersfield is considered to be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a need for expansion of existing water distribution or supply facilities or substantially alter existing water utilities in the area. The Project would not increase demand for water service or otherwise adversely affect the City’s water resources, as compared to conditions resulting with the original HD Ordinance. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Sewer Services 5.9‐6 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the increase in demand or expansion of sewer services. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.9-20 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR Impact Analysis: According to the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department, Wastewater Division, there are no sewer lines currently serving the majority of the area affected by the proposed Project.32 Therefore, new sewer lines would be required for the Project area. The City of Bakersfield Treatment Plant No. 2 would serve future development within the Project area; however, as no physical development would occur within the HD Zone with Project implementation, an increase in the demand for sewer services would not result. According to the Northeast Bakersfield Sewer Study, New Sewer Trunk Line to Waste Water Treatment Plant No. 2, (Meyer Civil Engineering, Inc., September 2005), the City of Bakersfield plans to construct a new sewer trunk line that would help relieve sewer lines that flow from northeast Bakersfield to Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) No. 2. The Study proposed two alternate alignments for the proposed sewer trunk line between Vineland Road and Edison Highway to WWTP No. 2. In addition to the two proposed alternate alignments, a parallel line (Alternate 3 – 18‐inch Sewer Bypass) is proposed to alleviate capacity problems on the AD 93‐1 system. An 18‐inch parallel line would be needed to augment capacity of the sewer located in Vineland Road. This line would extend east to Vineland in Paladino. The line would then continue south to SR‐178 and cross with a bore, then south to Kern Canyon Road and back northeast to connect to the existing trunk sewer. Future development within the City would be required to provide public facility improvements, as appropriate, such as sewer and drainage facilities, in accordance with Municipal Code §16.32.060 and Chapter 3.12, Development Improvement Standards and Specifications. This potential increase in maintenance costs would be paid for by property tax revenues generated by future development projects. However, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of any public facility improvements within the HD Zone for the provision of sewer service, and therefore, would not contribute to a potential increase in the need for maintenance of such facilities. Due to the nature of the proposed Project, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in an increase in demand or expansion of sewer services, as compared to conditions occurring with the original HD Ordinance. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Solid Waste/Landfills 5.9‐7 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in increased demand for solid waste services. Short‐term construction impacts resulting from construction debris would increase solid waste on a temporary duration. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. 5.9-21 32 Correspondence from City of Bakersfield Public Works Department. July 31, 2008. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR Impact Analysis: As physical development would not directly result from implementation of the proposed Project, the Project would not create uses that would generate quantities of solid waste above existing levels. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in development that would generate debris from construction activities on a short‐term, temporary basis, or fromoperation or maintenance activities on a long‐term basis. The area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance would be served by the Bena Sanitary Landfill. The ability for the Bena Sanitary Landfill to serve future development within northeastern Bakersfield would be determined by the Kern County Waste Management Department at the appropriate time in the future when an application is submitted, and on a project‐by‐project basis. The County currently charges a fee of up to $36 per ton at landfills for disposal of construction and demolition debris. Recycling of construction debris would reduce the potential amount of waste disposed of at landfills in the County, and would contribute to the recycling goals set forth by the City of Bakersfield and AB 939. As no physical development would occur with the proposed Project, the Amended HD Ordinance would not cause an increase in the demand for soild waste services within the HD Zone, as compared to conditions under the original HD Ordinance. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Electrical Services 5.9‐8 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not require temporary use of electricity during construction and long‐term electric consumption. Electricity use would not result in excessive power consumption that would cause significant impacts on existing facilities. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Electricity distribution facilities are currently present in the Project area. Future development within the HD Zone would be served by PG&E; however, existing facilities in the northeast area of the City may not be adequate to serve all future development within the area. As needed, PG&E facilities would be upgraded and new distribution and substation equipment may be required to provide adequate service. As applicable, all future development within the City would be required to show all existing utility easements on site plans to ensure that proposed development would not interfere with easement rights and/or facilities held by a utility company. All future development would be subject to the City’s environmental and design review process on a project‐by‐project basis to ensure that conflicts would not occur between existing and proposed facilities. Project applicants would be required to coordinate with PG&E staff early in the planning stages to ensure that low‐impact strategies are incorporated into the project design, as appropriate. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.9-22 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR As the proposed Project would not directly result in development within the HD Zone, the Project would not require the provision of electrical services to the site, nor would it result in an increase in demand for such services over that which would occur under the original HD Ordinance. The temporary use of electricity would not be required during construction, as no such activity would occur. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance is intended to provide additional protection for the City’s hillsides and increase public safety with regard to wildfire, hillside instability, and landslides. As such, the Project would not result in the establishment of land uses or the construction of buildings that would require long‐term consumption of electricity. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Natural Gas 5.9‐9 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in increased demand for natural gas services. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Electricity distribution facilities are currently present in the Project area. However, existing facilities within the northeast area of the City may not be adequate to serve all future development with buildout of the General Plan. As needed, PG&E facilities would be upgraded and new distribution and substation equipment constructed as needed to provide adequate natural gas service. All development within the City would be subject to the City’s environmental and design review process to ensure that project design would not interfere with existing facilities or easements that may occur on a site, or in offsite areas where improvements would be required to provide service. All development would be evaluated on a project‐by‐project basis to determine specific measures for the provision of natural gas service and the appropriate measures to reduce potential impacts on the system, as needed. All future applicants would be required to coordinate with PG&E to design and install the necessary infrastructure to tie into existing lines within existing roadways, to provide adequate service including the proper placement, capacity, and design of natural gas regulator stations, gas mains, and distribution lines. Construction of such facilities outside of a project’s limits would be required to comply with all pertinent measures and conditions of the City, PG&E, and Caltrans (as applicable) to ensure no construction‐related impacts occur. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the construction of buildings or other improvements within the HD Zone that would require the provision of natural gas services. The Amended HD Ordinance would not increase the demand for natural gas services as compared to conditions that would occur in the HD Zone with the original HD Ordinance. As such, impacts are considered to be less than significant. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.9-23 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.9 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.9.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.9‐10 Potential cumulative development resulting from the Project and other projects within the vicinity would not increase the demand for services and utilities. An increased demand for services would not be expected for the Bakersfield Police Department, Bakersfield Fire Department, local school districts, and other public services. Increased demand for utilities would not be expected for electricity, natural gas, water, wastewater, and solid waste. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not contribute to a significant cumulative effect as the result of increased demand for services or utilities, as the intent of the Ordinance is to provide increased protection of the City’s hillsides as scenic resources and of the public’s general welfare with regard to wildfire, slope instability, and landslides. As such, physical growth would not directly result from Project implementation, and therefore, the Project would not require the short‐term or the long‐term provision of public services or utilities. Future development within the HD Zone, along with other future projects occurring within northeast Bakersfield, would effectively be self‐mitigating in that such projects would be subject to review for all applicable permit, code, policy and other City of Bakersfield development requirements and would be required to contribute fair share payment of impact fees to ensure their participation in addressing potential cumulative growth and service‐related demand issues. As such, each future project within the cumulative study area would provide measures to reduce its potential to contribute to a significant cumulative effect on public services and utilities. In In addition, all projects within the City would be required to comply with all applicable goals, policies and implementation measures set forth by the General Plan and General Plan Update EIR. As such, cumulative impacts with regard to public utilities and services would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.9.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts associated with the implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.9-24 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-1 Section 5.10 Geologic Resources and Natural Hazards 5.10 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES AND NATURAL HAZARDS 5.10.1 INTRODUCTION This Section of the EIR is intended to provide a description of the geologic and seismic setting of the Project area. In addition, potential impacts associated with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance will be assessed, and, as appropriate, mitigation measures will be recommended to reduce the significance of such impacts. Risks associated with such natural hazards as earthquake faults, strong seismic ground shaking, and seismic‐related ground failure in the form of liquefaction, landslides, and/or unstable geologic units or soils will be evaluated. The analysis in this Section is generally based on information provided in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update and the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update (General Plan). 5.10.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The City of Bakersfield is located along the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, with the southern tip of the Sierra Nevada Mountains running just to the east. The City boundaries extend to the Sequoia National Forest, at the foot of the Greenhorn Mountain Range and at the entrance to Kern Canyon. To the south of the Project area lie the Tehachapi Mountains, and to the west is the Temblor Range, which supports the San Andreas Fault, spanning approximately 35 miles across the Valley floor. In the northeastern portion of the City of Bakersfield, topography has largely been shaped by the drainage patterns of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the uplifting geological forces that created the mountains. 5.10.2.1 Regional Geology Geologic Structure The Bakersfield area is located within the Great Valley (Great Valley) Geomorphic Province of California, which is an alluvial plain approximately 50 miles wide and 400 miles long. The plain spans between the Pacific Coast and Sierra Nevada Mountain Mountain Ranges. The Sacramento River and San Joaquin River, which meet and enter San Francisco Bay, generally drain the Great Valley. The San Joaquin Valley lies within the southern portion of the Great Valley. The Great Valley, generally trending in a northwesterly direction, supports a thick layer of sediments (estimated at 40,000 feet in depth at the axis) which are transported to Valley floor by runoff flowing to the west from the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. Sand, silt, and clay deposits from this runoff form the Kern River fan, which covers approximately 300 square miles of the Valley floor and represents the largest of such fans within the vicinity of the Project area. The Kern River floodplain, generally located north of downtown Bakersfield, originates in the upper portion of the alluvial fan and extends through a broad, lower fan to the southwest. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR Primary Earthquake Hazards Faults Visual evidence of faults generally occurs when land movement results in the repeated displacement of earth, causing a linear fracture, or fault trace, on the earth’s surface. The California State Mining and Geology Board defines an active fault as one that has “had surface displacement within Holocene times (approximately the last 11,000 years);” however, this definition does not mean that faults lacking visual evidence of surface displacement within the Holocene times are necessarily inactive, and may instead be assumed to be inactive based on geologic evidence. Active faults are generally those faults having shown evidence of surface displacement during the Quaternary time (last 1.6 million years). On July 21, 1952, a series of earthquakes occurred along the White Wolf Fault within Kern County, initially resulting in a 7.5 magnitude quake, with the epicenter located near Wheeler Ridge. Due to general construction methods and building material types, older buildings within Bakersfield experienced substantial damage. Numerous utility outages also occurred throughout the City, and evidence of ground rupture was seen as the result of liquefaction in areas south of the City. To the east of the City of Bakersfield, severe damage also occurred in the cities of Tehachapi and Arvin. In 1972, the Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed which required the California State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, or “Earthquake Fault Zones,” around the surface traces of active faults, and to publish maps identifying such zones. The Act is intended to prohibit the construction of inhabitable buildings on the surface trace of active faults, with regard for human health and safety. The measures established by the Act are limited to surface fault rupture and do not apply to other hazards potentially resulting from the occurrence of earthquakes. According to the City’s General Plan, limited areas within the central portion of the HD Zone are within or adjacent to an Alquist‐Priolo Special Study Zone, where surface rupture has occurred; refer to Figure VIII‐2, Geologic Hazards, of the General Plan. These faults are considered to be active. The City of Bakersfield is located within a seismically active region of Southern California. Geologic studies conducted for the Southern California region indicate that an 8.3 Richter magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas Fault is likely to occur within the next 30 years. Such an event would result in significant property damage. 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 White Wolf Fault, Breckenridge‐Kern Canyon Fault System, Garlock Fault, Pond‐Poso Creek Fault, Sierra Nevada Fault, Big Pine Fault, Pleito Fault, Santa Ynez Fault, and the San Gabriel Fault, the most significant of which are discussed in greater detail below. Due to the continual and historical convergence of the underlying continental plates, additional fault systems occur in the Bakersfield region. Refer to Figure 5.10‐ 1, MAJOR ACTIVE FAULTS, which identifies the location of the active and potentially active faults located within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR San Andreas Fault The San Andreas Fault is considered to form the boundary between the North American Plate and the Pacific Plate. As stated above, the San Andreas Fault is considered to have the potential to generate an earthquake of magnitude 8.3 on the Richter scale, which is designated as the maximum credible earthquake. The Fault is located approximately 30.8 miles southwest of downtown Bakersfield and extends nearly 650 miles in length, spanning from the Mendocino Escarpment in the north to Imperial Valley to the south, with the portion of the Fault running through Kern County being relatively short. The most recent significant earthquake on this segment was the 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake, which resulted in surface rupture extending over 200 miles. Portions of the Fault have been designated by the State as an Alquist‐Priolo Special Studies Zone. White Wolf Fault The White Wolf Fault runs approximately 45 miles across the southeastern end of the San Joaquin Valley, generally from Wheeler Ridge to northeast of Caliente. The Fault historically ruptured on July 21, 1952, producing an earthquake of magnitude 7.5 and a series of subsequent aftershocks. Although surface rupture was visible along only 17 miles of the surface trace of the Fault as a result, it is generally accepted that rupture likely occurred along the majority of its length. The Fault is considered capable of producing a magnitude 7.5 earthquake as its greatest magnitude. The State has designated the Fault as an Alquist‐Priolo Special Studies Zone. Breckenridge‐Kern Canyon Fault The Breckenridge‐Kern Canyon Fault is located approximately 25 miles east of downtown Bakersfield, in the southern portion of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Fault traverses a distance of approximately 100 miles generally northward from Walker Basin to the north of Mount Whitney. The Fault is considered to be active with the potential to produce a maximum credible earthquake of 8.0 on the Richter scale; however, the degree of activity of this Fault system and its classification remain somewhat uncertain. This Fault is capable of causing damage within the Bakersfield area. Portions of the Fault have been designated by the State as Alquist‐Priolo Special Studies Zones. Garlock Fault The Garlock Fault is located approximately 35 miles southeast of downtown Bakersfield and extends approximately 150 miles eastward from the San Andreas Fault near Lebec. The Fault zone forms the northern boundary of the Mojave Block and the southern ends of the Sierra Nevadas and the valleys of the westernmost Basin and Range province. Historically, a number of sizable earthquakes have been recorded along the Garlock Fault zone, most recently, the magnitude 5.7 quake that occurred on July 11, 1992 near the town of Mojave. It is thought that the quake was triggered by the Landers earthquake, which had occurred two weeks prior. The fault has shown movement in recent years, and is considered to be an active Fault capable of causing damage within the Bakersfield area. Portions of this Fault have been designated by the State as an Alquist‐Priolo Special Studies Zone. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR Seismic Shaking Ground motions are typically measured in percentage of gravity (g, the acceleration due to gravity), where g is approximately 32 feet per second per second (9.8 meters per second per second) on Earth. Groundshaking accompanying earthquakes on nearby faults can be expected to be felt within the area affected by the Project; however, the intensity of ground shaking would depend upon the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance to the epicenter, and the geology of the area between the epicenter and the Project site. The General Plan identifies the faults that are capable of causing potential damage within the Bakersfield area; refer also to Table 5.10‐1, POSSIBLE DAMAGE INDUCING FAULTS. As the table indicates, a maximum peak ground acceleration of 0.48g would be felt at areas affected by the Amended HD Ordinance, as the result of a maximum earthquake of magnitude 7.0 along the Pond Poso Fault, which is located approximately 8.0 miles away from the Bakersfield area. As the San Joaquin Valley is located within a seismically active region, development within the Bakersfield area subject to appropriate seismic design criteria given in the California Building Code (CBC) for adequate drainage facility design and preconstruction soils and grading studies. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance provides additional measures aimed at controlling site design and structural elements to potentially reduce hazards with regard for seismic activity and slope instability. The Amended HD Ordinance permits development within the HD Zone that “minimizes erosion and geologic hazards and provides for the public health, safety and welfare.” Among other requirements, the Amended HD Ordinance requires that all applicants for future development within the HD Zone prepare a geology report identifying the surface and subsurface geology of the site and degree of seismic hazard, and provide conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of such geologic conditions on the proposed development, as applicable. Table 5.10-1 Possible Damage Inducing Faults FAULT APPROXIMATE DISTANCE FROM DOWNTOWN BAKERSFIELD (MI) MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE MAXIMUM CREDIBLE BEDROCK ACCELERATION (G) White Wolf 19 7.5‐8.0 0.28‐0.45 Breckenridge‐Kern Canyon 25 6.0‐8.0 0.09‐0.47 San Andreas 38 8.0‐8.3 0.2‐0.25 Garlock 35 7.5‐8.0 0.17‐0.18 Sierra Nevada 39 6.5‐8.25 0.07‐0.12 Pond Poso 8 7.0 0.31‐0.48 Source: Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR, June 26, 2002. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-4 City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance • Draft EIR Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-6 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR In addition, the Safety Element of the General Plan identifies various implementation programs with respect to hazards caused by potential fault rupture, as briefly described below: • Detailed geologic investigations are to be conducted, in conformance with guidelines of the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), for all construction designed for human occupancy in an Alquist‐Priolo Fault Study Zone; • Construction of buildings for human occupancy within 50 feet of the trace of an active fault is prohibited; • Plans and permits for installation of major lifeline components such as highways, utilities, and petroleum or chemical pipelines are to incorporate design features to accommodate potential fault movement in areas of active faults without prolonged disruption of an essential service or threat to health and safety; and, • Field information is to be developed as part of any CEQA investigations, and geologic reports by the City and County geologists should be kept current and accessible for use in report preparation, geologic reviews, and policy development. In addition, the Safety Element of the General Plan includes discussion of active faults that may potentially exist outside of the designated Special Studies Zones (referred to as Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones). The Safety Element requires that additional fault investigation be conducted for all future development of critical or important facilities proposed outside of the Special Studies Zones. In addition, the Safety Element requires that thorough hazard investigation be documented for all future development of critical facilities. The California Seismic Safety Commission defines critical facilities as the following: • “Essential facilities” whose continued functioning is necessary to maintain public health and safety following a disaster. These facilities include fire and police stations, communication facilities, emergency operation centers, hospitals, administrative buildings, and schools designated as mass care shelters. Such key transportation facilities and utility “lifeline” facilities as water supply, sewage disposal, oil and gas storage facilities and transmission lines, and electric generation stations and transmission lines are also considered as essential facilities. • Those facilities where damage or failure could pose hazards to life and property well beyond their immediate vicinity. Such facilities include dams and reservoirs, petroleum storage facilities, and nuclear waste processing and storage facilities. • High‐occupancy public or private structures intended for housing or assembly of large populations, where failure could create hazards to life and property within the structures and in their immediate vicinity. These facilities include schools, City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-7 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR prisons, coliseums, theaters, conference and convention facilities, high‐rise buildings, and similar facilities used by large numbers of people. The Safety Element of the General Plan also identifies programs to be implemented by the City and the County of Bakersfield that affect the seismic safety of critical facilities. These programs include the following: • Site‐specific studies for fault rupture potential shall be conducted prior to the design process for critical facilities under City and County discretionary approval; • Existing critical facilities shall be reviewed for any significant siting, design, or construction problems that would cause them to be vulnerable to seismic activity; • The findings of the site‐specific analyses shall be incorporated into emergency operations plans and addressed in long‐term programs for the upgrading or relocation of facilities; and, • Construction of critical facilities shall be prohibited within 300 feet of the trace of an active fault. Secondary Earthquake Hazards Liquefaction Seismic groundshaking of relatively loose, granular soils that are saturated or submerged can cause underlying soils to liquefy and temporarily behave as a dense fluid. For liquefaction to occur, intense seismic shaking, the presence of loose granular soils prone to liquefaction, and the saturation of soils due to shallow groundwater need to occur simultaneously. Such actions result in a sudden temporary increase in pore water pressure, or liquefaction. Liquefaction more often occurs in earthquake‐prone areas underlain by young (Holocene age) alluvium where the groundwater table is shallower than 50 feet below the ground surface. According to the General Plan, high groundwater is known to occur only in the southern and southeastern portions of the City, and therefore, the City’s hillsides in the northeastern portion of the City are not anticipated to be susceptible to liquefaction. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is caused by the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment, as a result of liquefaction in subsurface layers. Lateral spreading is associated with areas prone to liquefaction. Ground Lurching Lurching typically results where loose to poorly consolidated soil deposits on or adjacent to steep slopes move laterally as the result of strong groundshaking during a seismic event. Areas that are underlain by steep contacts of dissimilar bearing materials at depth, such as compacted City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-8 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR fill caps that have been placed over a transition from bedrock to Holocene age alluvium, are also subject to lurching. During seismic events, wave‐like occurrences have been sighted during intense seismic ground shaking on certain soils, often resulting in surface ridges or cracks. Areas underlain by thick accumulations of colluvium and alluvium appear to be more susceptible to ground lurching than bedrock. Lurching can be expected within loose, cohesionless solids, or in clay‐rich soils with high moisture content under strong seismic ground motion conditions. More heavily loaded structures appear to be less susceptible to the effects of ground lurching, generally due to methods of construction and building materials. Typically, ground lurching poses a greater potential for damage to lightly‐loaded structures such as pavement, fences, pipelines, and walkways. Seismically Induced Ground Settlement Groundshaking can result in ground settlement as sediment particles become more tightly packed, thereby reducing pore space. Such unconsolidated, loosely packed alluvial deposits are especially susceptible to seismically‐induced ground shaking. In addition, artificial fills that are poorly compacted may also be subject to seismically‐induced settlement. Landslides Landslides are large movements of the underlying ground that include rock falls, shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deep rotational or transitional movement of soil or rock. Development along hillsides is particularly susceptible to landslides, as they are considered to be a basic geologic hazard for such development. Refer also to Figure VIII‐2, Geologic Hazards, of the General Plan, which shows the location of areas subject to landslide potential within the City. Slope Stability According to the General Plan, the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is located within the rural northeast area where the terrain is composed of slopes exceeding 20% and elevations exceeding 1,000 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Generally, slopes that are subject to failure are formed along river terraces, bluffs, and foothills in the northeast and east areas of Bakersfield. Manufactured slopes (i.e., cut and/or fill slopes) and the natural stability of slopes can be influenced by underlying geologic structures, strength of materials, height, and the inclination and orientation of manufactured slopes. Expansive Soils Expansive soils are composed of a significant amount of clay particles which can expand (absorb water) or contract (release water). These shrink and swell characteristics can result in structural stress and place other loads on these soils. Expansive soils are often associated with geologic units having marginal stability and can occur in low‐lying alluvial basins, as well as along hillside areas. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-9 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR Subsidence Although petroleum and groundwater withdrawal activities occur throughout Kern County, the amount of petroleum withdrawal is considered too limited to result in serious subsidence. The California State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources is responsible for monitoring for evidence of subsidence within oil and gas fields, and for regulating oil and gas withdrawal and repressurization of the oil fields. As needed, remediation activities may involve the injection of water or overall reduction of the volume of groundwater being pumped to raise the level of the underlying water table. According to the General Plan, gradual subsidence has been identified in areas south of the City limits. Soil Erosion Soil erosion can occur as the result of high wind conditions and/or storm water runoff. Within the Project area, there is also increased susceptibility for erosion to occur, due to the disturbance of topsoil by grading activities or the use of off‐road vehicles. Increased storm water runoff volumes and intensity can also occur in developed areas where paved surfaces are present or where established vegetation has been removed to allow for development. The effects of wildfire can also leave large areas void of vegetation, making such lands highly susceptible to erosion during storm events until sufficient vegetation is re‐established. Dam Failure The Project area is generally located approximately 40 miles southwest of Isabella Dam. The Dam is earth‐filled and is approximately 185 feet high and 1,725 feet long, with a capacity of 570,000 acre‐feet (AF) of water. The Dam is located near a major earthquake fault. A rupture in the Dam caused by seismic activity could subsequently allow for a release of water stored behind the dam, potentially flooding approximately 60 square miles of the City of Bakersfield. The General Plan states that the chance for entire failure of the Dam to occur, with the lake at full capacity, is estimated as one day in 10,000 years.1 Wildfire Hazards The area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance 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. According to the City of Bakersfield, the majority of the Project area is generally considered to be of moderate fire hazard risk, with some hillside areas in the far eastern portion of the Project area designated as having high fire hazard risk, due to their proximity to largely undeveloped land; refer to Figure 5.10‐2, NORTHEAST BAKERSFIELD FIRE RISK. Numerous wildfires have historically occurred both within the Project area and on lands to the north and northeast; refer to Figure 5.10‐3, NORTHEAST BAKERSFIELD HISTORIC FIRES. As such, conditions on these lands within the HD Zone create the potential for exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving 1 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR. December 2002. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-10 3 2 1 1 5 76 2 8 4 6 5 7 9 11 11 30 31 19 13 12 30 14 25 24 19 12 23 18 34 24 33 13 26 25 30 27 23 34 26 17 29 27 14 16 22 28 21 20 15 25 18 27 35 35 26 10 26 31 29 32 25 36 28 36 Moderate Urban Unzoned Urban Unzoned Non-Wildland/Non-Urban Moderate Urban Unzoned Moderate Moderate High High Non-Wildland/Non-Urban Moderate 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles The fire history perimeter data is courtesy KCFD, and is known to be incomplete in incorporated areas. The Fire Hazard Severity Zone data is from FRAP maps. LEGEND SLOPE PROTECTION AREA HILLSIDE DEVELOPEMENT OVERLAY ZONE FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES (FROM CALFIRE) NON-WILDLAND/NON-URBAN (AG) URBAN UNZONED MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE CITY LIMITS KNOWN IGNITION POINTS (FROM KC FIRE) 9/25/08 JN 60-100489 Northeast Bakersfield Fire Risk City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance • Draft EIR Figure 5.10-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-12 3 2 1 1 5 76 2 8 4 6 5 7 9 11 11 30 31 19 13 12 30 14 25 24 19 12 23 18 34 24 33 13 26 25 30 27 23 34 26 17 29 27 14 16 22 28 21 20 15 25 18 27 35 35 26 10 26 31 29 32 25 36 28 36 not named 42 (boat crash) 2006 noname sta 42 2005 OUTLAW 1995 PALADINO 1994 RANCHERIA 1993 CHOCTAW 2001 BRECK 1998 CHOCTAW 1997 SMOOT 1994 CHEVRON 1994 MEBANE 1993 ROUND MTN. 1993 1982 HART PARK SW 1975 POWER HOUSE 1970 FRANK NORIEGA 1969 COTTENWOOD CREEK 1966 LOUIS V. OLCESE EST. 1964 1927 Legend Hillside Development Overlay Zone Known Ignition Points (From KC FIRE) SLOPE PROTECTION AREA Sphere of Influence City Limits Fire History Perimeters NAME noname sta 42 BRECK CHEVRON CHOCTAW COTTENWOOD CREEK FRANK NORIEGA HART PARK SW LOUIS V. OLCESE EST. MEBANE OUTLAW PALADINO POWER HOUSE RANCHERIA ROUND MTN. SMOOT not named 42 (boat crash) 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles The fire history perimeter data is courtesy KCFD, and is known to be incomplete in incorporated areas. The Fire Hazard Severity Zone data is from FRAP maps. 9/25/08 JN 60-100489 Northeast Bakersfield Historic Fires City of Bakersfield Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance • Draft EIR Figure 5.10-3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-14 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR wildland fires. Additionally, the type of ground cover, the slope of the ground, and the difficulty of access by fire crews and engines contribute to wildland fire potential. The Amended HD Ordinance (Chapter 17.66 of the City Zoning Ordinance) provides measures intended to “protect the general public from the threat of wildfire” and to “provide for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.” The Amended HD Ordinance requires that all future plans for development within the HD Zone identify the following, among other requirements: type of ignition‐resistant construction of the structure; roof classification; water supply system; fuel loading and model; and, data to verify classification of fire‐resistive vegetation. In addition, if required for fire safety, the Ordinance requires that additional information be provided on development plans to identify areas beyond the property line relative relative to slopes, vegetation, fuel breaks, access, and water supply. Section 17.66.150, Defensible Space, also requires that land owners maintain around and adjacent to any building or structure, a minimum 30‐foot wide firebreak cleared of vegetation on all sides of the structure, or to the property line, as applicable. Other requirements include minimum access road and driveway design widths, emergency secondary access, and fire scaping with appropriate planting materials, among other measures. The City of Bakersfield Fire Department devotes a large amount of its training to wildfire and is knowledgeable as to wildland fire fighting strategies and tactics, and wildland fire behavior. Other fire‐fighting resources in the area include the Metro Fire Station, located out of the Bureau of Land Management office in Bakersfield, the Kern County Fire Department, and the U.S. Forest Service. As needed, such agencies can provide fire‐fighting services within the hillsides surrounding the City of Bakersfield, as well as in the mountains that surround Kern County. 5.10.3 REGULATORY SETTING 5.10.3.1 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The General Plan establishes measures aimed at increasing public safety with regard to both seismic events and potential geologic effects within the City of Bakersfield and the surrounding region. Project consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan, with regard to public safety and geologic and seismic hazards, is discussed in Table 5.10‐2, CONSISTENCY WITH METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES FOR GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS. 5.10.3.2 California Building Code The California Code of Regulation, Title 24, applies to all applications for residential building permits. The California Building Code (CBC) consists of 11 parts that contain administrative regulations for the California Building Standards Commission and for all state agencies that implement or enforce building standards. All development within the State must demonstrate conformance with the requirements of the CBC, subject to review by the local agencies. Cities and counties are allowed to modify or amend building standards beyond those given in the CBC to address building standards on a local level. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-15 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR 5.10.3.3 City of Bakersfield Municipal Code The Bakersfield Building Code, which is based on the California Building Code, acts as the building code for development within the City. The Bakersfield Building Code, modified and amended into the City’s Municipal Code, regulates the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, use, height, and maintenance of all structures and certain equipment therein. All future development within the HD Zone would be required to adhere to the measures set forth in the Municipal Code with regard to structural design. 5.10.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Environmental Checklist form. The Environmental Checklist form includes questions relating to geologic resources and natural hazards. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this Section. Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental impact if it would: • Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 􀂃 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; 􀂃 Strong seismic ground shaking; 􀂃 Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction; 􀂃 Landslides; 􀂃 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; or, 􀂃 Exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death including flooding, as a result of the failure of a levee or a dam. • 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 onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. • Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18‐1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. • 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. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-16 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR Table 5.10-2 Consistency with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Geologic and Seismic Hazards GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Seismic Safety Goals SAF/SEI G‐1: “Substantially reduce the level of death, injury, property damage, economic and social dislocation and disruption of vital services that would result from earthquake damage.” The Amended HD Ordinance includes measures aimed at reducing the potential for death, injury, property damage, and/or economic or social dislocation to occur. The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to minimize geologic hazards and provide for the public health, safety, and welfare. The Amended HD Ordinance would require that applicants for future development within the HD Zone prepare a geotechnical report to assess the characteristics of onsite soils; a geology report to assess surface and subsurface geology, degree of seismic hazard, and potential for slope failure; and/or a drainage concept report to address the hydrologic conditions of a site, upon the request of the City. Such measures would reduce potential damage caused by the occurrence of earthquakes in the northeastern Bakersfield area. Refer also to Section 17.66 of the Municipal Code for additional discussion. Fault Rupture Policies SAF/SEI P‐10: “Prohibit development designed for human occupancy within 50 feet of a known active fault and prohibit any building from being placed astride an active fault.” The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. As such, no structures designed for human occupancy would occur as a result of the Project, and no buildings would be placed near or on an active fault. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance provides design measures to reduce the potential for hazards relative to geologic conditions to adversely affect future development within the HD Zone. SAF/SEI P‐11: “Require site‐specific studies to locate locate and characterize specific fault traces within an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for all construction designed for human occupancy.” The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. As such, no structures designed for human occupancy would occur as a result of the Project. As the HD Zone would act as an overlay zone, and no development is proposed with implementation, no site‐specific studies are required as part of the Project to locate and/or characterize specific fault traces within Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance. These studies would be required for development projects within alquist‐priolo fault zone areas. Liquefaction Policies SAF/SEI P‐13: “Determine the liquefaction potential at sites in areas of high groundwater prior to development and determine specific mitigation to be incorporated into the foundation design, as necessary to prevent or reduce damage from liquefaction in an earthquake.” The area affected by the proposed Project is not located within an area of high groundwater; therefore, the Project site is not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical construction within the HD Zone. Additionally, the Amended HD Ordinance would require preparation of a geotechnical investigation for all future development within the HD Zone (upon the City’s request) to identify appropriate recommendations for grading and site design, in order to minimize potential liquefaction hazards. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-17 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR Table 5.10-2, Consistency with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Geologic and Seismic Hazards, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-18 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Flooding Goals SAF/FL G‐1: “Minimize hazards to planning area residents resulting from flooding.” As the Amended HD Ordinance applies to the City’s hillsides in northeastern Bakersfield, the potential for flooding to occur is considered to be minimal, due to elevation. The Amended HD Ordinance would require preparation of a drainage concept report for all future development to consider such issues as possible flood inundation and the potential for downstream flooding to occur, subject to City review and approval. The area affected by the proposed Project is not located within the Lake Isabella Dam Failure Inundation Area, and, due to the elevation of the Project area, is not considered to be subject to flooding should the Dam break. Source: Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, 2002. 5.10.5 IMPACTS Surface Fault Rupture 5.10‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from surface fault rupture. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Active earthquake faults include those faults that are currently slipping, display earthquake activity, or that have historical surface rupture. Active faults are defined by the California Geologic Survey as those faults that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene times (approximately the last 11,000 years). The California Geological Survey places active faults within a zone, referred to as an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, that requires additional study be conducted if a project is located within such a zone. The delineation of the Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones is intended to prohibit construction of new habitable structures near or on active faults within California, for the purposes of protecting human health and safety. As mentioned previously, according to the General Plan, major active fault systems occur within the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley, with the San Andreas Fault being the most prominent. Other fault systems occurring in the Bakersfield area include the White Wolf Fault, Breckenridge‐Kern Canyon Fault System, Garlock Fault, Pond‐Poso Creek Fault, Sierra Nevada Fault, Big Pine Fault, Pleito Fault, Santa Ynez Fault, and the San Gabriel Fault. Within the northeast portion of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Plan Area, Earthquake Fault Zones have been identified where surface rupture has occurred; refer to Figure VIII‐2, Geologic Hazards, of the General Plan. Potential damage caused by earthquakes within the area affected by Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR Amended HD Ordinance would vary, based on the characteristics of a fault, the location of the fault in relation to the Project area, and the magnitude of the earthquake. All future construction within the City of Bakersfield would be required by State law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Building Code (Seismic Zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), the Municipal Code and the CBC. However, the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical construction within the HD Zone. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance is intended to regulate future development within the City’s hillside areas, and therefore, would not increase the exposure of structures or people to hazards related to rupture of a known earthquake fault. The intent of the Amended HD Ordinance is to effectively reduce potential impacts associated with development in the City’s hillside areas. With consideration for the development and site design restrictions set forth by the Amended HD Ordinance, the potential number of residential dwelling units that could be developed within the HD Zone would be decreased by an estimated 3,199 units. As such, a decrease in the overall number of units within the City’s hillsides would potentially occur, as compared to that permitted under the original HD Ordinance. The effects of this decrease would result in the reduction of potential exposure of structures or people to hazards related to rupture of a known earthquake fault, as the overall amount of development allowed in the northeast area of the City would be reduced. As such, impacts with regard to surface fault rupture would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Seismic Ground Shaking Shaking 5.10‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from seismic ground shaking. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: As stated above, the Project area is located within a seismically active southern California region and would likely be subjected to strong seismic ground shaking. Due to the proximity of the Project area to several significant faults, ground shaking within the HD Zone could potentially be substantial. As a result, potential impacts associated with seismically induced ground shaking are considered to be potentially significant. The impact of earthquakes within the area covered by the Amended HD Ordinance would depend on several factors including the particular fault, fault location, distance from the site, and magnitude of the earthquake. Each of these factors can influence the degree of shaking that would occur within a given area. The California Health and Safety Code requires that all structures be designed to resist stress developed by earthquakes. Accepted seismic design criteria are presented in the Uniform City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-19 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR Building Code, Chapter 16. All future development within the City 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. With regard for public safety, future development within the area affected by the HD Zone would be designed in accordance with the requirements of the CBC and the Municipal Code, including the standards established by Chapter 17.66, Hillside Development Combining Zone, with regard for grading, slope contours, and hillside development. Per the requirements of Chapter 17.66, future applicants would be required to analyze the geological characteristics of a particular site through preparation of a geotechnical report and/or geology report, as requested by the City, to determine geologic characteristics and constraints. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance would not 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, and no physical development is proposed. As noted in Impact 5.10‐1 above, the Project would result in a reduction of the number of residential units potentially constructed within the HD Zone, as compared to that allowed under the original HD Ordinance. As such, the development potential within the northeast portion of the City along the hillsides would be reduced, thereby reducing the number of people and structures potentially exposed to effects associated with seismically induced ground shaking. Due to the nature of the Project, the Amended HD Ordinance would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Ground Failure 5.10‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from ground failure, including settlement, collapse, ground lurching, liquefaction, or lateral spreading. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Impact Analysis: The potential for liquefaction to occur is influenced by a combination of unconsolidated soil type and high groundwater, combined with high potential seismic activity. Liquefaction generally occurs due to a sudden temporary increase in pore water pressure due to seismic densification or displacement of submerged granular soils. When liquefaction occurs because of seismic activity, the conditions of cohesionless surface material, combined with a relatively shallow water table underlying the area, are generally the cause. Ground vibration City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-20 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR increases the pore pressure resulting in the upward movement of water, thereby turning the underlying sand or silt into a quicksand‐like condition. 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 Update EIR, high groundwater is generally limited to the southern and southeastern portions of the City. Therefore, the area affected by the proposed Project is not subject to high groundwater. The lack of near‐surface groundwater beneath the Project area makes it unlikely that significant impacts related to liquefaction would occur. The Project would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. As such, no structures would be built that would increase human exposure to potential hazards relative to the effects of liquefaction or lateral spreading. Impacts are considered to to be less than significant. Settlement, Collapse, and Ground Lurching Impact Analysis: The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. No structures would be built that would be susceptible to ground settlement, collapse, or lurching. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Landslides 5.10‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from landslides or other slope failures. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The General Plan Update EIR indicates that slopes subject to failure occur along the river terraces, bluffs, and foothills in the eastern and northeastern portions of the City. The northeast area consists of slopes exceeding 20 percent and elevations exceeding 1,000 feet. During a seismic event, fractured rock units and loose surficial materials could loosen, thereby triggering a landslide event. The Amended HD Ordinance includes measures intended to reduce the risk of landslides caused by strong ground motion from nearby earthquakes, erosion, or other adverse conditions created during grading activities, through various development standards. The Amended HD Ordinance would also serve to minimize safety concerns by limiting the location of future structures on the edge or cantilevered over ridgelines, development on steep slopes, and significant grading or erosion that may cause slope instability. To assist with preventing the placement of structures above/beneath slopes that are too steep and/or could cause hazardous events, the Amended HD Ordinance would require preparation of a site‐specific grading plan and/or geotechnical study for all future development within the HD Zone to identify potential geologic characteristics of a site. By identifying such conditions, proper structure placement on the site would be determined, to ensure that development does not encroach into the hillsides City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-21 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR or other geologically unstable areas. In addition, the grading plan and geotechnical study would identify any existing landslides and would provide measures to remediate/prevent the development of landslides within the Project area. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. As such, the Project would not result in the increased exposure of people or structures to adverse effects of landslides or slope failure. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Soil Erosion 5.10‐5 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, either on‐or offsite. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Soil erosion is caused by erosive forces of wind or water as they result in the detachment and movement of soil particles. In addition, activities that disturb or loosen the underlying soils, such as off‐road vehicle (ORV) activity, can also contribute to the potential for erosion to occur. Although evidence of illegal ORV activity is present along the hillsides within the HD zone, the prevention of such activities is outside the scope and intent of the Amended HD Ordinance. According to the General Plan Update EIR, soils with high erodibility are located in the northeastern portion of the City. The Amended HD Ordinance requires new development within the HD Zone to prepare drainage plans, slope erosion control/revegetation plans, and geotechnical/geology reports that are intended to ultimately identify the specific conditions on a site and determine site‐sensitive design measures to reduce the potential for adverse effects to occur as the result of development. The Amended HD Ordinance also 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. In addition, the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance would be subject to other City ordinances and standards relative to soils and geology, as applicable. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development or land improvement activities within the HD Zone. As such, no disturbance of soils would occur that would result in the potential for erosion or the loss of topsoil Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Expansive Soils 5.10‐6 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not pose a significant risk to people and structures due to the presence of expansive soils. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-22 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: According to the General Plan Update EIR, the area covered by the Amended HD Ordinance is not known to be comprised of soils with a high potential for soil expansion. The Amended HD Ordinance would require preparation of a grading plan and geotechnical study as part of future development within the HD Zone, upon the request of the City. The geotechnical study would identify onsite soils considered to be expansive and would provide measures to ensure that such soils do not adversely impact the integrity of proposed structures. However, the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. No structures would be built that would increase exposure of people or structures to the presence of expansive soils. Impacts associated with expansive soils are considered to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be less than significant. Dam Inundation 5.10‐7 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not expose future structures to a significant risk resulting from a seismically‐induced failure of Isabella Dam. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: As the Project site is located approximately 40 miles southwest of Isabella Dam, and within proximity to a major earthquake fault, the potential for a seismically‐induced failure of the Dam to occur exists; however, the General Plan states that the potential for entire failure of the Dam to occur, with the lake at full capacity, is estimated as one day in 10,000 years. The City of Bakersfield maintains its GeoWeb map, which indicates that, if Isabella Dam were to break, it would take approximately 6‐8 hours for the water from the Dam to reach the closest area affected by the proposed Project; however, as the Project site is located along the City’s hillsides, risk of potential damage from the breaking of the Dam is considered to be low. The map provides a visual of the worst case scenario of the effects of the Lake Isabella Dam failing. The inundation area and the time‐step of flood arrival assume a full reservoir and the full breaking of the two dams (the main dam and the auxiliary dam).2 In addition, recent reports published by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) indicate that the potential for the Dam to fail is highly unlikely. 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 FEMA on May 1, 1985. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. No structures would be constructed as a result of the project, and therefore, the Project 5.10-23 2 City of Bakersfield, GeoWeb. Accessed September 5, 2008. http://geoweb.ci.bakersfield.ca.us/bakersfield.htm City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR would not increase the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk resulting from the failure of Isabella Dam. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Wildfire Hazards 5.10‐8 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas of where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance 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. The potential potential for wildfire to occur is influenced by a number of factors, including the type of vegetation, the slope of the ground, and the ability of fire crews and engines to readily access a site. The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to “protect the general public from the threat of wildfire,” and contains provisions that would reduce potential wildfire hazards. The Amended HD Ordinance requires future applicants to provide emergency secondary access 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, the Amended HD Ordinance gives minimum width and height clearance requirements for driveways and minimum width and height clearance for all access routes subject to the use of fire department apparatus, to ensure proper access to all properties in the event of an emergency. The Amended HD Ordinance also includes requirements for building construction and site design in order to reduce the potential for damage caused by wildfire to occur. Section 17.66.120, Building Construction, of the Amended HD Ordinance, states that Class A or B noncombustible roof covering or roof assembly shall be required within visual resource areas. No wood or shake shingle roofs shall be permitted within these areas. In addition, one‐hour rated fire‐resistive construction shall be required for eave assemblies or noncombustible assembly approved by the Fire Chief and building director. Exceptions are made for accessory structures not exceeding 120 square feet (s.f.) in floor area when located at least 50 feet from any habitable structure. Additionally, all development plans would be required to show the type of ignition‐resistant construction of the proposed structure, roof classification of building, water supply system, and the fuel loading/model and data to verify classification of fire‐resistive vegetation. Additionally, Section 17.66.140, Fire Scape Plant Selections, requires that every tract and parcel map contain an advisory notice within the conditions of approval recommending that property owners use plant materials that are fire resistive. A comprehensive list of such plants is available from the City Fire Department (Ord. 4391 §1 (Exh. A (part)), 2006). In addition, Section 17.66.150, Defensible Space, requires maintenance of a minimum 30‐foot wide firebreak around and City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-24 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR adjacent to any buildings or structures (or to the property line) where all flammable vegetation or other combustible growth is removed and cleared. Further, it is anticipated that the reduction in density resulting from the Amended HD Ordinance would reduce the overall number of potential residential units within the Project area by an estimated 3,199 units. This reduction in units would consequently reduce the number of people that would potentially be exposed to wildfire hazards, thereby reducing potential risk of loss, injury, or death. As the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical construction within the HD Zone, the Project would not increase the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk involving wildfire. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.10.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.10‐9 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, combined with future development, would not result in increased short‐term impacts such as erosion and sedimentation, and long‐term seismicrelated impacts within the Project area. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The cumulative impact analysis for geologic resources and natural hazards considered the Project area and surrounding land areas, with consideration for projections given in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. As future development occurs within the Bakersfield area, construction activities may result in short‐term cumulative impacts due to soil erosion or sedimentation caused by excavation, backfilling and/or grading. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. Future development within the area affected by the HD Zone, considered with other cumulative projects in the the Bakersfield area, could incrementally contribute to an increase in the number of people and property potentially exposed to impacts relative to seismic activity or geologic instability; however, all future development within the cumulative study area would be evaluated for site‐specific conditions, to be identified through preparation of a design‐level geotechnical study on a project‐by‐project basis, as applicable. All potential geologic and/or seismic impacts associated with future development within the cumulative study area would be reduced to the extent possible through compliance with applicable goals, policies, and implementation measures established by the City of Bakersfield and by the CBC. It should be noted that the intent of the Amended HD Ordinance is to prevent development within the hillside areas where geologic and/or soil conditions would not be suitable for development. The failure of such geologic structures in the form of landslides, seismic damage or erosion can be costly, both in an economic sense to the landowner as well as to the City with City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-25 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.10 Geologic Resources & Natural Hazards Draft EIR regard to potential risk of damage or loss, but also in a social sense, with the potential for reduced public safety or loss of life. The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to require sitespecific evaluation of properties within the HD Zone, and to allow for recommendation of appropriate, site‐sensitive design measures to minimize erosion and geologic hazards and provide for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Additionally, the Amended HD Ordinance places emphasis on revegetating disturbed areas with xeriscape plant selections and utilizing fire‐retardant, erosion control techniques that can save taxpayers money by preventing wildfires or slowing the spread of wildfires, and by preventing or reducing potential erosion. As such, the Amended HD Ordinance would reduce the potential for future development to contribute to an overall cumulative impact within the City with regard to shortterm impacts such as erosion and sedimentation, and long‐term seismic‐related and wildfire impacts. Although the Amended HD Ordinance would not in itself result in physical development, future construction within the HD Zone, combined with other future development within the cumulative study area, could potentially expose people or structures to an increased risk of wildland fire. All future development within the Bakersfield area would be subject to City review for consistency with applicable fire prevention standards and measures established in Chapter 17.66 of the Municipal Code. With adherence to the required standards for all future development within the HD Zone and other properties located within the cumulative study area, cumulative impacts related to wildland fire would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.10.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts relative to geologic resources and natural hazards associated with the implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.10-26 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.11-1 Section 5.11 Hydrology & Water Quality 5.11 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The purpose of this Section is to describe the hydrologic and water quality setting of the proposed Project and surrounding area. In addition, this Section addresses potential impacts on hydrology and water quality associated with the proposed Project. Information in this Section is based on information from the City of Bakersfield, Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update (General Plan), Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update, and City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. 5.11.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The mean elevation of the City of Bakersfield is approximately 400 feet above mean sea level (msl). Climate within the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley is generally characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters. The region receives a normal annual precipitation of approximately 5.72 to 8.50 inches, which categorizes the area as a desert or steppe. The majority of precipitation falls between November and April. The Kern River Basin represents the only major stream within the City of Bakersfield. The Kern River Basin includes approximately 2,100 square miles of watershed area above Isabella Dam, approximately 300 square miles of foothill area below the Dam, and about 600 square miles of alluvial fan below the mouth of the Kern River Canyon. The River originates on the western flank of Mount Whitney in the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains and flows in a southwesterly direction. Several minor streams merge with the Kern River, which generally exists as a contained basin, except during years when high volumes of runoff occur. The basin is fully diverted and used; however, during very wet years, the Kern River reaches the flood channel located on the west of the Valley floor and carries water into the Tulare Lake bed. Flows along the River have been regulated since the completion of Isabella Dam in 1953. 5.11.1.1 Basin Boundaries and Hydrology Kern County Groundwater Subbasin The area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance lies within the Kern County Groundwater subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The San Joaquin Valley is surrounded on the west by the Coast Ranges; on the south by the San Emigdio and Tehachapi Mountains; on the east by the Sierra Nevada; and, on the north by the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta and Sacramento Valley. The northern portion of the San Joaquin Valley drains toward the Delta by the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, the Fresno, Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus Rivers. The Kern County Groundwater subbasin is bounded to the north by the Kern County line and the Tule Groundwater Subbasin; to the east and southeast by granitic bedrock of the Sierra Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR Nevada foothills and Tehachapi Mountains; and, on the southwest and west by the marine sediments of the San Emigdio Mountains and Coast Ranges. No limits are currently imposed on groundwater pumping within the Kern County subbasin. Surface Water A watershed is a region of land whose water drains to a specified receiving water. The proposed Project area is located within the Kern River Watershed, which covers over two million acres. The Kern River watershed and the Caliente Creek Stream Group serve as the two primary sources of surface water within the City’s Planning Area. The Kern River originates near Mount Whitney in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and drains an area approximately 2,420 square miles in size. Water flows from the Sierras in a northeast to southwest direction, passes through the Kern River Canyon, and flows to the San Joaquin River Valley. The Kern River terminates near the Buena Vista Lake Bed and Buena Vista Recreation Area at the foothills of the Temblor Range. Two principal tributaries to the River meet at Lake Isabella, while other lesser creeks merge with the River downstream. The Kern River is located directly north of the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance. The Kern River has been regulated by the Isabella Dam since 1953. The Dam and associated reservoir are capable of holding back an estimated 570,000 cubic feet of water. Except in years where rainfall is very high, this River supports little or no water flow beyond the City of Bakersfield, due to the diversion of water in canals located upstream. In addition, the Caliente Stream Group provides surface water and consists of Caliente Creek and its tributaries, Walker Basin Creek and Tehachapi Creek. The lesser creeks of Little Sycamore, Comanche, and Tejon also contribute to the Caliente Stream Group. The Caliente Creek Stream Group drains the western slopes of the Tehachapi Mountains. Flooding Flooding within the Bakersfield Planning Area generally originates from the Kern River watershed. The watershed is located in both Kern County and Tulare County near the southern end of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. Flooding also occurs from the Caliente Creek stream group which drains the west slopes of the Tehachapi mountains. Other localized watersheds may also cause flooding in smaller areas within Bakersfield. The Kern River has experienced episodes of severe flooding resulting as the result of severe rainstorms and snowmelt in the upper reaches of its watershed. The months of November through April represent the months when the potential for flooding caused by these highintensity winter rainstorms is greatest. Flooding caused by snowmelt generally occurs in late spring and early summer, but the potential for damage caused by snowmelt is generally less potentially damaging because it has a longer period of runoff and a lower peak than rain floods. According to the General Plan Update EIR, seven major floods have occurred along the Caliente Creek within the past 40 years, including the 1998 flood caused by the El Niño weather pattern. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.11-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR The frequency and magnitude of these floods, coupled with the fact that development has been allowed to occur within the floodplain, have resulted in extensive damage in the area. As the result of possible dangers associated with Isabella Dam, the City has entered into the regular phase of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on May 1, 1985. By adopting flood damage prevention ordinances to regulate development in certain flood hazard areas, private property owners and participating communities are allowed to purchase flood insurance at affordable rates through the NFIP, and the community retains its eligibility to receive certain Federallybacked money and disaster relief funds. The Kern River Designated Floodway Program is a State‐mandated program administered by the California Department of Water Resources Reclamation Board. Both the City of Bakersfield and the County participate in the program, which provides development criteria and issues permits for development within the limits of the Kern River Designated Floodway. Dam Inundation The Isabella Dam is located approximately 40 miles to the northeast of the City of Bakersfield, and is capable of holding 570,000 acre‐feet of water. The Dam is located near a fault line which poses the risk of potential dam failure, should seismic activity occur, although current reports from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers state that failure of dam is highly unlikely. Dam failure would result in the release of the entire lake storage, flooding an estimated 60 square miles of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, with flood levels reaching up to 30 feet, depending on the water level in the lake when failure occurs. According to the City of Bakersfield’s GeoWeb map, the water from Isabella Dam would take approximately two hours to reach the proposed Project area, although this represents a worst‐case scenario. The lag time between Dam failure and inundation would allow adequate time for warning Bakersfield residents of the incident, and would substantially decrease the potential number of deaths and injury; however, property damage would occur. The chance of the dam failing is estimated to be approximately one day in 10,000 years, when the lake is at maximum capacity.1 Groundwater Groundwater is subsurface water that occurs beneath the ground surface in fully saturated zones within soils and other geologic formations. Groundwater in a saturated geologic unit with sufficient permeability and thickness to store sufficient water to sustain a well or spring is defined as an aquifer. A groundwater basin is generally defined as a hydrogeologic unit containing one large aquifer or several connected, interrelated aquifers. 1 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update, Program Environmental Impact Report, December 2002. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.11-3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR According to the General Plan Update EIR, the City of Bakersfield is situated above a series of water aquifers that form part of a larger groundwater basin referred to as the Southern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin. The primary aquifer which lies below the City is comprised of unconsolidated sediments bordered by faults or mountain ranges to the east, west, and south. Groundwater recharge in the Basin occurs through natural recharge by precipitation runoff, river and canal seepage, reclaimed water, and spreading and banking, as described briefly below. Replenishment programs have also been implemented to minimize the potential for ground water levels to decline. Natural Recharge Natural recharge of groundwater is provided by precipitation runoff, which is defined as the amount of melted snow and rainwater measured after evaporation, evapotranspiration, and percolation. Precipitation runoff in the Project area is collected in a series of drainage basins (sumps) operated by the City that recharge the groundwater basin. River and Canal Seepage Canal seepage is defined as the amount of water that percolates into the ground from earthen canals. This seepage, combined with seepage from the Kern River channel, contributes an average of 54 percent of the City’s water supply, or approximately 106,000 acre‐feet annually. Spreading and Banking Within Kern County, the percolation of water spread in open basins has historically been used to allow for the recharge of area groundwater reserves. The City of Bakersfield owns and operates a 2,800‐acre groundwater recharge facility located in and along the Kern River channel. The facility receives water from the Kern River, the Central Valley Project, and the State Water Project when water surpluses occur. The six‐mile long site is comprised of river channels, overflow lands, and constructed spreading basins. Groundwater is recharged by spreading water onto spreading basins and allowing it to percolate. The recharge facility improves the quality of the groundwater by recharging low‐salinity water from the Kern River into the aquifers, thereby diluting the high‐salinity of irrigation water that reaches the groundwater from farming operations. According to the General Plan Update EIR, in order to eliminate potential overdraft conditions in which more groundwater is used than is replenished, surface water was formerly made available to former groundwater users via the Friant‐Kern Canal and the State Water Project. These supplemental surface water supplies, in conjunction with the recharge facility, have generated inflow into the groundwater basin that exceeds the outflow, as is indicated by the steady rise in groundwater levels since 1992. City of Bakersfield According to the General Plan, the proposed Project area would be served by Cal Water, which currently serves the lands surrounding the Project site. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.11-4 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR Water Quality Surface water quality is regulated by a variety of Federal, State, and local water quality requirements that are administered and enforced by the EPA, the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), along with cooperation from each county. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act [CWA]) is the principal law governing pollution of the nation’s surface waters. The CWA was originally enacted in 1948, and was subsequently amended in 1972. The CWA consists of two major parts: provisions that authorize federal financial assistance for municipal sewage treatment plant construction and regulatory requirements that apply to industrial and municipal dischargers. The CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards that “consist of the designated uses of the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses.” The CWA is responsible for authorizing the establishment of effluent standards on an industry‐wide basis. Unless specifically authorized by a permit, the CWA considers that all discharges into the nation’s waters are unlawful. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is the permitting program for discharge of pollutants into surface waters of the United States under Section 402 of the CWA. Industrial and municipal dischargers (point source discharges) must obtain NPDES permits from the appropriate RWQCB (i.e., the Central Valley region). The existing NPDES (Phase I) storm water program requires municipalities serving more than 1,000,000 persons to obtain a NPDES storm water permit for any construction project larger than five acres. Proposed NPDES storm water regulations (Phase II) expand this existing national program to smaller municipalities with populations of 10,000 persons or more and construction sites that disturb greater than one acre. For other dischargers, such as those affecting groundwater or from non‐point sources, a Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the RWQCB. For specified situations, some permits may be waived and some discharge activities may be handled through being included in an existing General Permit. Although the EPA provides two permitting options to meet NPDES requirements (individual permits and general permits), the SWRCB has adopted one statewide General Permit for California that applies to all construction‐related storm water discharges (except for those on tribal lands) in the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic Unit, and under the control of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The General Permit applies to any clearing, grading, stockpiling, or excavation that results in soil disturbances of at least one acre of total land area. Construction activities disturbing less than one acre are still subject to this permit if the activity is part of a large common plan of development, or if significant water quality impairment would result from the activity. The General Permit requires all dischargers whose construction activity disturbs one acre or more to: City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.11-5 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR • Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent all construction pollutants from contacting storm water and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving offsite into receiving waters; • Eliminate or reduce nonstorm water discharge to storm sewer systems and other waters of the United States; and, • Inspect all BMPs. According to the General Plan Update EIR, surface water quality in the Basin is generally good, while most of the streams in eastern Bakersfield exhibit excellent quality. However, water quality in the Tulare Lake Basin is generally affected by an increase in salinity resulting from little subsurface flow, historical agricultural activities, and the overdraft of groundwater within the area. As such, salts tend to accumulate within the Basin. While Cal Water will develop new wells in areas of the Bakersfield system where good water quality is present, the use of groundwater used as percentage of the water total supply is anticipated to decline over the next twenty years. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) The SWPPP is prepared to identify sources of sediment and other pollutants that potentially affect the quality of storm water discharges. The SWPPP is also intended to describe and provide measures for implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in both storm water and in non‐storm water discharges. BMPs are activities, practices, maintenance procedures, and other methods of management that reduce or eliminate pollutants in storm water discharges and authorized non‐storm water discharges. BMPs can include treatment requirements, operational procedures, or practices to control site runoff, spillage, leaks, waste disposal and drainage from raw materials storage. BMP implementation must take into account changing weather conditions and construction activities, and various combinations of BMPs may be used over the life of the project to maintain compliance with the CWA. The General NPDES Permit gives the owner the discretion to determine the most economical, effective, and innovative BMPs to achieve the performancebased goals of the General NPDES Permit. Two types of BMPs are available for the treatment of pollutants in storm water discharge: structural and nonstructural. Structural BMPs are the specific construction, modification, operation, maintenance, or monitoring of facilities that would minimize the introduction of pollutants into the drainage system, or would remove pollutants from the drainage system. Nonstructural BMPs are activities, programs, and other nonphysical measures that help reduce pollutants from nonpoint sources to the drainage system. In general, nonstructural BMPs are source control measures. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.11-6 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR Both Federal and State agencies have recognized the importance of addressing pollution in storm water and urban runoff, with specific regard for activities that discharge water affecting California’s surface water, coastal waters, and groundwater. Discharges of water occur as point source or non‐point source discharges. A point source discharge usually refers to waste emanating from a single, identifiable point. Regulated point sources include municipal wastewater, oil field wastewater, winery discharges, solid waste sites and other industrial discharges. Point source discharge must be actively managed to protect the State’s waters. A nonpoint source discharge typically occurs in the form of waste emanating from diffused locations. Nonpoint sources include drainage and percolation from a variety of activities such as agriculture, forestry, recreation, and storm runoff. However, specific sources of nonpoint source source pollution may be difficult to identify, treat, or regulate. Therefore, better management of nonpoint source discharges on water can reduce the potential for adverse effects to occur. Physical Characteristics of Surface Water Quality Standard parameters used to assess the quality of storm water provide a method of measuring impairment. The backgrounds of these typical characteristics assist in understanding water quality requirements. The quantity of a material in the environment and its characteristics determine the degree of availability as a pollutant in surface runoff. The quantity of certain pollutants in the environment is a function of the intensity of the land use, particularly in an urban environment. For instance, a high density of automobile traffic generates a greater amount of potential pollutants (such as lead and hydrocarbons) more available. The availability of a material, such as a fertilizer, is a function of the quantity and the manner in which it is applied. Applying fertilizer in quantities that exceed plant needs leaves the excess nutrients available for loss to surface or ground water. Water quality monitoring and evaluation can be achieved through consideration of the physical properties and chemical constituents of water. Evaluating the condition of water through a water quality standard refers to its physical, chemical, or biological characteristics. Water quality parameters for storm water are extensive and are classified by numerous means. In many cases, the concentration of an urban pollutant, rather than the annual load of that pollutant, is needed to assess a water quality problem. 5.11.2 REGULATORY SETTING 5.11.2.1 Federal Regulations Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) is a Federal law intended to protect surface waters of the United States, which include lakes, rivers, coastal wetlands, and “waters of the U.S.” The CWA regulates all discharges to waters, which are considered illegal, unless authorized by an appropriate permit. Discharge of dredged and fill materials, construction‐related storm water discharges, and other activities that may result in discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States are regulated by the permit. If waters of the U.S. are located on a project site, the City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.11-7 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR project is likely to discharge to them, due to site topography and/or drainage characteristics. Potential discharges to such waters would be considered an impact, and the applicant would be required to obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the appropriate RWQCB. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is administered by the EPA, which provides oversight in California to the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The NPDES program provides general permits and individual permits. General permits are required for construction projects that disturb more than one acre of land. The general permit requires the applicant to file a public notice of intent to discharge storm water and to prepare and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP includes a site map, description of proposed activities, demonstration of compliance with applicable ordinances and regulations, and a description of BMPs that would be implemented to reduce erosion and discharge of construction‐related pollutants. Within Kern County, post‐development compliance with NPDES is regulated by the Kern County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). Projects within the City are required to comply with the SUSMP through the implementation of the City’s Drainage Manual. Impaired Waterbodies The State is required to establish the beneficial uses of its State waters and to adopt water quality standards to protect those beneficial uses, per the CWA Section 303(d) and the Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is established by Section 303(d), which represents the maximum quantity of a particular contaminant that a water body can maintain without experiencing adverse effects. This standard is intended to guide the application of State water quality standards. Section 303(d) also requires the State to identify “impaired” streams (water bodies bodies affected by the presence of pollutants or contaminants) and to establish the TMDL for each stream. State Regulations Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act acts in cooperation with the CWA to establish the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The SWRCB is divided into nine regions, each overseen by a RWQCB. The SWRCB, and thus each RWQCB, is responsible for protecting California’s surface waters and groundwater supplies. The Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act develops Basin Plans that designate the beneficial uses of California’s rivers and groundwater basins. The Basin Plans also establish narrative and numerical water quality objectives for those waters. Basin Plans are updated City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.11-8 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR every three years and provide the basis of determining waste discharge requirements, taking enforcement actions, and evaluating clean water grant proposals. The Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act is also responsible for implementing CWA Sections 401‐402 and 303(d) to SWRCB and RWQCBs. Local Regulations Kern County Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan Kern County’s Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) is part of the County’s municipal storm water program to address pollution resulting from new development and redevelopment. The SUSMP identifies required BMPs for designated projects to be included by developers in project‐specific development plans. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The goals and policies of the General Plan relating to water and water quality include water conservation, balancing competing demands for water, and protecting the quality of groundwater and surface water resources. Table 5.11‐1, CONSISTENCY WITH METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES FOR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY, outlines the applicable goals and policies that apply to the proposed Project. Table 5.11-1 Consistency with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Hydrology and Water Quality GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Canals, Pipelines, Power Transmission Facilities CIR/CPP P‐4: “Consider potential conflicts between public safety and the purposes of canal, pipelines, and power transmissions facilities.” The Project would not result in physical development within the HD Zone. As such, the Amended HD Ordinance would not interfere with existing canals, pipelines, or transmission facilities. The Project would not conflict with CIR/CPP P‐4. Water Quality CONS/WR G‐6: “Maintain effective cooperative planning programs for water resource conservation and utilization in the planning area by involving all responsible water agencies in the planning process.” As the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in physical construction within the HD Zone. As such, the Ordinance would not have an affect on water quality or water resource conservation and utilization activities. The Project would not conflict with CONS/WR G‐6. City Standards for Drainage The City of Bakersfield implements its Subdivision Design Manual, which provides general standards to regulate the conveyance and disposal water generated by storms, springs, or other such sources to ensure that no adjacent improvements, existing or projected, are impacted by City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.11-9 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR storm flow. The Manual requires that all new developments within the City be designed so as not to increase storm water runoff onto adjacent properties, and to ensure that water enters and leaves a site at similar locations as that which existed prior to development, unless diversion is otherwise required as part of a comprehensive drainage plan. Alternative means of complying with the design standards are permissible under with approval by the City Engineer, if the measures proposed remain in conformity with the general objectives of the standards. With the exception of drainage facilities maintained by the City, all drainage facilities must be maintained by the taxing authority. The maintenance entity of drainage facilities must be established prior to recordation of a final map, and at the expense of the subdivider. Additional site design measures included in Chapter 17.66, Amended Hillside Development Combining Zone, of the City’s Municipal Code would further contribute to minimizing the effects of future development within the City’s hillside areas to contribute to adverse impacts caused by increased storm water flow or discharge of potential pollutants to offsite water bodies. Section 17.66.010, Purpose and Intent, Amended HD Ordinance encourages grading techniques that blend with the natural terrain, minimize earthmoving techniques, prevent erosion on the face of slopes due to drainage, and provide for the preservation of unique and significant natural landforms and ridgelines. In addition, Section 17.66.040, Development Plan Requirements, requires that for all future development within the HD Zone, a drainage concept plan be prepared showing proposed drainage patterns, hydrologic conditions onsite, downstream flood hazards, natural drainage courses, and design criteria to mitigate any identified hydrologic hazards. The drainage plan shall account for all runoff and debris from tributary areas and shall provide consideration for each lot or dwelling unit in a proposed development project. In addition, the plan shall account for all pre‐and post‐developed flows and shall provide evidence that the proposed project would not burden adjacent or downstream properties with flows and/or velocities in excess of the pre‐development conditions. The effects of drainage patterns on the erosion potential that could cause damage to planned or existing structures shall also be evaluated. In addition, the plan shall show project phasing and discuss how drainage through or around the project would be handled on an interim basis, including any temporary facilities. The drainage concept plan would be subject to the review and approval by the City engineer. In addition, Section 17.66.160, Drainage, of the Amended HD Ordinance, would require that all proposed drainage 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 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. Additional measures pertaining to drainage and project grading techniques are included in Chapter 17.66 of the Municipal Code. 5.11.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA In accordance with CEQA, the effects of implementing the proposed Project are evaluated to determine whether they would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIR is required to focus on these effects and to offer mitigation measures that reduce or avoid City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.11-10 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR any significant impacts that are identified. The criteria, or standards, used to determine the significance of impacts may vary depending on the nature of the project. The proposed Project could be considered to have significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality if it would: • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; • Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted; • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial substantial erosion or siltation on‐or off‐site; • 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 offsite; • Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; • Otherwise substantially degrade water quality; • 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; • Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows; • 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; and/or, • Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, tsunami, or mudflow. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.11-11 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR 5.11.4 IMPACTS Flow Patterns/Flood Impacts 5.11‐1 Future development onsite would not result in increased surface runoff and would not result in potential flooding impacts offsite. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The City of Bakersfield implements its Subdivision Design Manual, which provides general standards to regulate the conveyance and disposal water generated by storms, springs, or other such sources to ensure that no adjacent improvements, existing or projected, are impacted by storm flow. The Manual requires that all new development within the City be designed so as not to increase storm water runoff onto adjacent properties, and to ensure that water enters and leaves a site at similar locations as that which existed prior to development, unless diversion is otherwise required as part of a comprehensive drainage plan. The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to provide additional site design measures that would prevent or reduce the potential for hillside instability and the potential for landslides to occur along the City’s hillsides. The Ordinance would require preparation of a preliminary grading plan showing proposed drainage patterns, methods of storm water retention, and identification of areas that would remain in a natural state. A drainage concept report would also be required to evaluate the effect of hydrologic conditions of the proposed development, possible flood inundation, downstream flood hazards, natural drainage courses, and conclusions and recommendations for the effect of hydrologic conditions on the site. Design criteria would be proposed to mitigate any identified hydrologic hazards. All runoff and debris from tributary areas would be accounted for. The report would be required to consider pre‐and postdevelopment flows and provide evidence that a project would not burden adjacent landowners and/or downstream flows and/or velocities in excess of the pre‐development condition. Recommendations would be made in the report to ensure that a project would not result in significant impacts due to surface runoff or the potential to result in flooding of offsite properties. The drainage report would be subject to review and approval by the City engineer. In addition, the Ordinance requires preparation of a slope erosion control/revegetation plan, which would further reduce the potential for uncontrolled runoff onto offsite properties to occur. In addition, it is anticipated that the additional site design measures proposed with the Amended HD Ordinance would reduce the overall number of homes that could potentially be constructed within the HD Zone by an estimated 3,199 units. As such, site disturbance activities on lands within the HD Zone would also potentially be reduced (i.e., through structural setbacks, etc.), thereby allowing a greater land area to be left undisturbed. This would in turn reduce the overall exposure of soils to the threat of erosion or runoff that could ultimately result in the contribution of sediment or other pollutants to offsite receiving waters. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.11-12 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR The Amended HD Ordinance would not result in physical development within the HD Zone. As no construction or land improvement activities would result with Project implementation, the potential for an increase in surface runoff from the area affected by the Ordinance would not occur. Project impacts would therefore be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Groundwater 5.11‐2 The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to the amount of available groundwater available or degradation of groundwater quality. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The City maintains ongoing recharge efforts, as well as continued compliance with applicable Drought Management Plans and the goals and policies given in the General Plan, to to reduce potential impacts of future development on groundwater availability or quality. The General Plan Update EIR states that with adherence to these measures, no significant impacts on groundwater supplies or recharge would occur with buildout of the General Plan. In addition, the General Plan Update EIR anticipates that future municipal water consumption associated with the expansion of urban development, pursuant to the General Plan Land Use Element, would be offset by the reduction of water consumption associated with the conversion of farmland. Future development of the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance in the northeastern portion of Bakersfield is considered in the buildout projections given in the General Plan. The Project area would receive water service from Cal Water. It is anticipated that Cal Water has adequate supplies to serve the area for the next 20 years, and the Bakersfield District will have more than adequate water supplies to meet the projected demands associated with the proposed Project, along with existing customers and all other anticipated future users for normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions. Currently, there are no deficiencies in the water system in the Project area.2 As no physical construction or land disturbance activities would occur with implementation of the proposed Project, the Project would not alter the direction of groundwater flow, nor result in the need to withdraw, change the rate of groundwater flow, or affect its supply. The Project would therefore not result in adverse impacts to the amount of groundwater available or the degradation of groundwater quality. Refer also to Section 5.9, Public Services and Utilities, for additional details. Impacts would be less than significant. 2 Water service questionnaire received from California Water Service Company, August 2008. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.11-13 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Water Quality 5.11‐3 Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in grading, excavation or construction activities that would cause an increase in urban pollutant discharge, resulting in impacts to water quality. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The discharge of materials other than storm water from a particular site is prohibited, and would be considered a significant impact to water quality. Pollutants of concern associated with site development include silt and sediment, oil and grease, floatable trash, nutrients (including fertilizers), heavy metals, pathogens (such as coliform bacteria), and other substances. Discharge of these substances, referred to as “controlled pollutants,” into waters of the the United States is prohibited. Construction sediment erosion can be adequately controlled through the application of standard construction BMPs. The goal of BMPs is to capture and treat “first flush” storm water run‐off generated by surrounding and onsite watersheds. Water quality management BMPs for grading and construction scenarios may include the use of sand bags and straw bales for run‐off diversion and velocity reduction, mulch topping, hydro‐seeding and siltation fencing to prevent soil loss and measures to minimize vehicular leaking and spilling. Additionally, within Kern County, post‐development compliance with NPDES is regulated by the Kern County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). Projects within the City are required to comply with the SUSMP through the implementation of the City’s Drainage Manual. The Amended HD Ordinance includes measures aimed at grading and site disturbance activities within the hillside areas that would in turn, reduce the potential for new development to adversely affect water quality. Although the intent of the Ordinance is to provide for development that is sensitive to hillside development with particular regard for hillside instability and landslides, the Amended HD Ordinance includes provisions for grading techniques that would minimize disturbance along the City’s hillsides. The Ordinance requires new development projects to prepare a preliminary grading plan that identifies proposed drainage patterns, methods of storm water retention/detention facilities, and identification of areas that would remain in a natural state. In addition, a slope erosion control/revegetation plan would also be required, in addition to landscaping plans, to minimize the potential for erosion or for increased runoff onto offsite properties or into receiving water bodies. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the establishment of land uses that would require grading, excavation, or construction activities. As such, the Project City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.11-14 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR would not result in an increase in urban pollutant discharge that may potentially impact water quality. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.11.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.11‐4 The proposed project, in combination with other cumulative projects, would not result in increased degradation of surface water quality and flooding impacts in the area. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Future development within the cumulative study area may expose more persons and/or property to potential water‐related hazards, along with affecting the natural drainage of the area. Cumulative development may also adversely affect downstream water quality, impacting surface or groundwater supplies. Potential cumulative impacts for future development within the cumulative study area would be mitigated through preparation of required drainage studies to identify potential impacts, consistency with the City’s drainage master plans, and implementation of appropriate onsite and offsite drainage improvements. Future development projects would also be required to implement NPDES and BMP measures on a project‐by‐project basis to reduce potential water quality impacts. In addition, future development projects would be required to provide drainage improvements in compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code standards, in addition to local and regional agency requirements, as part of the City’s discretionary review process. As stated previously, implementation of the proposed Project would result in an overall reduction of the number of dwelling units that could potentially be constructed within the HD Zone. It is estimated that with the design measures proposed with the Amended HD Ordinance, approximately 2,288 units would be displaced within the the City’s Slope Protection Areas, and 911 units would be displaced within the designated Visual Resource Areas (or a total of 3,199 units). As a result, overall potential site disturbance activities (i.e., grading for building pads, roadways, clearing of vegetation, excavation, etc.) would be reduced within the HD Zone. This would ultimately reduce the potential for future development within the HD Zone to contribute to a cumulative effect on the degradation of surface water quality and/or flooding impacts, both within the cumulative study area and in areas surrounding or downstream of the Project site. As such, impacts relative to water quality would be reduced with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance. The Amended HD Ordinance would not result in physical construction or other land improvement activities within the HD Zone that would potentially result in increased degradation of surface water quality or flooding impacts within the cumulative study area. The City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.11-15 15 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact with regard for hydrology and water quality. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.11.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts associated with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.11-16 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.12-1 Section 5.12 Population and Housing 5.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING 5.12.1 INTRODUCTION The analysis in this Section is generally based on information provided in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update and the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (General Plan). The following discussion is intended to evaluate the potential for the Project to increase or influence population growth and the demand for housing within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The analysis considers the effects of the Project with regard for the growth assumptions made in the General Plan. 5.12.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.12.2.1 General Plan and Housing Element The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan provides growth assumptions for the buildout of the Bakersfield area over the next 20 years. The General Plan is intended to provide long‐range guidance and identifies the City’s economic, social, and environmental goals with regard to future development. Refer also to Section 5.1, Land Use and Planning, for additional discussion of anticipated future buildout of the City of Bakersfield. The current General Plan Housing Element (2002‐2007) establishes a number of goals and policies aimed at the provision of adequate housing within the City of Bakersfield. The Housing Element was prepared in compliance with California State General Plan law which, per Section 65580‐65589.8, Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code, requires that all General Plans include a Housing Element to address the provision of adequate housing within communities. The Element represents a five‐year plan with established objectives for the implementation of the foals and policies of the Housing Element. An update to the current General Plan Housing Element has been drafted for the years 2008‐ 2013, but has not yet been adopted. The General Plan Draft Housing Element 2008‐2013 states that average annual population growth rates within the City have exceeded four percent since the 1970’s. The City’s population has increased by 76,157 persons since the year 2000 (30.8 percent growth) and currently supports a population of 323,213 persons. Currently, there are an estimated 100,683 households, which represents an increase of 17,242 households since 2000. In addition, in 2007, 73.7 percent (82,661 units) of the City’s housing was single‐family units. Construction of single‐family units increased by 41.6 percent between 2000 and 2007, while construction of multi‐family units increased by 18.1 percent.1 1 Public Review Draft – City of Bakersfield Draft Housing Element (2008‐2013). April 10, 2008. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.12 Population and Housing Draft EIR To address regional housing needs, a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is prepared by regional governments to meet the State’s housing unit goals. Within Kern County, the regional government entity responsible for the preparation of the RHNA is the Kern County Council of Governments (KernCOG). According to the City’s Draft Housing Element (2008‐2013), regional housing needs were exceeded by 159.1 percent for the 11 incorporated cities within KernCOG’s jurisdiction for the period 2000‐2007. Within the City of Bakersfield, the RHNA goal for years 2000‐2007 was 12,805 housing units; actual construction totaled 16,995 housing units, thereby exceeding the City’s overall RHNA objective by 123 percent, as well as meeting its fair share of the most recent regional housing needs.2 5.12.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Environmental Checklist form. The Environmental Checklist form includes questions relating to population and housing. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this Section. Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental impact if it would: • Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly; • Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; or, • Displace substantial amounts of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 5.12.4 IMPACTS Population Growth 5.12‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Future buildout of the City’s hillsides within northeastern Bakersfield has been previously addressed in the General Plan and General Plan Update EIR. The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to further reduce potential environmental impacts of hillside development and to enhance public safety for future residents. The Ordinance provides revisions to the previous Hillside Development Ordinance to increase protection of the hillsides by requiring site design measures to reduce potential effects caused by land development activities; however, it is anticipated that potential impacts resulting from buildout of the City’s 5.12-2 2 Public Review Draft – City of Bakersfield Draft Housing Element (2008‐2013). April 10, 2008. City of Bakersfield January 2009 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.12 Population and Housing Draft EIR hillsides would remain as discussed in the General Plan EIR with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in the physical construction of residential units or other structures within the area affected by the Project. The HD Zone is intended to act as an overlay zone and would not change the existing underlying General Plan land use or zoning designations on individual parcels within the Project area. Development of properties within the HD Zone would occur over future years, as individual property owners submit applications to the City for land development projects, as desired, and not as the result of the proposed Project. No roadway improvements or extension of roads or other infrastructure would occur with the proposed Project. As such, the proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth in the Project area, either directly (by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be less than significant. Displacement of Housing 5.12‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Significance: No Impact. Impact Analysis: The Amended HD Ordinance would apply to new development within the HD Zone. As such, the proposed Project would not result in the removal or demolition of residential units, thereby requiring the construction of new homes in other areas of the City or beyond. No existing housing would be displaced. Refer also to Impact 5.12‐1, above. As noted previously, it is anticipated that implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would result in an overall reduction of the number of residential units that could potentially be constructed within the HD Zone, due to increased site design restrictions on hillside lots. The HD Zone affects approximately 6,530 acres along the City’s hillsides. As discussed in Section 5.1, Land Use and Planning, an evaluation of the potential buildout of lands included within the HD Zone was prepared by the City in August 2008. This analysis considered the potential residential housing yield for properties within the HD Zone with respect for existing General Plan land use and zoning designations. Specifically identified lands that are 15 percent in slope and greater would be affected by the Slope Protection sections of the Amended HD Ordinance. Taking a conservative approach, and with consideration for the additional restrictions imposed by the Amended HD Ordinance, it is anticipated that in the Slope Protection Areas within the HD Zone, residential development potential would be reduced by an estimated 2,288 dwelling units. In addition, the HD Zone restrictions would reduce residential development potential within the City’s identified Visual Resource Areas by an estimated 911 units; however, with consideration for the land available City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.12-3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.12 Population and Housing Draft EIR and zoned for residential development within the City’s Northeast Quadrant, it is anticipated that these units could easily be absorbed within the quadrant on other available residentiallyzoned lands outside of the HD Zone. In addition, although the proposed restrictions of the HD Zone may constrain potential residential development on affected properties within the Zone, opportunities for clustering, multi‐family housing, and other similar development approaches may be used, consistent with the allowed underlying land use and zoning designations and as approved by the City, to achieve residential development within the HD Zone and meet the necessary dwelling unit yield. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would allow for future growth as intended by the City, and consistent with that identified by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and the General Plan Housing Element. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts relative to the displacement of housing units within the City of Bakersfield. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be less than significant. Displacement of People 5.12‐3 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not displace substantial numbers of people, and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: As stated above, the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in the removal or demolition of residential units or displacement of residents from their homes. As such, the construction of replacement housing would not be required in order to accommodate displaced residents. Refer also to Impacts 5.12‐1 and 5.12‐2, above. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts relative to to the displacement of substantial numbers of people within the City of Bakersfield. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be less than significant. 5.12.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.12‐4 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in significant population growth when considered on a cumulative basis with other planned and future development. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: As stated above, the proposed Project would not directly result in the construction of residential units or other land uses that would generate significant employment opportunities and would therefore not contribute to population growth within the City of City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.12-4 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.12 Population and Housing Draft EIR Bakersfield. All future development projects within the HD Zone, as well as elsewhere within the City, would be reviewed by the City on a project‐by‐project basis to determine a project’s potential to contribute to population growth within the Bakersfield area. Refer also to Impacts 5.12‐1 and 5.12‐2, above. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant population growth when considered on a cumulative basis with other planned and future development. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be less than significant. 5.12.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts associated with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would be less than significant with regard to population and housing. No mitigation measures are required. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.12-5 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.12 Population and Housing Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.12-6 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.13-1 Section 5.13 Public Health and Safety 5.13 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY The purpose of this Section is to identify, to the extent feasible, the potential for hazards associated with historic and current uses within the Project area and on surrounding sites, and recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the proposed Project site. In addition, this Section is intended to identify potential risks to human health, including those to future residents and/or construction workers within the HD Zone. The analysis in this Section is generally based on information provided in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update and the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update (General Plan). 5.13.1 DEFINITION OF TERMS The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) have developed, and and continue to update, lists of hazardous wastes subject to regulation. Regulation of hazardous waste is provided on both the State and Federal levels. The term “hazardous material” refers to both hazardous substances and hazardous waste. A material is defined as “hazardous” if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a Federal, State, or local regulatory agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. A “hazardous waste” is a solid waste that exhibits toxic or hazardous characteristics, specifically ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. The U.S. EPA has defined the term “solid waste” to include many types of discarded materials, including any gaseous, liquid, semiliquid, or solid material that is discarded or has served its intended purpose, unless the material is specifically excluded from regulation. Such materials are considered waste whether they are discarded, reused, recycled, or reclaimed. The term “recognized environmental condition” is the the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substance or petroleum product on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous or nonhazardous substances that are designated wastes or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. Furthermore, the term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with rules, regulations, and/or law. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.13 Public Health and Safety Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.13-2 5.13.2 TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Transportation of hazardous materials and wastes is regulated by California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 26. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) enforce Federal and State regulations and respond to hazardous materials transportation emergencies. Emergency responses are coordinated as necessary between Federal, State, and local governmental authorities and private persons through a State‐mandated Emergency Response Plan. Because of the significant short‐term risks to public health and the environment associated with hazardous waste management during transportation of wastes, specific Commercial Hazardous Waste Shipping Routes are designated to minimize the distance that wastes are transported and their proximity to vulnerable locations. To minimize the use of County maintained roads and City maintained streets, the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Hazardous Waste Management Plan (HWMP) designates State and Federally maintained roads as potential commercial hazardous waste shipping routes through Kern County. The commercial shipping of hazardous waste within and through Kern County and any incorporated city is restricted to specified Caltrans posted routes as designated on the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Hazardous Waste Management Plan, the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (General Plan), and in accordance with the California Vehicle Code Section 31303 et. Seq. 5.13.2.1 Truck Routes Currently, Federal regulations allow transportation of hazardous radioactive materials on all interstate highways. Trucks traveling from the highway to sites that use such materials (such as hospitals or nuclear power plants) are allowed to use the most direct route. The CHP has adopted Interstate 5 (I‐5) as a truck route for transporting hazardous radioactive materials. The Circulation Element of the General Plan designates specific roadways on which trucks may travel within and through the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. These routes direct trucks away from streets that are inappropriate or inadequate to serve substantial truck traffic. Trucks are allowed to access locations on local streets for site deliveries (e.g., goods delivery or moving cars). However, they must take the most direct route to and from the designated truck routes. According to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, Alfred Harrell Highway (located generally to the north of the proposed Project area, and traversing the eastern portion of the Project area as it turns to the south), is identified as a truck route. 5.13.3 HISTORIC /EXISTING CONDITIONS Hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous waste raise an environmental concern when altering, changing, or developing land uses. Hazardous materials can take the form of petroleum products (including oil and gasoline), vehicular fluids, paint, solvents, cleaning Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.13 Public Health and Safety Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.13-3 fluids, and pesticides. By‐products generated as a result of activities using hazardous materials (such as dry cleaning solvents, oil, and gasoline) are considered to be hazardous waste. Commercial uses, especially those with underground storage tanks, are most suspect for contamination of soils and groundwater. With remediation techniques and strict guidelines currently in practice, soil contamination (unlike groundwater contamination) typically does not pose a serious health risk. The objective of consulting historical sources is to develop a history of the previous uses or occupancies of a property and surrounding area in order to identify those uses or occupancies that are likely to have led to recognized environmental conditions in connection with a property. 5.13.3.1 Historical /Existing Use of Project Site The area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is comprised of numerous individual land ownerships totaling approximately 6,531 acres. Historically, agricultural uses have occurred within and around the Project area. Agricultural activities rely on chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides for production, and may be present in near surface soils at residual concentrations of concern. Residues in the soil can leach into the groundwater and surface water bodies for many years. These residues therefore have the potential to exist in the soil and groundwater within the Project boundaries. The only conclusive method to determine concentrations of pesticides in the soil is to conduct soil sampling. No known aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) or underground storage tanks (USTs) have been located within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance. However, given that the Project area is extensive, it is anticipated that ASTs and/or USTs associated with former or existing uses within the HD Zone would likely be present. An environmental records search would be required to identify and locate such storage tanks within the Project area on a sitespecific basis. Available environmental records and historical aerial photographs of a site would require review to identify those locations where hazardous materials may have been stored or discarded. A number of gravel pits are located within the area affected by the HD Zone; refer to Figure 3‐4, USGS MAP. It is assumed that the gravel was historically utilized for construction purposes. In addition, the Project area is located within the administrative boundaries of the Kern Bluff oil field. Various lands within the HD Zone utilized for farming and grazing have been periodically explored for oil. Prospect wells and core holes, along with historic gravel pits, occur onsite. Both active and abandoned wells are located within the Project area.1 However, the majority of wells within the Project area are abandoned. 1 Correspondence from California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. June 20, 2008. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.13 Public Health and Safety Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.13-4 Valley Fever Valley Fever is an existing condition affecting the Bakersfield area. Valley Fever is an infection caused by the spores of the Coccidioides immitis fungus. This fungus is found in soils in the southwestern region of the United States, including the San Joaquin Valley and Kern County. Inhalation of the spores can result in symptoms that include mild influenza, fever, chills, sweating, and chest pain lasting from two to three weeks. In some individuals, the symptoms may worsen to include cough, loss of appetite, headache, muscle ache, swelling, and redness of joints. When the spores spread throughout the body, meningitis may result, and in some instances skin, bones, joints, and genitourinary systems may be affected, resulting in possible death. Children, the elderly, pregnant women, and persons with dark skin appear to be more susceptible to Valley Fever than other other persons. The Valley Fever fungus has been identified in soil samples taken near the California State University Bakersfield campus. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan EIR, Northeast Bakersfield has the highest incidence rate of Valley Fever in Kern County. 5.13.3.2 Surrounding Land Uses To the north of the Project area, land uses generally consist of undeveloped lands, with heavy petroleum extraction activities present to the northwest. To the south of the Kern River are limited rural residential uses, as well as a number of recreational land uses, such as Lake Ming and several golf courses. To the east of the HD Zone are large areas of undeveloped lands and open space. Kern Canyon also lies to the east of the Project area. To the south of the Project area lies generally undeveloped land, with several intervening residential subdivisions that have been recently constructed or are currently under construction. Historic oil fields are also identified to the south of the Project site; site; refer to Figure 3‐4, USGS MAP. To the west and southwest lie several larger‐scale residential neighborhoods with supporting commercial uses. 5.13.3.3 Regulatory Setting Activities and operations that use, manage, or store hazardous or potentially hazardous materials have the potential to create a hazardous situation if the materials are released into the environment. The frequency and severity of hazardous situations are dependent on several conditions, including type of substance, quantity used or managed, nature of the activity, and the operation. Federal, State, and local entities regulate the use and management of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances. State of California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources The Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) is the State agency responsible for supervising the drilling, operation, maintenance, plugging, and abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal wells. DOGGR’s regulatory program promotes the wise development of oil, natural gas, and geothermal resources in California through sound engineering practices, prevention of pollution, and ensurance of public safety. To implement this program, DOGGR Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.13 Public Health and Safety Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.13-5 recommends avoidance of building over or near plugged and abandoned wells, or the replugging of wells to current DOGGR standards. Department of Toxic Substances Control The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for restoration, protection, and enhancement of the environment; ensuring public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality through regulating hazardous waste; conducting and overseeing cleanups; and developing and promoting pollution prevention. DTSC implements programs that oversee cleanups, prevent releases by ensuring waste is properly generated, handled, transported, stored, and disposed of; enforcing laws; promoting pollution reduction; encouraging recycling and reuse; conducted toxicological evaluations; and, involving the public in decisions. DTSC also oversees the siting and cleanup of schools. California Government Code Government Code §65962.5 requires the DTSC, State Department of Health Services, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the California Integrated Waste Management Board to assemble and annually update lists of hazardous waste sites and hazardous waste properties within California. The Secretary for Environmental Protection distributes these lists to each city and county where sites on the lists are located. Prior to approval of a development project by a lead agency, the applicant shall consult these lists to determine that the project site is not listed. CEQA Guidelines CEQA Guidelines §15186 requires that proposed school projects and any project located near a school to be examined for potential health impacts caused by hazardous materials, wastes, and substances. These impacts are to be discussed in an environmental document. California Public Resources Code CEQA statute 21092.6 requires land agencies to consult with the complied lists discussed above to determine whether a project or alternatives are located on a hazardous waste site. California Education Code The California Education Code §17213(a)(3) prohibits the approval of a school site if the site “contains one or more pipelines, situated underground or aboveground, which carries hazardous substances, acutely hazardous substances, or hazardous wastes, unless the pipeline is a natural gas line which is used only to supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood.” California Education Code §17213.1 requires DTSC to be involved in the environmental review process for the acquisition or construction of a school property utilizing state funding. The responsible school board is required to contract with an environmental assessor to supervise the Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.13 Public Health and Safety Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.13-6 preparation of a site evaluation to determine the potential for hazards or hazardous materials to exist on or near the site that could affect future staff and students, prior to acquiring a school site. Kern County Emergency Health and Safety Division The Kern County Emergency Health and Safety Division (KCEHSD) provides oversight for locations within county jurisdiction that pose a threat to human health and safety. City of Bakersfield Fire Department The City of Bakersfield Fire Department Environmental Services Division (ESD) maintains jurisdiction for hazards and hazardous materials and hazardous material spills within the City. The ESD is responsible for existing hazards as well as oversight of cleanup and remediation. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and Zoning Ordinance The General Plan cites policies to provide decision‐makers with long‐range guidance affecting the future character of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Planning Area. The elements within the General Plan provide goals, policies, and implementation measures in order to reduce impacts related to public safety. Applicable public health and safety goals relative to the proposed Project are listed in Table, 5.13‐1, CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS WITH METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, below, followed by a brief explanation of how the proposed Project complies with the goals and policies. Table 5.13-1 Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Public Health and Safety GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Public Safety Goal #2: “Ensure that adequate police and fire services and facilities are available to meet the needs of current and future metropolitan residents through the coordination of planning and development of metropolitan police and fire facilities and services.” As stated in Section 5.9, Public Services and Utilities, of this EIR, lands within the HD Zone would be serviced by the City of Bakersfield Police and Fire Departments. However, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in physical development within the HD Zone that would require the police or fire protection services. Public Safety Goal #3: “Provide for the coordinated planning and development of service areas for police and fire protection to ensure an equitable burden of responsibility between County and City in Metropolitan Bakersfield.” As stated in Section 5.9, Public Services and Utilities, of this EIR, lands within the HD Zone would be serviced by the City of Bakersfield Police and Fire Departments. However, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in physical development within the HD Zone that would require the police or fire protection services. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.13 Public Health and Safety Draft EIR Table 5.13-1, Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Goals and Policies for Public Health and Safety, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.13-7 GOALS AND POLICIES PROJECT CONSISTENCY Public Safety Goal #4: “Assure that fire, hazardous substance regulation and emergency medical service problems are continuously identified and addressed in a proactive way, in order to optimize safety and efficiency.” As stated in Section 5.9, Public Services and Utilities, of this EIR, lands within the HD Zone would be serviced by the City of Bakersfield Police and Fire Departments. Additionally, Section 5.9, Public Services and Utilities, addresses the potential impacts of the proposed Project on fire and emergency response. The Amended HD Ordinance includes design measures aimed at the prevention of wildfire, such as maintenance of defensible space around structures, use of fire‐resistant landscaping landscaping materials, proper design of driveways and fire apparatus roads, and provision of emergency secondary access. These measures address the potential for fire hazards to occur in a proactive manner with the intent of optimizing public safety. Source: Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, 2002. 5.13.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Environmental Checklist form. The Environmental Checklist form includes questions relating to public health and safety. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this Section. Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental impact if it would: • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; • Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.13 Public Health and Safety Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.13-8 • 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, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; • For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; • 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; or, • Have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 5.13.5 IMPACTS Short-Term Impacts (Construction) 5.13‐1 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not have the potential to encounter known hazardous materials or wastes. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Sources of hazardous materials or waste may include such elements as aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and stationary engines, underground storage tanks (USTs), water wells, septic systems, other onsite structures, electrical transformers and reclosers, or hazardous air pollutants. As needed, the City may require an applicant to prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to identify and evaluate the potential for hazardous materials or wastes to occur onsite, and their potential to adversely affect human health and safety. A number of public agencies have published documents that list businesses or properties that have handled hazardous materials or waste, or that may have experienced site contamination. As appropriate, and as directed by the City during the environmental review process, development projects may require review of regulatory agency records (for a one‐mile radius around a project site) to determine the presence of hazardous materials on a given site. Sources of information for review may include, but are not limited to: an Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) report; Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) records; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Toxic Release Inventory (TRIEPA) records; California Air Resources Board (CARB) Community Health Air Pollution Information System (CHAPIS) records; Bakersfield Fire Department, Prevention Services Division records (BFD Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.13 Public Health and Safety Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.13-9 PSD); Kern County Department of Environmental Health Services records (KCDEHS); and, Kern County Agricultural Commissioner (KCAC) records. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical construction within the HD Zone. The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to provide additional protection of the City’s hillside areas with regard to visual resources and public safety. Therefore, the Project would not result in construction or land disturbance activities that would have the potential to encounter known hazardous materials or wastes. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Accidental Releases 5.13‐2 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not have the potential to create a significant significant hazard to the public through foreseeable upset and accidental conditions. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. The Ordinance is partially intended to provide design measures to reduce potential hazards caused by wildfire and to increase public safety with regard for slope stability and geologic conditions. Asbestos‐containing materials, such as subsurface concrete irrigation (transite) pipe and/or the presence of PCB’s in the electrolytic fluids of older transformers, could be present on lands within the HD Zone. However, construction activities that may potentially result in a release of such hazardous materials into the environment through discovery and exposure would not occur with the Project. In addition, due to the nature of the Project, the accidental release of hazardous substances, such as the spilling of petroleum‐based fuels used for construction equipment, would not occur with Project implementation, as no physical development or land disturbance activities are proposed. As such, impacts resulting from foreseeable or accident conditions due to construction activities would not occur. Therefore, impacts relative to construction would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.13 Public Health and Safety Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.13-10 Oil Production Facilities 5.13‐3 Abandoned dry holes drilled within the Project boundary would not pose a health and safety risk. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: According to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), a number of active and abandoned wells are located within the Project area. In addition, the Project site is within the administrative boundary of the Kern Bluff oil field.2 State law requires that DOGGR be notified to investigate the condition of existing wellheads and check for leakage if development is proposed where such conditions are present. If any abandonment or re‐abandonment is required, DOGGR would furnish the necessary closure specifications. The abandoned wells are considered to present a potentially significant onsite public health and safety hazard. Public Resources Code §3208.1 authorizes the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to order the re‐abandonment of any previously abandoned oil well when construction of a structure over or in the proximity of a well could result in a potential hazard. However, Project implementation would not result in excavation or grading activities within the HD Zone that may potentially disturb buried flowlines or pipelines within the oil field, as no physical development is proposed. As such, the Project would not pose a health and safety risk with regard to abandoned oil wells. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Agricultural Use of Property/Adjacent Properties 5.13‐4 As agricultural uses have historically occurred within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance, there is a potential for pesticide residues (including DDT) to be present in shallow soils. However, However, such substances are not anticipated to result in significant impacts relative to the proposed Project. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Former agricultural activities within the Project area are likely to have involved the application of pesticides, herbicides and associated metals. Therefore, pesticides, herbicides and associated metals may be present in near‐surface soils at residual concentrations. Agricultural chemicals used today are applied in dilute concentrations, and, when used properly, degrade relatively quickly. However, some environmentally persistent pesticides and herbicides can linger in the soil for many years. It is not known if environmentally persistent 2 Correspondence from California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. June 20, 2008. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.13 Public Health and Safety Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.13-11 pesticides and herbicides have been applied within the Project area in the past. Potential health impacts associated with individuals being exposed to pesticide residues, if at all, typically occur primarily during grading and construction activities. While there is no requirement that agricultural soils associated with historic agricultural uses within the Project area be tested prior to development, many developers and lenders throughout the United States require that sites proposed for construction undergo a chemical evaluation of environmental soil conditions. The developer then has the option to pursue additional environmental review (i.e., a limited Phase II soil sampling investigation) to determine the absence or presence of pesticide residues, and, if present, how these soils should be handled (i.e., a risk‐based soils assessment). All potentially impacted soils would would be sampled and treated in accordance with State and Federal requirements, and as directed by the City during the environmental review process. However, the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development (i.e. residential units) within the HD Zone. As such, the Project would not result in land improvement activities that would disturb the underlying soils or cause potential increased human exposure to agriculture‐related pesticides or similar chemicals. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Hazardous Materials Users/Facilities 5.13‐5 The potential exists for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to exist in the electrolytic fluids of PG&E‐owned transformers. However, such substances are not anticipated to result in significant impacts relative to the proposed Project. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Pole‐mounted transformers and/or pole‐mounted recloser locations may be located within the HD Zone. As typically occurs with new development, the ground surface below a single pole‐mounted transformer, multiple pole‐mounted transformers, or polemounted reclosers requires investigation to determine if evidence of soil discoloration or corrosion is present. PG&E maintains a transformer database, compiled circa 1990, which indicates whether polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are present in the electrolytic fluids of older transformers, especially those installed prior to 1990. However, pole‐mounted transformers installed subsequent to 1990 likely do not contain PCB insulating fluids. Polemounted transformers and reclosers labeled with a blue “non‐PCB” sticker do not contain PCB fluids. Unauthorized releases of insulating fluids from transformers typically require evaluation on a site‐specific basis to determine if such facilities pose an adverse environmental condition. As Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.13 Public Health and Safety Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.13-12 directed by the City during the environmental and design review process, and as applicable, applicants are generally required to contact PG&E to coordinate any required removal or relocation of existing transformers, prior to site development. The Amended HD Ordinance would not result in physical development within the HD Zone. As such, no construction or land improvement activities would occur that would result in increased human exposure to PCBs contained in any existing PG&E‐owned transformers within the HD Zone. Therefore, such substances are not anticipated to result in significant impacts relative to the proposed Project. Impacts with regard to PCBs would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Emergency Response/Evacuation Plan 5.13‐6 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: As previously stated, the proposed Project would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. As such, Project implementation would not require that traffic control measures be implemented during construction, consistent with the City’s Municipal Code, to ensure that any such activities do not interfere with any established emergency response or evacuation plans. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance includes design measures aimed at the provision of adequate emergency access for properties within the HD Zone. Such measures include the proper design of driveways, fire apparatus access roads, and emergency secondary access. These design measures would support the City’s efforts with regard to addressing emergency response and evacuation concerns. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Wildland Fire Threat 5.13‐7 The proposed Project would not increase the threat of wildland fires. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: The area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance contains and is adjacent to wildlands, thereby creating the potential for exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. According to the City of Bakersfield, the majority of the Project area is generally considered to be of moderate fire hazard risk, with some Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.13 Public Health and Safety Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.13-13 hillside areas in the far eastern portion of the Project area designated as having high fire hazard risk, due to their proximity to largely undeveloped land; refer to Figure 5.10‐2, NORTHEAST BAKERSFIELD FIRE RISK. Numerous wildfires have historically occurred both within the Project area and on lands to the north and northeast; refer to Figure 5.10‐3, NORTHEAST BAKERSFIELD HISTORIC FIRES. As such, conditions on these lands within the HD Zone create 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 slope of the ground, and the difficulty of access by fire crews and engines contribute to wildland fire potential. The Amended HD Ordinance is intended to “protect the general public from the threat of wildfire,” and contains provisions that would reduce potential wildfire hazards. The Amended HD Ordinance requires that future applicants provide emergency secondary access 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, the Ordinance gives minimum width and height clearance requirements for driveways, and minimum width and height clearance for all access routes subject to the use of fire department apparatus, to ensure proper access to all properties in the event of an emergency. The Amended HD Ordinance also includes requirements for building construction and site design in order to reduce the potential for damage caused by wildfire to occur. Section 17.66.120, Building Construction, of the Amended HD Ordinance, states that Class A or B noncombustible roof covering or roof assembly shall be required within Visual Resource Areas, and that no wood or shake shingle roofs shall be permitted within these areas. In addition, the Ordinance states states that one‐hour rated fire‐resistive construction shall be required for eave assemblies or noncombustible assembly approved by the Fire Chief and building director. Exceptions are made for accessory structures not exceeding 120 square feet (s.f.) in floor area when located at least 50 feet from any habitable structure. Additionally, the Amended HD Ordinance requires that all future development plans, as applicable, show the type of ignition‐resistant construction of the proposed structure, roof classification of building, water supply system, and the fuel loading/model and data to verify classification of fire‐resistive vegetation. All future construction within the HD Zone would be required to meet urban and wildland interface standards established by the State of California as they apply to the Project area. Additionally, Section 17.66.140, Fire Scape Plant Selections, requires that every tract and parcel map contain an advisory notice within the conditions of approval recommending that property owners use plant materials that are plant resistive. A comprehensive list of such plants is available from the City Fire Department (Ord. 4391 §1 (Exh. A (part)), 2006). In addition, Section 17.66.150, Defensible Space, requires maintenance of a minimum 30‐foot wide firebreak around and adjacent to any buildings or structures (or to the property line) where all flammable vegetation or other combustible growth is removed and cleared. The Amended HD Ordinance would not increase the potential for wildland fire to occur or spread within the HD Zone. No physical development (i.e., residential units) would directly occur with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance. Therefore, the Project would not Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.13 Public Health and Safety Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.13-14 increase human exposure to the threat of wildfire. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Long-Term Maintenance and Operation 5.13‐8 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical construction within the HD Zone, and would therefore not result in uses that would require the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Kern County and Incorporated Cities Hazardous Waste Management Plan (HWMP) lists goals and policies regarding the transport of hazardous wastes. The HWMP recognizes that the transportation of hazardous waste on roads poses a short‐term threat to public health. Of prime concern is the safety of the transportation system for hazardous waste, especially extremely hazardous waste, in and throughout Kern County. The HWMP seeks to establish State‐and Federally‐maintained roads as candidate Commercial Hazardous Waste Shipping Routes in and through the County (except those to collect locally generated hazardous wastes). Given the location of the Project area within a newly developing area of the City, generally surrounded by agricultural, residential, and open space uses, and the nature of the Project itself, Project implementation would not promote or require the transport of hazardous materials within the HD Zone. Delivery trucks often haul “household” chemicals (those commonly found in grocery stores and/or commercial uses). The Alfred Harrell Highway is identified as a truck route within the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and therefore, the potential exists for the incidental transport of materials and chemicals that meet the definition of “hazardous” along this roadway. While the risk of exposure to hazardous materials cannot be fully eliminated, measures can be implemented to maintain risks at acceptable levels. As described above, several Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies oversee hazardous materials transportation. Oversight by the appropriate agencies and compliance with applicable regulations are considered adequate to offset negative effects related to the potential incidental transport of hazardous materials within the Bakersfield area. However, as discussed above, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.13 Public Health and Safety Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.13-15 5.13‐9 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the long‐term use of hazardous substances for the purpose of long‐term maintenance. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: As no physical development would directly occur with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance, the Project would not involve the general use or storage of hazardous materials that may include fire suppressing substances, cleaning solvents, fuel, fertilizers, pesticides, and/or other materials used in the regular maintenance of residential and commercial structures. With proper use and disposal, such chemicals generally do not result in hazardous or unhealthful conditions for area residents or maintenance workers. All proposed land uses within Bakersfield would be required to comply with all applicable local, State and Federal regulations and policies regarding hazardous materials. The proposed Project would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. As such, the Project would not cause a significant public or environmental hazard through the use of hazardous substances for long‐term maintenance. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. Valley Fever 5.13‐10 Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in grading activities that would lead to the release of fugitive dust and spores causing Valley Fever. Significance: Less than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: If Valley Fever spores are encountered within the boundaries of the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance, there is potential for the infection of construction workers and/or surrounding residents to occur. As appropriate, and on a site‐specific basis, any future development within the HD Zone would be required to implement mitigation measures designed to reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated during grading activities to reduce the likelihood of Valley Fever to a less than significant level (refer also to Section 5.6, Air Quality). Pursuant to SJVAPCD Regulation VIII ‐Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions, all areas where bare soil is exposed as a result of earthwork activities would be required to be landscaped at the earliest time possible, or stabilized by watering when winds exceed 20 miles per hour (mph), in order to reduce the potential inhalation of spores which can cause Valley Fever. The permanent covering of such disturbed portions of lands within the HD Zone with landscaping material and/or with impervious roadway surfaces would reduce the long‐term potential release of Valley Fever spores to a less than significant level. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 5.13 Public Health and Safety Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 5.13-16 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.13.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.13‐11 The proposed Project, in combination with other cumulative projects, would not increase public exposure to hazardous substances. Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Impact Analysis: Impacts related to hazardous materials and hazardous substances would be considered site‐specific and would generally be mitigated to less than significant levels on a project‐by‐project basis as development within the cumulative. Potential hazards and potentially hazardous materials or situations that could result from the release of such substances would be mitigated to a less than significant level on a project‐by‐project basis. Compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, which include safety standards, would minimize potential cumulatively considerable impacts within the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project, in conjunction with future projects, would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts from the release of hazards or hazardous materials. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be Less than Significant. 5.13.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts associated with implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 6.0-1 Section 6.0 Long-Term Implications of the Proposed Project 6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6.1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN’S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Land development has the potential to adversely impact or alter the existing physical, aesthetic, and human environments. Long‐term environmental consequences of a project are typically associated with a transition in land use caused by development of a site and may include increased traffic volumes; generation of additional noise; increased energy and/or natural resource consumption; alteration of views; additional light and glare impacts on surrounding uses; and/or, incremental degradation of local and regional air quality, among other effects. As noted previously, the proposed Project would not result in physical construction, and instead, would regulate hillside development within within the Northeastern portion of the City. Long‐term effects of the Project would result in an overall decrease in the amount of land affected by future development activities, thereby allowing a greater land area to be left unaltered and in its existing state for the long‐term. In addition, by placing greater development restrictions on lands within the HD Zone, the total number of homes that could be built within the Project area would be reduced by an estimated 3,199 units.1 Although it is anticipated that these homes would be absorbed by other lands within the Northeastern portion of the City, the overall reduction in the number of homes that could be constructed within the HD Zone would consequently result in a reduction in natural resource and energy consumption (i.e., short‐term grading activities and use of building materials, as well as long‐term energy consumption by individual residential units); light and glare effects; degradation of local and regional air quality; and, vehicle trips and associated traffic noise. 6.2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED As stated previously, the Amended HD 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 general public 1 Data compiled by City of Bakersfield Development Services, Planning Division. July 2008. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 6.0 Long Term Implications of the Proposed Project Draft EIR from the threat of wildfire, hillside instability and landslides.”2 As such, implementation of the Ordinance would not result in the construction of structures on lands affected by the HD Zone. The Ordinance would not directly allow for development to occur within the Project area, and as such, would not in itself result in irreversible environmental changes. The proposed Project would not require the physical alteration of property, nor the permanent commitment of agricultural land or open space to residential or commercial land uses. In addition, as no physical development would occur, no grading activities that would result in the permanent alteration of land would be required. The permanent commitment of public services or utilities, new raw materials and/or natural resources (i.e., such as lumber, sand, or gravel), or consumption of energy resources would also not occur. In addition, an incremental increase in vehicular activity on the City’s roadway system or an associated increase in air emissions and/or noise levels would not result, as no physical structures that would support human activity (i.e., residential dwelling units) or cause an increase in population would occur with Project implementation. 6.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS As required by CEQA, the potential direct and indirect growth‐inducing effects of a project must be considered and evaluated (CEQA §21100(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines §15126(d) and §15126.2(d)). A project is considered to be growth‐inducing if it would, either directly or indirectly, foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment. The assessment of growth‐inducing impacts should consider whether the project would affect the existing rate, location, or amount of growth, or if the project would remove obstacles to population growth or allow or encourage growth that would not otherwise have occurred if the project were not implemented. In addition, a project’s consistency with adopted plans aimed at local or regional growth management should also be considered in the evaluation of growth‐inducing impacts. Generally, growth‐inducing impacts are considered to be either direct or indirect. Direct growth inducing impacts are those typically associated with the provision of utilities or services (i.e., extension of utility lines) to an undeveloped area. The provision of such services to a site and the subsequent development that occurs can serve to induce other landowners in the area to similarly convert their property to urban uses. Indirect, or secondary growth‐inducing impacts, consist of secondary effects of development, such as the additional demand for housing, goods, or services associated with the population increase caused by, or attracted to, a new project. 2 City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. Chapter 17.66, HD (Hillside Development) Combining Zone. City of Bakersfield January 2009 6.0-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 6.0 Long Term Implications of the Proposed Project Draft EIR 6.3.1 REGIONAL AND LOCAL SETTING 6.3.1.1 Population The California Department of Finance (DOF) reports that, in 2007, the population of Kern County was approximately 801,648 persons.3 As compared to the population of the County as of April 2000, this represents an increase in population of approximately 21 percent, or 661,645 persons. The Kern County Council of Government (KernCOG) states in its 2000 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that population growth in the County has been significant and sustained. Over the last 15‐20 years, population growth within Kern County has largely occurred as the expansion of existing urban centers, and is anticipated to continue this pattern of growth. In 2007, the Metropolitan Bakersfield area comprised an estimated 63 percent, or 508,638 persons, of the total population of Kern County.4 An estimated 323,213 persons reside within the City of Bakersfield, which, as compared to the population of the City in 2000 (247,057), represents an increase of approximately 30 percent.5 6.3.1.2 Housing In 2004, existing housing units within Kern County totaled an estimated 247,918. By 2006, this number increased by approximately 15,016 units to 262,934 units, or approximately 5.71 percent. The residential vacancy rate within Kern County is approximately 9.7 percent, as of January 2006.6 This number represents the number of unoccupied housing units on the market and indicates the balance between the number of housing units available, as compared to the housing demand within the community. As of January 1, 2006, the City of Bakersfield supported an estimated 108,242 dwelling units, or 38 percent of the total number of dwelling units within Kern County. The vacancy rate at the time was estimated at 5.46 percent, with an average of 3.01 persons per household.7 As such, population growth within the City continues to grow at approximately the rate projected in the 1990 General Plan, which assumed a net increase of 153,856 dwelling units within the City for the time period considered.8 6.3.1.3 Employment Overall, the unadjusted unemployment rate for March 2006 to March 2007 for the State of California was 5.2 percent, with a national unemployment rate of 4.5 percent for the same 3 2007 population data were obtained from Report E‐5, California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. 4 Ibid. 5 City and County Population Estimates, California Department of Finance, January 1, 2000. 6 2006 population data were obtained from Report E‐5, California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. 7 Ibid. 8 Long‐Term Implications, Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan EIR, June 2002. City of Bakersfield January 2009 6.0-3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 6.0 Long Term Implications of the Proposed Project Draft EIR period. As of March 2007, Kern County had a labor force of an estimated 341,700 persons, of which approximately 28,900 people, or 8.5 percent, were unemployed.9 This unemployment rate represents a continued decline from 8.8 percent as of February 2007, and 8.9 percent as of March 2006. Within Kern County, the government sector accounts for approximately 21 percent of employment.10 Other major employment sectors include agriculture, and trade, transportation, and utilities. As of March 2007, the City of Bakersfield supported approximately 145,600 persons, of which approximately 8,500 were unemployed. This number represents an unemployment rate of approximately 5.8%, which remains below the average unemployment rate within Kern County.11 6.3.2 PROJECT IMPACTS 6.3.2.1 Population, Housing, and Employment A project may induce population growth in an area either directly or indirectly. More specifically, the the development of new homes or businesses could induce population growth directly, whereas the extension of roads or other infrastructure could induce population growth indirectly. Implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in future development of residential or other such uses onsite that would increase local population or the number of housing units within the northeastern portion of the City, as compared to current conditions. The proposed Project would not change any of the existing General Plan land use or zoning designations of properties within the HD Zone, which could potentially allow for a greater number of residential units than that originally intended by the City. Implementation of the proposed Project would therefore not result in an (unplanned) direct or indirect increase in population or housing within the area affected by the Project. As no physical construction would occur with the Project (residential or other uses), no increased demand for employment or employment opportunities within the Northeast Quadrant that was not anticipated by the General Plan and/or regional employment projections would occur. The City estimates that there are 1,901 vacant recorded residential lots located within its Northeast Quadrant. In addition, there are 11,310 residential lots remaining within tentative tracts. As such, the total dwelling unit capacity within the Northeast portion of the City is estimated to be 13,211 units.12 Therefore, it is not anticipated that the loss of 3,199 potential 9 Labor Market Info, State of California Employment Development Department, 2007. 10 Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical Area, Employment Development Department, Labor Market Development Division, State of California. 2007. 11 Labor Force Data for Sub‐County Areas, Labor Market Information Division, Employment Development Department, March 2007. 12 Data compiled by City of Bakersfield Development Services, Planning Division. July 2008. City of Bakersfield January 2009 6.0-4 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 6.0 Long Term Implications of the Proposed Project Draft EIR residential units that would occur within the HD Zone with the proposed Project would cause additional population growth in other areas of the City. These units could be absorbed within the northeastern portion of the City which has adequate capacity to do so. The proposed Project would therefore provide fewer dwelling units than is currently approved under the General Plan. It should also be noted that the Northeast Bakersfield area, including the area around the Project site, is projected to undergo significant future growth, of which the Project is just one portion. The General Plan projects that approximately 70,689 acres will be located within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area upon buildout of the General Plan. Implementation of the proposed Project would not adversely affect this projection. Although the site design restrictions proposed with the Amended HD Ordinance would reduce the total potential number of housing units that could be built within the HD Zone by an estimated 3,199 units, there is adequate land in the Northeast Quadrant to absorb the construction of these units. Therefore, the expansion of development onto other lands not anticipated by the General Plan would not occur with the Project. The increase in people ultimately living in the hillside area could be construed as “growth inducing,” since the potential for future development would result in the construction of additional housing and population growth. This could potentially spur the development of commercial uses, which could lead to increased population and economic growth; however, future growth within the HD Zone would be consistent with that intended by the General Plan, unless otherwise approved by the City. Furthermore, the Amended HD Ordinance is a land development regulation tool that would regulate development within the hillsides in order to protect the environmental integrity of the area. 6.3.3 CONCLUSION The area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is located within the designated Rural Northeast Planning Area of Metropolitan Bakersfield. The General Plan has anticipated development within this area of the City, stating that “New development on the periphery of urban Bakersfield will be focused in ten new mixed‐use activity centers located in the southwest, northwest and northeast….The center in the northeast will include retail commercial, professional office, moderate and high density residential, and will filter outwards to lower densities;” refer also to Section 5.1, Land Use and Planning, for additional discussion. The proposed Project is not considered to be indirectly growth‐inducing as it would not directly or indirectly result in the physical construction of residential units or other such development; however, it is anticipated that historical growth patterns of peripheral areas of the City of Bakersfield would continue as lands within the HD Zone are developed in the future. The land area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is located within the City’s established Sphere of City of Bakersfield January 2009 6.0-5 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance 6.0 Long Term Implications of the Proposed Project Draft EIR Influence (SOI), and future development would occur consistent with that intended by the General Plan, unless otherwise approved by the City at the time an application is made by an individual landowner. As noted above, implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would result in an overall reduction of the number of residential dwelling units allowed under the current General Plan and zoning classifications, due to increased site development restrictions. As implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical growth, the proposed Project is not considered to result in significant growth‐inducing impacts. The General Plan recognizes that growth continues to occur within the northeastern area of Bakersfield and anticipates the continuation of such historical growth patterns in the southwest, northeast, and northwest areas of the City. In addition, services and utilities are anticipated to be extended into the northeast area. The proposed Project would not would not remove obstacles to development, require the expansion of existing infrastructure, or require the construction or expansion of facilities for other future developments. The Amended HD Ordinance would further restrict future development of the City’s hillsides, and would not create growth that would require substantial development of unplanned or unforeseen support uses or services. As such, significant growthinducing impacts directly resulting from the proposed Project are not anticipated. City of Bakersfield January 2009 6.0-6 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-1 Section 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 7.1 INTRODUCTION Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or a range of reasonable alternatives to the location of the project, that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. An EIR does not need to consider every conceivable alternative project, but it does have to consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will facilitate informed decision making and public participation. Per §15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of alternatives must include several different issues. The discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives to the project, or to the project location, which will avoid or substantially reduce any significant effects of the project, even if the alternatives would be more costly or hinder to some degree the attainment of the project objectives. The “No Project” alternative must be evaluated. The “No Project” analysis must discuss the existing conditions and what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project was not approved. The range of alternatives required is governed by a “rule of reason.” Thus, the EIR must only evaluate those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives must be limited to only ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Additionally, an EIR should not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. The CEQA Guidelines also require an EIR to state why an alternative is being rejected. If the City ultimately rejects any, or all alternatives, the rationale for rejection will be presented in the findings that are required before the City certifies the EIR and takes action on the project. According to §15126.6(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing feasibility of alternatives are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the applicant could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternate site. The Project alternatives are evaluated herein to determine the extent to which they attain the basic objectives of the applicant and City, while significantly lessening or avoiding any significant effects of the Project. The Project objectives are outlined below: • 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; Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR • 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; • Protect the general public from the threat of wildfire; and, • Protect the general public from hillside instability. 7.2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT As noted previously, the the CEQA Guidelines (§15126.6(e)(2)) require that the alternatives discussion include an analysis of the “No Project” Alternative” Pursuant to CEQA, the No Project Alternative refers to the analysis of existing conditions (i.e., implementation of current plans) and what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project was not approved. Potential environmental impacts associated with three separate alternatives are compared below to assess impacts from the Project. These alternatives were selected because they were discussed during public review of the Amended HD Ordinance. These alternatives include: 1) the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative; 2) the No Ordinance Alternative; and, 3) the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative. Refer to Table 7.0‐1, Comparison of Alternatives, for an impact matrix that compares the Alternatives to the proposed Project. The Environmentally Superior Alternative is identified as Alternative 3, More Stringent Ordinance Alternative (refer to Section 7.5 below). Table 7.0-1 Comparison of Alternatives ISSUE NO PROJECT/ORIGINAL ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE NO ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE MORE STRINGENT ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE Land Use and Planning = = = Agricultural Resources = = > Aesthetics, Light, and Glare > > < Traffic and Circulation > > < Noise > > < City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR Table 7.0-1, Comparison of Alternatives, continued City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-3 ISSUE NO PROJECT/ORIGINAL ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE NO ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE MORE STRINGENT ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE Air Quality > > < Biological Resources > > < Cultural Resources > > < Public Utilities and Services > > < Geologic Resources and Natural Hazards > > < Hydrology and Water Quality > > < Population and Housing = = < Public Health and Safety > > < = Impact is equivalent to impact of proposed project (neither environmentally superior nor inferior). < Impact is less than impact of proposed project (environmentally superior). > Impact is greater than impact of proposed project (environmentally inferior). 7.3 NO PROJECT/ORIGINAL ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE 7.3.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE The No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative assumes that no changes to the original Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance would occur. Instead, the language in the Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance (Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 17.66) would remain the same as that when it was originally adopted by the City on August 11, 1999. 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 HD Zone would still act as an overlay zone and would not change the underlying General Plan land use or zoning designations on any affected lands within the City’s hillside areas. To implement this Alternative, the Amended HD Ordinance would need to be repealed, and the Ordinance would revert to its previous form. 7.3.2 IMPACT COMPARISON TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 7.3.2.1 Land Use and Planning The No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative would not result in changes to the existing underlying General Plan land use or zoning of properties within the HD Zone, and instead, would act as an overlay zone, similar to the proposed Project. Therefore, future development Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR would occur consistent with existing land use and zoning designations. Implementation of this Alternative would not result in any direct physical construction or improvements within the Project area, and would therefore not result in development that would conflict with existing plans or polices regulating future development of lands within the HD Zone. However, as the additional site design restrictions proposed with the Amended HD Ordinance would not be adopted as part of the Municipal Code under this Alternative, this Alternative would provide a reduced level of protection for the City’s hillsides, and would allow for the potential construction of an additional 3,199 residential units, as compared to the proposed Project. With regard for land use and planning, this Alternative is considered environmentally similar to the Project. 7.3.2.2 Agricultural Resources All existing lands zoned for agricultural use would remain as such under the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative. As such, similar to the proposed Project, this Alternative would not directly result in the conversion of agricultural land to non‐agricultural uses. Without the additional site design restrictions proposed with the Amended HD Ordinance, residential lots within the HD Zone could be developed to the potential density anticipated in the General Plan under this Alternative, and therefore, an overall reduction in the number of potential units that could be built within the HD Zone would not occur, in contrast to the loss of an estimated 3,199 units that would potentially occur with the proposed Project. The potential to construct these units would not be lost with this Alternative, and they would instead be constructed, as originally anticipated, within the area affected by the HD Zone rather than on other lands. However, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project would result in the conversion of agricultural land to non‐agricultural uses with the potential displacement of the 3,199 units, as they can adequately be absorbed within the Northeastern Quadrant on other residentially‐zoned properties. In this regard, this Alternative is considered environmentally similar to the Project. 7.3.2.3 Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Under the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative, the additional site design restrictions proposed with the Amended HD Ordinance would not apply to future development, thereby allowing residential lots to be developed to the potential density anticipated in the General Plan. This Alternative would result in the potential construction of an estimated 3,199 more residential units than with the proposed Project, thereby allowing development within the HD Zone to occur at a higher density than would occur with the proposed Project. Under the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative, a greater number of new light sources could potentially be created with the increase in homes that could be built. As a result, the potential for greater impacts with regard to visual resources, light, and glare would occur. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance provides site design regulations that are intended to further protect the visual appearance and aesthetic values of the City’s hillside areas. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-4 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR 7.3.2.4 Traffic and Circulation Under the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative, an estimated 3,199 more residential units could potentially be developed, as compared with the proposed Project. This would potentially result in an increased number of average daily vehicle trips (ADT’s) associated with this Alternative, thereby contributing a greater number of vehicle trips to the City’s circulation system. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.3.2.5 Noise Under the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative, an estimated 3,199 more residential units could potentially be developed, as compared with the proposed Project. This in turn could potentially increase vehicular traffic. As such, long‐term noise levels associated with vehicular traffic would be greater than noise levels under the proposed Project, because more vehicle trips would occur. Additional short‐term construction noise would also have the potential to be greater than that resulting from the proposed Project, as a greater number of homes could be built. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.3.2.6 Air Quality Under the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative, approximately 3,199 more residential units could potentially be constructed, as the proposed site development restrictions would not be imposed on lots within the HD Zone. Implementation of this Alternative could result in an increase in traffic, and in turn, would produce greater mobile and energy source emissions as compared to the proposed Project. While no significant air quality impacts were identified for the proposed Project, this Alternative could result in greater local and regional air pollutant emissions, due to an increase in the number of dwelling units that could potentially be built as compared to the proposed Project. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.3.2.7 Biological Resources It is possible that greater impacts to biological resources could occur with this Alternative, as an estimated 3,199 more homes could potentially be constructed as compared to the proposed Project. This would increase the amount of land area potentially disturbed by construction as compared to the Project. In addition, the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative would have less restrictive design standards for lot development, allowing a greater portion of hillside lots to be constructed on. This could potentially result in increased impacts to biological resources as compared to the proposed Project, as additional onsite vegetation and/or wildlife species could be affected or disturbed. Although all future development within the HD Zone would still be subject to site‐specific review to determine potential impacts on biological resources, this Alternative would increase the potential for such impacts to occur, as a greater land area within each lot would be potentially affected. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-5 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR 7.3.2.8 Cultural Resources Under the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative, the Amended HD Ordinance would not be adopted. Therefore, the potential for disturbance to or destruction of cultural resources could potentially increase as compared to the Project because a greater number of homes could be developed, thereby increasing the potential area of disturbance within individual lots in the HD Zone. Although all future development within the HD Zone would still be subject to sitespecific review to determine potential impacts on cultural resources, this Alternative would increase the potential for such impacts to occur, as a greater land area within each lot would be potentially disturbed. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.3.2.9 Public Services and Utilities It is possible that greater impacts with regard for public services and utilities could occur with this Alternative, as an estimated 3,199 more homes could potentially be constructed, as compared to the proposed Project. As such, although all future development within the HD Zone would be subject to City review for potential impacts on public services and utilities, an increase in demand for such services, as well as the potential for a deficiency to occur, could result with this Alternative. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.3.2.10 Geologic Resources and Natural Hazards Implementation of the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative could expose additional people and structures to adverse effects associated with seismic activity, soils or geology, due to the increase in the number of structures potentially constructed. Approximately 3,199 more homes could potentially be built under the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative, as compared to the proposed Project. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. Implementation of the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative would also not establish additional development standards related to fire prevention, as would the proposed Project. Therefore, risk of exposure of people and structures to wildland fire would increase. Furthermore, there would be the potential for more homes to be built within the hillside areas, thereby increasing the number of structures and/or people that could be exposed to wildland fire. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.3.2.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Implementation of the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative would have the potential to create increased effects with regard to hydrology and water quality as compared to the Project, as a greater area of land within the hillside lots could potentially be developed, due to less restrictive site design measures. With this Alternative, the potential for erosion and runoff, due to increased land disturbance and impervious surfaces, would be greater than that which would occur with the proposed Project. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-6 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR 7.3.2.12 Population and Housing This Alternative would potentially result in the construction of 3,199 more homes than that resulting with the proposed Project. However, this Alternative would not result in a substantial displacement of housing or people, as these potential units could be constructed on lands within the boundaries of the HD Zone, as anticipated by the General Plan. This Alternative is therefore considered to have similar effects as the proposed Project with regard to population and housing. 7.3.2.13 Public Health and Safety As stated above, this Alternative would potentially allow for the construction of a greater number of residential units than would the proposed Project, due to lesser development restrictions placed on lots within the HD Zone. As such, this Alternative could result in the potential exposure of a greater number of residents to conditions that may affect public health or safety, such as exposure to hazardous materials or accidental release of hazardous substances, as well as the risk of wildfire. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. However, as with the proposed Project, impacts would be less than significant with regard to public health and safety. 7.3.3 ABILITY TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES Implementation of the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative would not fulfill all of the Project’s objectives. This Alternative would not define and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan as they relate to the preservation and maintenance of hillsides as a scenic resource. Although the original HD Ordinance includes some provisions for wildland fire prevention, such as review of landscaping and providing defensible space, they are not as extensive as those proposed with the Project. The No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative would also not meet the objective of maximizing the positive impacts of site design, grading, landscaping, and building design, consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan to the extent that would occur with the proposed Project, as the original HD Ordinance provides limited language to address these elements. In addition, the No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative would not provide additional measures to protect the general public from hillside instability and landslides, nor would it promote a reduction in water use in slope replanting and retention by encouraging grading design that minimizes manufactured slopes. 7.3.4 CONCLUSION The No Project/Original Ordinance Alternative would result in greater effects in the following areas: Aesthetics, Light, and Glare; Traffic and Circulation; Noise; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources, Public Utilities and Services; Geologic Resources and Natural Hazards; Hydrology and Water Quality; and, Public Health and Safety. Similar effects would occur with regard to Land Use and Planning, Agricultural Resources, and Population and Housing. City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-7 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR It should be noted that implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in significant environmental impacts, as the Project would merely regulate future development of the hillsides within the HD Zone. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in the construction of buildings or land development activities within the City’s hillside areas. In addition, this Alternative would have a number of increased effects as compared to the proposed Project, as identified above. For these reasons, this Alternative is being rejected. 7.4 NO ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE 7.4.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE The No Ordinance Alternative assumes that the Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance would no longer exist and Chapter 17.66 would be deleted from the City’s Municipal Code. As such, the Hillside Development overlay district would be removed and would no longer be applied to lands within the City’s hillside areas. This Alternative assumes that development along the hillside areas, regardless of slope, would be allowed to develop consistent with that allowed under the existing underlying General Plan land use and zoning designations, other Federal, State, and local development standards, including the California Building Code (CBC), and other environmental regulations, as applicable. As this Alternative would not implement the design measures included in the Amended HD Ordinance, development on individual properties within the HD Zone would be less restricted. The Amended HD Ordinance would reduce the potential number of dwelling units that could be constructed within the HD Zone by an estimated 3,199 units. However, under the No Ordinance Alternative, these units could potentially be constructed, resulting in a greater number of units as compared to that ultimately achieved under the Amended HD Ordinance. To implement this Alternative, the Amended HD Ordinance would need to be repealed. 7.4.2 IMPACT COMPARISON TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 7.4.2.1 Land Use and Planning The No Ordinance Alternative would not involve any development proposal that would affect or conflict with adopted land use plans or policies of the City of Bakersfield or other local or regional agencies. This Alternative would not create any potential inconsistencies with City or County land use policies, nor would it create any new land use compatibility conflicts, as future development would ultimately occur as anticipated in the General Plan, unless otherwise approved by the City. However, as the additional site design restrictions proposed with the Amended HD Ordinance would not be adopted as part of the Municipal Code, this Alternative would provide a reduced level of protection for the City’s hillsides, and would allow for the potential construction of an additional 3,199 residential units, as compared to the proposed Project. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally similar to the Project. City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-8 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR 7.4.2.2 Agricultural Resources Under the No Ordinance Alternative, all affected lands within the hillside areas would remain as presently zoned, including those zoned for agricultural use. As such, similar to the proposed Project, this Alternative would not directly result in the conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. Without the additional site design restrictions proposed with the Amended HD Ordinance, residential lots that would have been affected by the HD Zone could instead be developed to the potential density anticipated in the General Plan under this Alternative, and therefore, an overall reduction in the number of potential units that could be built within the HD Zone would not occur, in contrast to the loss of an estimated 3,199 units that would occur with the proposed Project. However, as the Northeast Quadrant has an adequate capacity of residential lots to absorb the units lost with the proposed Project, impacts caused by the necessary conversion of agricultural land to non‐agricultural uses would not occur, and therefore, impacts to agricultural lands would not be significant with the proposed Project. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally similar to the Project. 7.4.2.3 Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Under the No Ordinance Alternative, the additional site design restrictions proposed with the Amended HD Ordinance would not apply to future development, thereby allowing residential lots to be developed to the potential density anticipated in the General Plan. This Alternative would therefore result in the potential construction of an estimated 3,199 more residential units than would occur with the proposed Project, thereby allowing development to occur along the hillsides at a higher density than would result with the proposed Project. In addition, under the No Ordinance Alternative, a greater number of new light sources could be created within the hillside areas with the potential number homes that could be built, thereby increasing the potential for greater impacts with regard to visual resources, light, and glare. Without an ordinance specifically guiding development along the City’s hillsides, all future development within these areas would occur consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan and the Municipal Code, as well as other Federal, State, and local policies and plans, as applicable, with regard to visual resources and reduction of potential light and glare impacts. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.4.2.4 Traffic and Circulation As noted above, the No Ordinance Alternative would result in the potential construction of an estimated 3,199 more residential units within the hillside areas than that which could occur with the proposed Project, thereby resulting in an increase in potential traffic generated by such uses. This would increase the amount of traffic contributed to the City’s circulation system, potentially affecting the performance of City roadway segments or intersections. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.4.2.5 Noise Under the No Ordinance Alternative, an estimated 3,199 residential units over that which could potentially occur with the proposed Project could be constructed, due to the absence of more City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-9 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR restrictive guidelines to regulate future hillside development. This in turn, could potentially increase vehicular traffic which could result in greater traffic noise levels associated over the long‐term, as compared to the noise levels that would occur with the proposed Project. In addition, the presence of an additional 3,199 homes could increase short‐term construction noise levels, as well as long‐term noise levels associated with typical household activities (presence of humans, lawn maintenance, heating and cooling equipment, etc). In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.4.2.6 Air Quality Under the No Ordinance Alternative, an estimated 3,199 additional homes could potentially be built within the hillside areas as compared to the proposed Project, consistent with that allowed by existing zoning and General Plan land use designations. As such, a potential increase in traffic and the associated mobile and energy source emissions would likely occur, as compared to the proposed Project. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.4.2.7 Biological Resources The No Ordinance Alternative would likely result in increased impacts to biological resources, as a greater land area within individual ownerships within the hillside areas could be developed or disturbed, due to the lack of more restrictive site design regulations as proposed with the Amended HD Ordinance. However, all future development within the hillside areas would be subject to standard City environmental and design review on a site‐specific, projectby‐project basis to determine potential impacts to biological resources and the appropriate means to reduce such impacts, as needed. In addition, indirect impacts associated with noise, human activity, etc. could also be increased, as a greater number of homes and residents would be present within the hillside areas. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.4.2.8 Cultural Resources It is anticipated that the No Ordinance Alternative would result in increased impacts to cultural resources, as disturbance would occur with the potential development of 3,199 more residential units, as well as an increase in the land area that could potentially be disturbed, due to the lack of more restrictive site design regulations as proposed with the Amended HD Ordinance. All future development within the City’s hillside areas would be subject to standard City environmental and design review on a site‐specific, project‐by‐project basis to determine potential impacts to cultural resources and the appropriate means to reduce such impacts, as needed. This Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.4.2.9 Public Services and Utilities The No Ordinance Alternative would potentially result in the construction of an estimated 3,199 residential units units over that of the proposed Project, thereby increasing the potential future demand for public services and utilities within the City’s hillside areas. Additional demands on water and sewer delivery, as well as on public schools and other services such as fire and police City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-10 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR protection, would likely increase as a result, as compared to the proposed Project. As such, the need for the extension of facilities, or the construction of new facilities, may occur. Deficiencies in the City’s ability to provide such utilities or services may therefore occur as the result of the increase in the number of potential residential units constructed within the City’s hillside areas, as compared to the proposed Project. This Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.4.2.10 Geologic Resources and Natural Hazards Implementation of the No Ordinance Alternative could potentially expose additional people and structures to adverse effects associated with seismic activity, soils or geology, due to the increase in the potential number of structures built. In addition, no specific site design restrictions relative to regulating hillside development would occur, beyond that that required by the underlying General Plan land use and zoning designations, in addition to other Federal, State and local policies and plans pertaining to such development. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. Implementation of the No Ordinance Alternative would also not establish specific site development measures aimed at wildfire prevention, as would occur with the proposed Project. Therefore, an increased risk of exposure of people and structures to wildland fire would likely occur. Furthermore, there would be more homes potentially built within the hillside areas, as compared to the proposed Project, which would increase the number of structures and people exposed to potential risk of damage caused by wildfire. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.4.2.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Implementation of the No Ordinance Alternative would have the potential to create increased impacts with regard to hydrology and water quality as compared to the Project, as a greater area of land within the hillside lots could potentially be developed, due to less restrictive site design measures. The potential for erosion and runoff resulting from increased land disturbance and impervious surfaces would therefore be greater than that which would occur with the proposed Project. In this regard, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.4.2.12 Population and Housing The No Ordinance Alternative would potentially result in the construction of 3,199 more homes than that allowed with the proposed Project. However, this Alternative would not result in a substantial displacement of housing or people, as it is assumed that construction of these potential units would occur as anticipated by the General Plan on lots within the hillside areas. This Alternative is therefore considered to have similar effects as the proposed Project with regard to population and housing. City of Bakersfield Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-11 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR 7.4.2.13 Public Health and Safety As stated above, the No Ordinance Alternative would potentially allow for the construction of a greater number of residential units than would the proposed Project, due to lesser development restrictions placed on lots within the HD Zone. As such, this Alternative may result in the exposure of a greater number of residents to conditions that may adversely affect public health or safety, such as exposure to hazardous materials or the risk of wildfire. In this regard, the No Ordinance Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. However, impacts would be less than significant with regard to public health and safety, as would occur with the proposed Project. All future development within the HD Zone would be required to comply with Federal, State and local standards and the City’s Municipal Code to ensure the overall health and safety of the general public. 7.4.3 ABILITY TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES Implementation of the No Ordinance Alternative would not fulfill the Project’s objectives. The No Ordinance Alternative would not define and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan as they relate to the preservation and maintenance of the City’s hillsides as a scenic resource. In addition, this Alternative would not 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, or provide for the preservation of unique and significant natural landforms and ridgelines, beyond that required by applicable City policies and goals or applicable plans, or that allowed by the existing underlying land use or zoning designations. The No Ordinance Alternative would not provide specific design measures intended to protect the general public from the threat of wildfire, beyond that required by Federal, State, or local policy, or as otherwise required by the local fire protection agencies. This Alternative would also not provide design measures to protect the general public from hillside instability, beyond that required by Federal, State and local policies and codes, such as the CBC, or those standard requirements given in the General Plan or Municipal Code. The No Ordinance Alternative would not provide specific measures to maintain the integrity or natural characteristics of major landforms, vegetation and wildlife communities, hydrologic features, scenic qualities, or open space beyond existing regulations to ensure that the aesthetic quality of the hillsides is not compromised. Although the No Ordinance Alternative would allow future development to occur on hillside lots consistent with that allowed by the underlying General Plan land use and zoning designations, site design measures aimed at the protection of the hillsides with regard to public safety or as visual resources would be far less restrictive than as compared to the proposed Project. 7.4.4 CONCLUSION The No Ordinance Alternative would result in greater effects in the following areas: Aesthetics, Light, and Glare; Traffic and Circulation; Noise; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources, Public Utilities and Services; Geologic Resources and Natural Hazards; and, City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-12 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality, and Public Health and Safety. Similar effects would occur with regard to Land Use and Planning, Agricultural Resources, and Population and Housing. It should be noted that implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in significant environmental impacts, as the Project would merely regulate future development of the hillsides within the HD Zone. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in the construction of buildings or land development activities within the City’s hillside areas. In addition, this Alternative would have a number of increased effects compared to the proposed Project, as identified above. For these reasons, this Alternative is being rejected. 7.5 MORE STRINGENT ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE (ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE) 7.5.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE The More Stringent Ordinance Alternative assumes that a more stringent Ordinance aimed at the preservation and maintenance of the City’s hillsides as important visual resources and the protection of the general public from the threat of wildfire, hillside instability, and landslides would be implemented. The Ordinance would provide additional and more restrictive site design measures to ensure that future development of the City’s hillsides achieves the City’s goal of protecting such resources for the long‐term. The Ordinance would include more stringent design measures, as compared to that proposed with the Amended HD Ordinance, to further limit future development within hillside areas with regard to such elements as grading, landscaping, setbacks, and preservation of scenic views, and to reduce the potential for increased risk of damage caused by wildfire, slope failure, landslides, and other geologicrelated occurrences. To implement this Alternative, the Amended HD Ordinance would need to be revised and adopted by the City. The design measures included with this Alternative would be influenced by other similar adopted ordinances within California aimed at limiting hillside development for the purposes of public safety and protection of visual resources, such as those included in ordinances prepared and adopted by the Cities of Malibu, San Diego, and Santa Clarita. A brief summary of the design measures included in these hillside development ordinances follows: 7.5.1.1 City of Malibu The City of Malibu has adopted Ordinance No. 293 which amended several sections of the City’s Municipal Code to address hillside residential development [(Zoning Text Amendment No. 03‐005 amending Title 17 (Zoning) of the Malibu Municipal Code – Chapters 17.02 (Introductory Provisions and Definitions); 17.40 (Property Development and Design Standards); and, 17.42 (Custom Development Criteria)]. In addition, Section 16.24 of the Code, Design Standards, provides additional regulations for hillside development and preservation of “significant visual features as seen from both within and outside a hillside development.” the City implements its Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protection Ordinance “to enhance and protect the scenic and visual qualities of coastal and mountain areas within the City of Malibu City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-13 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR as a resource of public importance, in accordance with the policies of the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the California Coastal Act”1 [Resolution No. 07‐04 (LCPA No. 05‐001)]. In order to implement the certified Land Use Plan (LUP), development standards, permit and application requirements, and other measures are provided to ensure that permitted development shall be “sited and designed to protect views to and the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.”2 Consistent with Chapter 17.02, Introductory Provisions and Definitions, and Chapter 17.40, Property Development and Design Standards, of the City’s Municipal Code, the following are general measures intended to regulate residential development on the the hillsides: • “Hillside Residential Development” applies to residential development not located on slopes greater than 30 percent and which will not result in grading on slopes over 30 percent • Grading limited to 1,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill • Total development square footage shall be reduced by 25 percent from that which would otherwise be allowed • Absolute height from the lowest low point to the highest high point of each structure shall not exceed 35 feet • Driveways shall follow natural topographic contours of the property and be limited to no more than one driveway or access road • Exemption from the Ordinance, provided that it can be demonstrated that the proposed development cannot be seen from public scenic areas Section 17.40, Property Development and Design Standards, includes the following requirements for hillside development, among other measures pertaining to structure height, setbacks, roofing materials, retaining walls and impermeable coverage: Primary Ridgelines • Structures shall be located a minimum of one hundred (100) feet (measured horizontally) from the top of a primary ridgeline, and shall maintain the roof or top of structure below a primary ridgeline when viewed from a public street or highway. 1 City of Malibu Local Coastal Program – Local Implementation Plan. 2 City of Malibu. Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. Section 6.1, Purpose and Intent. City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-14 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR Secondary Ridgelines • Grading ‐Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Code, grading (total cut and fill) shall be limited to one thousand (1,000) cubic yards. • Structure Size ‐Except as specifically otherwise provided within the Code, total development square footage associated with the construction of a single‐family or multiple‐family residence on a legal lot equal to or greater than five acres shall not exceed a total of eleven thousand one hundred seventy‐two (11,172) square feet. On lots five thousand (5,000) square feet or less, the total development square footage shall not exceed one thousand eight hundred eighty‐five (1,885) square feet. In addition, Section 16.24, Hillside Management Criteria, of the Code provides the following requirements pertaining to hillside development: In addition to the general findings, no parcel map or tentative map application may be approved unless the planning planning commission makes all of the following findings: 1. That the proposed project is located and designed so as to protect the safety of current and future community residents, and will not create significant threats to life and/or property due to the presence of geologic, seismic, slope instability, fire, flood, mud flow, or erosion hazards; 2. That the proposed project is compatible with the natural, biotic, cultural, scenic, and open space resources of the area; 3. That the proposed development demonstrates creative and imaginative design, resulting in a visual quality that will complement the community character and benefit current and future community residents; 4. That the requested development is designed to be highly compatible with the biotic resources present, including the setting aside of appropriate and sufficient undisturbed areas; 6. That the requested development is designed so that wildlife movement corridor (migratory paths) are left in an undisturbed and natural state; and, 8. That where necessary, fences, or walls are provided to buffer important habitat areas from development. Additional site design measures are also included as part of the City’s Local Coastal Program to protect the hillsides and bluffs adjacent to the coastal areas from inappropriate hillside development. 7.5.1.2 City of San Diego The City of San Diego Municipal Code includes Steep Hillside Guidelines to address specific regulations contained in the City’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) Regulations, Chapter 14, Article 3, Division 1, Environmentally Sensitive Lands Regulations of the Municipal Code. City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-15 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR The Guidelines provide design standards for development that proposes to encroach into steep hillsides. General requirements and/or design approaches given in the Guidelines are summarized below: • Generally applies where natural gradient is at least 25 percent and a vertical elevation of at least 50 feet • Measures are identified for drainage and erosion control • Development designed to avoid potentially significant geologic hazards • Single‐family residential development ‐Significant natural features such as drainage courses, rock outcroppings, sensitive biological resources and mature trees should be preserved and incorporated into the development design. • The design and placement of structures on the site shall respect the steep hillside character of the site. • Designated public view corridors from public streets and other public property, as identified in the adopted Land Use Plan, shall be maintained. Other measures address fencing, retaining walls, cut and fill slopes, contour grading, foundation types, driveways, and other design elements. Other specific design requirements are given to consider the unique characteristics of certain neighborhoods within the City. 7.5.1.3 City of Santa Clarita The City of Santa Clarita adopted its Hillside Development Ordinance (Chapter 17.80 of the Municipal Code) to “regulate the development and alteration of hillside areas, to minimize the adverse effects of hillside development, and to provide for the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Santa Clarita, while allowing for the reasonable development of the hillside areas.” The Ordinance is intended to protect “the essential natural characteristics of the area such as major landforms, vegetation and wildlife communities, hydrologic features, scenic qualities and open space that contribute to a sense of place” and “maintain the identity, and environmental quality of the City.” The Ordinance applies to all proposed development projects on land with an average slope of 10 percent or greater. General requirements and/or design approaches given in the Ordinance are summarized below: • Assessment of geotechnical and soils conditions, including known faults and liquefaction • Identification of archaeological and paleontological resources, and documented or potential historical resources • Preparation of a soils and geologic report, Phase I investigation, and biological survey report City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-16 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR • Grading shall result in landforms that blend manufactured slopes into the natural topography • Maximum allowable density calculations and floor area ratios (may result in necessary reduction in density) • Site plan shall be designed to locate or cluster development in areas where slope is 25 percent or less (with exceptions); however, clustering of development in slope areas of 25 percent to 50 percent may be considered in limited locations. • Conform grading to the landform or character of existing topography • Building Style ‐The use of hillside adaptive architecture shall be incorporated into the design of individual custom lots in areas of thirty percent (30%) slope or greater. Structures should be set back a minimum of twenty feet from right‐ofway and a minimum of thirty feet from top of slope. • Minimum of 25% of the units should be single‐story when situated in public view from freeways, arterials, and major road spaces. Where two‐story units are utilized, the units shall be architecturally designed to expose only one story to public view. Other measures are provided to address architectural style and treatments, finish materials and color, fencing and privacy walls, ancillary structures, slope and landscape maintenance, retaining walls, and building height among other elements. Additional measures for hillside development are addressed in Chapter 17.28, Drainage and Terracing, as well as other Chapters of the Municipal Code. 7.5.2 IMPACT COMPARISON TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 7.5.2.1 Land Use and Planning The More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would not directly result in physical development within the hillside area that would affect or conflict with adopted land use plans or policies of the City of Bakersfield or other local or regional agencies. This Alternative would not create any potential inconsistencies with City or County land use policies, as the HD Zone would continue to act as an overlay zone, thereby allowing future development to occur consistent with that allowed by the underlying land use and zoning designations, or as otherwise approved by the City. In this regard, this Alternative is considered to be environmentally similar to the Project. 7.5.2.2 Agricultural Resources Under the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative, all affected lands within the HD Zone zoned for agricultural purposes would remain as such. However, as the number of potential residential units that could be constructed within the hillside areas would be further reduced as compared to the proposed Project, due to greater site design restrictions, a greater number of units would need to be accommodated elsewhere. As with the proposed Project, there is sufficient land within the Northeast Quadrant to accommodate the future construction of these City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-17 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR homes, and therefore, the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would not require the conversion of agricultural land to non‐agricultural uses to accommodate these homes. In this regard, this Alternative is considered environmentally similar to the Project. 7.5.2.3 Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Under the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative, the additional site design restrictions proposed would further reduce the number of homes that could potentially be constructed within the HD Zone, thereby also reducing potential sources of light and glare. In addition, future development would occur at a lower density along the hillsides, potentially allowing for improved views to and across the hillside areas from public vantage points. Greater lot design restrictions would also further minimize potential views of development along the hillsides, thereby providing greater protection of the City’s visual resources. In this regard, this Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.5.2.4 Traffic and Circulation The More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. However, this Alternative would likely result in a reduction in the potential number of residential units ultimately constructed within the HD Zone, due to increased site design restrictions. As such, fewer overall vehicle trips would be generated, thereby reducing resultant traffic along area roadways. In this regard, this Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.5.2.5 Noise Under the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative, the number of residential units that could potentially be constructed within the HD Zone would be reduced as compared to the Project, due to the more restrictive guidelines to regulate future hillside development. This in turn, could potentially reduce resulting future traffic volumes and associated vehicular noise over the long‐term, as well as noise generated by construction and from typical household activities. In this regard, this Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.5.2.6 Air Quality Under the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative, fewer homes would potentially be built within the hillside areas as compared to the proposed Project, as additional site design restrictions would likely further restrict areas that could be developed on lands within the HD Zone. As such, a potential reduction in overall traffic generated and the associated mobile and energy source emissions would likely occur, as compared to the proposed Project. In this regard, this Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.5.2.7 Biological Resources No physical development would occur within the HD Zone as the result of implementation of the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative. However, as greater development restrictions would be placed on lots within the HD Zone, it is likely that fewer residential units could be constructed in the future, thereby allowing a greater land area within individual ownerships in City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-18 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR the City’s hillside areas to remain undeveloped or undisturbed, as compared with that allowed under the Amended HD Ordinance. In addition, indirect impacts on biological resources associated with noise, human activity, etc. could also be reduced, as a lesser number of homes and/or residents would potentially be present within the hillside areas. In this regard, this Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.5.2.8 Cultural Resources It is anticipated that the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would reduce potential indirect effects on cultural resources, as a decrease in the land area that could potentially be disturbed would occur due to a reduction in the number of units that could potentially be constructed within the HD Zone. However, all future development within the City’s hillside areas would be subject to standard City environmental and design review on a site‐specific, specific, project‐by‐project basis to determine potential impacts to cultural resources and the appropriate means to reduce such impacts, as needed. This Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.5.2.9 Public Services and Utilities The More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would potentially result in the construction of fewer residential units within the HD Zone, thereby decreasing the potential future demand for public services and utilities within the City’s hillside areas. As such, the need for the extension of facilities, or the construction of new facilities, as well as demands placed on public services (i.e., police protection) would be reduced as compared to the proposed Project. In this regard, this Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.5.2.10 Geologic Resources and Natural Hazards Implementation of the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative could potentially expose fewer people and structures to adverse effects associated with seismic activity, activity, soils or geology, and wildfire, due to the anticipated decrease in the potential number of structures that could be constructed in the HD Zone, as compared to the proposed Project. In addition, more restrictive site design measures imposed by this Alternative would improve public safety and reduce the potential for harm or damage to be caused by such geologic risks or natural hazards. In this regard, this Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.5.2.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Implementation of the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would have the potential to reduce potential effects with regard to hydrology and water quality as compared to the Project. More stringent site design measures would protect a greater area of land within the hillside lots and reduce the amount of land that could be potentially disturbed by land development activities. Therefore, the potential for erosion and runoff resulting from land disturbance and construction of impervious surfaces would be reduced as compared to that which could occur under the Amended HD Ordinance. In this regard, this Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the Project. City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-19 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR 7.5.2.12 Population and Housing Although the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would not directly result in the construction of buildings or other improvements within the HD Zone, this Alternative could reduce the overall number of housing and/or residents occupying the HD Zone in the future by further restricting development within the City’s hillside areas. As such, although no significant impacts with regard to population and housing would occur with the proposed Project, this Alternative would represent a lesser potential for an increase in housing demand, population growth, or displacement of housing or people to occur in comparison. In this regard, this Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the Project. 7.5.2.13 Public Health and Safety As stated above, the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would potentially allow for the construction of a lesser number of residential units than than would the proposed Project, due to more restrictive design measures within the City’s hillside areas. As such, this Alternative may result in the exposure of fewer residents to conditions that may adversely affect public health or safety, such as exposure to hazardous materials or the risk of wildfire. As a more restrictive ordinance would provide additional design measures aimed at greater protection of public health and safety on lands within the hillsides, this Alternative would likely further restrict building in areas where soils are unsuitable or susceptible to slope failure, or require greater setbacks or brush clearing requirements to reduce the potential for damage caused by wildfire, among other measures. In this regard, the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the Project, as it would provide greater protection of public health and safety. However, impacts would be less than significant with regard to public health and safety, as would occur with the the proposed Project. All future development within the HD Zone would be required to comply with Federal, State and local standards and the City’s Municipal Code to ensure the overall health and safety of the general public was maintained. 7.5.3 ABILITY TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES Implementation of the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would fulfill the Project’s objectives. The More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would allow for a stricter hillside development ordinance to be prepared in order 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. In addition, this Alternative would allow for orderly and sensitive development at a density that respects and is reflective of the natural terrain, and would 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. The More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would also provide measures aimed at protecting the general public from the threat of wildfire. Although the Amended HD Ordinance includes provisions for wildland fire prevention, more restrictive measures would be provided by the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative. The More Stringent City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-20 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR Ordinance Alternative would also provide measures to protect the general public from hillside instability and to maximize the positive impacts of site design, grading, landscaping, and building design, consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. This Alternative could also be prepared to require that all future development within the HD Zone reduce water use in slope replanting and retention by integrating grading design that minimizes manufactured slopes, and that future development proposals maintain the integrity and natural characteristics of major landform, vegetation and wildlife communities, hydrologic features, scenic qualities, and open space. 7.5.4 CONCLUSION The More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would result in lesser environmental effects in the following areas: Aesthetics, Light, and Glare; Traffic and Circulation; Noise; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Public Utilities and Services; Geologic Resources and Natural Hazards; Hydrology and Water Quality; Population and Housing; and, Public Health and Safety. Effects relative to Land Use and Planning would be similar to that of the Project. It should be noted that implementation of the Amended HD Ordinance would not result in significant environmental impacts, as the Project would merely regulate future development of the hillsides within the HD Zone. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in the construction of buildings or land development activities within the City’s hillside areas. As such, although the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative would reduce the overall degree of indirect environmental effects that could result from the proposed Project, it would not actually reduce any significant environmental impacts as compared to those caused by the Project. As such, the More Stringent Ordinance Alternative is rejected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-21 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Draft EIR THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. City of Bakersfield January 2009 7.0-22 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 8.0-1 Section 8.0 Inventory of Mitigation Measures 8.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.), California CEQA Statutes and Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementation of CEQA, as adopted by the City. Under the provisions of CEQA, “the purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effect on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided” (Public Resource Code 21002.1(a)). The proposed Project consists of amendments to the Hillside Development Combining Zone [Chapter 17.66 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code, as adopted on November 15, 2006 (Amended Hillside Ordinance – Ordinance No. 4391)]. The Amended HD 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. As such, the Amended HD Ordinance is intended as a resource protection measure that amends the existing HD Zone requirements by creating slope and viewshed protection areas to restrict development on steep slopes and ridgelines. Section 21102.1 of CEQA requires that a Lead Agency neither approve nor carry out a project as it was initially proposed unless any significant environmental impacts that result from the proposal have been avoided, reduced to the greatest extent feasible, or mitigated (see CEQA Guidelines, §15091 and §15092). Section 21102.1 of CEQA also requires that decision‐makers balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks. Through preparation of this EIR, it has been determined that significant impacts would not result from implementation of the proposed Project. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines contains the Environmental Checklist form. The proposed Project has been evaluated using the issues presented in the Environmental Checklist as thresholds of significance to determine if significant environmental impacts would occur. Significant environmental impacts were not identified and, as a result, mitigation measures are not required to reduce such impacts. Impacts for each of the issue areas discussed in Chapter 5.0, Description of Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, would be less than significant with Project implementation. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 8.0 Inventory of Mitigation Measures Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 8.0-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 9.0-1 Section 9.0 Level of Significance After Mitigation 9.0 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 9.1 NONMITIGABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Section 21102.1 of CEQA requires that a Lead Agency neither approve nor carry out a project as it was initially proposed unless any significant environmental impacts that result from the proposal have been avoided, reduced to the greatest extent feasible, or mitigated (see CEQA Guidelines, §15091 and §15092). Section 21102.1 of CEQA also requires that decision‐makers balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks. If environmental impacts are identified as significant and unavoidable, the Lead Agency may still approve the proposed project if it believes that social, economic, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable impacts. The City would then be required to state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project, based on information in the EIR and other information in the administrative record. The document describing this reasoning is called, per §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a “Statement of Overriding Considerations.” Impacts for each of the issue areas are discussed in Chapter 5.0, Description of Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. The proposed Project was not found to result in significant and unavoidable impacts. As such, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would not be required. 9.2 MITIGABLE IMPACTS AND SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Through preparation of this EIR, it has been determined that significant impacts would not result from implementation of the proposed Project; refer to Chapter 5.0, Description of Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. As a result, mitigation measures are not required to reduce such impacts. Impacts would be less than significant with Project implementation for the issue areas described below. 9.2.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING No significant impacts with regard to Land Use and Relevant Planning have been identified. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. 9.2.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES No significant impacts with regard to Agricultural Resources have been identified. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 9.0 Level of Significance After Mitigation Draft EIR 9.2.3 AESTHETICS, LIGHT AND GLARE No significant impacts with regard to Aesthetics, Light and Glare have been identified. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. 9.2.4 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION No significant impacts with regard to Traffic and Circulation have been identified. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. 9.2.5 NOISE No significant impacts with regard to Noise have been identified. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. 9.2.6 AIR QUALITY No significant impacts with regard to Air Quality have been identified. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. 9.2.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No significant impacts with regard to Biological Resources have been identified. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. 9.2.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES No significant impacts with regard to Cultural Resources have been identified. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. 9.2.9 PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES No significant impacts with regard to Public Utilities and Services have been identified. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. 9.2.10 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES AND NATURAL HAZARDS No significant impacts with regard to Geologic Resources and Natural Hazards have been identified. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. 9.2.11 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY No significant impacts with regard to Hydrology and Water Quality have been identified. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. City of Bakersfield January 2009 9.0-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 9.0 Level of Significance After Mitigation Draft EIR 9.2.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING No significant impacts related to Population and Housing have been identified. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. 9.2.13 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY No significant impacts with regard to Public Health and Safety have been identified. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. City of Bakersfield January 2009 9.0-3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 9.0 Level of Significance After Mitigation Draft EIR THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. City of Bakersfield January 2009 9.0-4 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-1 Section 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant 10.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15128, this Section briefly describes the potential impacts found to be less than significant. In June 2008, the City of Bakersfield conducted an Initial Study (Appendix 13.3 of this EIR) to determine significant effects of the proposed Project. In the course of this evaluation, certain impacts of the Project were found to be less than significant because of the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. The effects determined not to be significant are not required to be included in primary analysis sections of the Draft EIR. However, many of the impacts found to be less than significant are also evaluated in greater detail in this EIR. A copy of the Initial Study is in Appendix 13.3, Initial Study /Notice of Preparation (NOP) /NOP Responses, of this EIR. 10.1 AESTHETICS, LIGHT AND GLARE a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Update EIR identifies the foothills and bluffs of northeast Bakersfield as scenic resources. The Amended HD 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 HD Ordinance is to protect scenic vistas and visual resources and provide safe hillside development. The Amended HD Ordinance includes the preservation of views 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 and Slope Protection Areas within the 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the intent of the Amended HD 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR Refer to Impact (a) discussion, above. 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? Significance: 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. The Amended HD Ordinance does not include regulations that address light and glare. However, no physical development would directly occur within the HD Zone with implementation of the Ordinance, and therefore, additional sources of light and/or glare within the Project area would not result. The General Plan provides goals and policies that would reduce the severity of potential aesthetic impacts associated with light and glare from new development. 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. Impacts resulting from light and glare are considered to be less than significant. 10.2 AIR QUALITY e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended HD Ordinance is an overlay zone that would regulate development in the City’s hillside areas, but does not otherwise affect development in the underlying zone. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. 10.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. No federally protected wetlands are known to occur within the area covered by the Amended HD Ordinance. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-2 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance lies within the MBHCP. The Amended HD Ordinance includes a provision to encourage future development design that will maintain the integrity and natural characteristics of wildlife communities and open space. However, no physical development would directly occur within the HD Zone with implementation of the Ordinance, and therefore, the Project would not interfere with wildlife movement or result in elements that would adversely affect wildlife corridors. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended HD Ordinance is a regulatory document that serves as an implementation tool to allow safe and attractive development in the City’s hillside areas. The Amended HD 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? Significance: 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 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 one‐time MBHCP habitat mitigation fee of $2,145 per gross acre is required. However, no physical development would directly occur within the HD Zone with implementation of the Ordinance. The Project would not change the underlying General Plan land use or zoning of lands within the HD Zone, nor would any of the measures included in the Ordinance conflict with the goals or policies of an adopted habitat conservation plan. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-3 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR 10.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The absence or presence of historic resources within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is not entirely known at this time; however, it is likely that Native American peoples historically traversed the general region. Nothing in the scope of the Amended HD Ordinance would negatively impact historic resources within the HD Zone because the purpose of the document is to regulate development to reduce impacts on the hillside area. No physical development would occur with Project implementation that would disturb or destroy potential historical resources within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance. 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan Update EIR, Hokan speaking Indians and Yokuts Indians were known to live within Northeast Bakersfield. Therefore, artifacts from these tribes may be present. Nothing in the scope of the Amended HD Ordinance would negatively impact archaeological resources within the HD Zone because the purpose of the document is to regulate development to reduce impacts on the City’s hillside areas. No physical development would occur with Project implementation that would disturb or destroy potential cultural resources within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan Update EIR, the area affected by the Amended HD 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.” The absence or presence of paleontological resources within the HD Zone is not entirely known at this time. Nothing in the scope of the Amended Hillside Ordinance would negatively impact paleontological resources within the HD Zone because the purpose of the document is to regulate development to reduce impacts on the City’s hillside areas. No physical development would occur with Project implementation that would disturb City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-4 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR or destroy potential paleontological resources within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. There are no known formal gravesites within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance, but the possibility still remains that human remains could be encountered during future 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 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. No physical development would occur with Project implementation that would disturb or destroy any known or unknown human remains within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. 10.5 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 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. Significance: 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. City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-5 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR The impact of earthquakes within the area affected by the Amended HD 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 degree of shaking that could occur within a given area. The two nearest fault systems to the Project area are the Kern Canyon and Breckenridge Faults. Future structures within the area affected by the Amended HD 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 HD 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. However, no physical development (i.e. residential units) would occur with Project implementation, and therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse geologic effects within the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response (a)(1), above. 3) Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? Significance: 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 Update 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. However, no physical development (i.e. residential units) would occur with Project implementation, and therefore, impacts relative to seismic ground failure would not result. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. 4) Landslides? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan Update 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 HD Ordinance is to reduce the risk of landslides City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-6 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR though various development standards. The Amended HD Ordinance would also serve to mitigate future safety concerns such as structures on the edge of or cantilevered over ridgelines, development on steep slopes, angular manufactured slopes, significant grading and erosion due to irrigation practices and broken pipes. However, no physical development (i.e., residential units) would occur with Project implementation, and therefore, impacts relative to landslides would not result. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Significance: 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 Update EIR, soils with high erodibility are located in the northeastern portion of the City. The Amended HD 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. The area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance would be subject to 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. However, no physical development or land disturbance activities would occur with Project implementation, and therefore, impacts relative to soil erosion would not result. 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‐or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses Responses (a)(1) and (a)(3), above. 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan Update EIR, the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is not known to be comprised of soils with a high potential for soil expansion. Future development within the HD Zone would be required to comply with the City Municipal Code and the California Building Code. However, no physical development (i.e. residential units) would occur with Project implementation, and therefore, impacts relative to expansive soils would not result. Impacts would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-7 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. A limited number of homes in the northeast area of the City use onsite septic tanks. However, all new development would be required to connect to the City’s public sewer systems. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. 10.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Significance: 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 area affected by the HD Zone is unlikely. Grading and construction activities associated with future development within areas affected by the Amended HD 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. Impacts would be less than significant. 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response (a) above. The Amended HD 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Seven schools are currently located within a ¼‐mile of the area affected by the HD Zone. The Amended HD Ordinance is not anticipated to result in emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-8 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The area affected by the Amended HD 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 associated with future development 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? Significance: No Impact. The area affected by the Amended HD 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? Significance: No Impact. The area affected by the Amended HD 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended HD 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 Amended HD Ordinance is a regulatory document that provides standards for development of the City’s hillsides. Therefore, nothing in the Amended HD 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-9 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR The Amended HD 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 HD Ordinance that would reduce potential wildfire hazards. The Amended HD 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, roads subject to fire department apparatus are required to have a minimum width and minimum height clearance. In addition, the Amended HD 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 other jurisdictions that participate in the mutual and automatic aid contracts would ensure that future wildland fires near the Project area would be controlled to the greatest extent feasible. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. 10.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended HD Ordinance encourages grading techniques that blend with the natural terrain, minimize earthmoving activities, and minimize visual impacts of large cut and fill slopes. In addition, the Ordinance includes provisions to reduce erosion on the face of slopes due to drainage and provides for the preservation of unique and significant natural landforms and ridgelines. Such measures would reduce the potential for future development within the HD Zone to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. 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 within the City would be required to implement structural and non‐structural, 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 be required by the City with all new development projects, as applicable. However, no physical development or land disturbance activities would occur with Project implementation. Therefore, impacts relative to water quality or waste discharge would not result. Impacts would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-10 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR 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)? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The Project 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, future development within the City is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to the groundwater supply. In addition, the Amended HD Ordinance encourages development design that reduces water use in slope replanting, and promotes grading that minimizes manufactured slopes. However, no physical development or land disturbance activities would occur with Project implementation. Therefore, impacts relative to groundwater supply or recharge would not result. Impacts would be less than significant. 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 offsite? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended HD Ordinance requires that a drainage concept report be prepared for all future development within the HD Zone that includes the hydrologic conditions of 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 HD 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. However, no physical City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-11 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR development or land disturbance activities would occur with Project implementation. Therefore, impacts relative to erosion would not result. 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 offsite? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response (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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended HD Ordinance requires that a drainage concept report be prepared for all future development within the HD Zone 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 future 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Stormwater quality is generally affected by the length of time since the last rainfall, intensity of rainfall, urban uses within an 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. Future development would require implementation of an approved and permitted SWPPP and completion of a drainage concept report required by the Amended HD Ordinance. However, no physical development or land disturbance activities would occur with Project implementation. Therefore, impacts relative to water quality would not result. Impacts would be 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The area subject to the Amended HD Ordinance is not located within a 100‐year flood hazard area. Less than significant impacts are anticipated in this regard. City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-12 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR h) Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response (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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The area affected by the Amended HD 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. All new development within the City would be required to comply with measures provided by the NFIP and FEMA. In addition, due to the elevation of lands subject to the Amended HD Ordinance, the Project area is not anticipated to experience flooding in a dam failure event. No significant impacts would occur. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The Kern River is located to the north of the area affected by the Amended HD 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 lands within the HD Zone. A mudslide, or mud or debris flow, involves only the top few feet of soil, but can sometimes occur with startling speed. Such events happen 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 HD 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 minimize the potential for erosion, and thus, the associated potential for mudflow to occur. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-13 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR 10.8 LAND USE AND RELEVANT PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community? Significance: 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 HD Ordinance would not divide the physical arrangement of a community, as the Amended HD Ordinance is a regulatory document that contains provisions for hillside development. The Project would not directly result in construction that would create a physical barrier or otherwise create a division of uses within the community. Impacts would be less than significant 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 adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended HD Ordinance is required to be consistent with the General Plan and is an amendment to the existing City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. No identified conflicts or inconsistencies with City policies or zoning regulations would result with Project implementation. Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The area covered by the Amended HD Ordinance is within the MBHCP area. No physical development or land disturbance activities would occur with Project implementation. No changes to the underlying General Plan land use or zoning designations would occur with the Project, and therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing goals or policies of an applicable habitat conservation plan. Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard. 10.9 MINERAL RESOURCES 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? Significance: 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 been located on the outskirts of the City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-14 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR City of Bakersfield’s developed area. However, with ongoing urbanization, oilproducing fields are converging with urban areas. The Amended HD 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 would not result in the loss of mineral resources. Impacts would be less than significant. 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response (a), above. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. 10.10 NOISE 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The existing acoustical environment within the HD Zone 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. The Project would not directly result in physical development within the HD Zone. As such, no structures would be built that would increase human exposure or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan or Noise Ordinance, Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Significance: 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 HD Ordinance would increase the exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration. No physical development or land disturbance activities would occur with Project implementation that would create a new source of noise, either from construction activities or from long‐term operation. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-15 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response (a), above. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response (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? Significance: No Impact. The area affected by the Amended HD 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 HD Ordinance would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. 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? Significance: No Impact. The Amended HD Ordinance is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The Amended HD Ordinance would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. 10.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Significance: No Impact. The Amended HD Ordinance would not directly result in physical development, and therefore, no existing homes within the HD Zone would be displaced. No significant impacts would occur in this regard. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Significance: No Impact. Refer to Response (b), above. City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-16 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR 10.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 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? Significance: 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 HD 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 HD 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 areas. The Amended HD Ordinance requires future development to maintain defensible apace around and adjacent to buildings/structur es through the removal and clearing away of all flammable vegetation or other combustible growth at a minimum of 30 feet on each side thereof or to the property line (whichever is nearer). However, no physical development (i.e. residential units) or land disturbance activities would occur with Project implementation that would require the provision of fire protection services. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. 2) Police protection? Significance: 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 HD 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 areas. However, no physical development (i.e. residential units) or land disturbance activities would occur with Project implementation that would require the provision of police protection services. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. 3) Schools? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Nothing in the scope of the Amended HD 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 areas. However, no physical development (i.e. residential units) or land disturbance activities would occur with City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-17 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR Project implementation that would require the provision of school services. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. 4) Parks? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Nothing in the scope of the Amended HD 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 areas. However, no physical development (i.e. residential units) or land disturbance activities would occur with Project implementation that would require the provision of parks or recreational services. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. 10.13 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response (a)(4), above. Impacts would be less than significant 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response (a)(4), above. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. 10.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 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)? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Nothing in the scope of the Amended HD Ordinance would cause an increase in traffic because the purpose of the document is to regulate development to reduce impacts on the hillside areas. No physical development (i.e. residential units) would occur with with Project implementation that would result in generation of vehicular traffic. Impacts would be less than significant 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response (a), above. City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-18 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR 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? Significance: No Impact. The boundary of the lands affected by the Amended HD Ordinance is not within the vicinity of any public airports or airstrips. In addition, the area affected by the HD Zone is not located within the approach or takeoff paths of an airport, and would therefore not affect such operations. No changes to air traffic patterns would occur. No significant impacts would result with the Project. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Future development of the area affected by the Amended HD Ordinance would result in a potential increase in the number of vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians present within the HD Zone. However, the Amended HD Ordinance would not change the density or intensity of uses allowed by the existing underlying zones. Future development would be subject to the design and safety standards of the City of Bakersfield. However, no physical development or land improvements would occur with Project implementation that would increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended HD 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. However, no physical development or land improvements would occur with Project implementation that would result in inadequate emergency access within the HD Zone. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. All future development would be required to meet City parking standards. No significant parking impacts specific to the Amended HD Ordinance have been identified. City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-19 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The Amended HD Ordinance would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. 10.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Significance: 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 which is funded by sewer service charges and connection fees. Nothing in the scope of the Amended HD Ordinance would cause an increase the amount of wastewater produced in the hillside areas because the purpose of the Ordinance is to regulate future development in order to reduce potential environmental impacts relative to aesthetics and public safety. Impacts would be less than significant 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Bakersfield Public Works Department, Wastewater Division, includes two wastewater treatment plants and a 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 HD Ordinance would cause an increase the amount of wastewater produced in the hillside areas because the purpose of the Ordinance is to regulate future development in order to reduce potential environmental impacts. No physical development or land improvements would occur with Project implementation that would require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-20 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR 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? Significance: 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 runoff from private lands into its drainage system, as long as adequate downstream facilities are in place. Nothing in the scope of the Amended HD Ordinance would cause an increase the amount of stormwater runoff produced in the hillside areas because the purpose of the Ordinance is to regulate future development in order to reduce potential environmental impacts. No physical development or land improvements would occur with Project implementation that would require or or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant 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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response (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? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response (a), above. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. The 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 HD Ordinance would not significantly affect existing solid waste facilities. No physical development or land improvements would occur with Project implementation that would generate solid waste or the need for landfill facilities. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-21 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 10.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant Draft EIR g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Significance: Less Than Significant Impact. Nothing in the scope of the Amended HD 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. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. City of Bakersfield January 2009 10.0-22 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 11.0-1 Section 11.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted 11.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 11.1 LEAD AGENCY CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Mr. James D. Movius, Planning Director Mr. Martin Ortiz, Principal Planner Mr. Jameson Saberon, Associate Planner 11.2 PREPARERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RBF CONSULTING 2101 Arena Boulevard, Suite 250 Sacramento, California 95834 Mr. Bruce R. Grove, Jr., REA, Project Manager Ms. Nicole Marotz, AICP, LEED AP, Environmental Planner Ms. Jennifer Donovan, Environmental Planner Ms. Monica Kling, Environmental Analyst Ms. Kimberly Camacho, LEED AP, Project Planner Ms. Hilary Ellis, Word Processor 11.3 CONTRIBUTING CONSULTANTS INSIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 5500 Ming Avenue, Suite 360 Bakersfield, California 93309‐4693 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 11.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 11.0-2 11.4 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 11.4.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA California Resource Agency Bureau of Land Management Department of Conservation Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Water Resources California Department of Fish and Game Region 4 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection California Division of Aeronautics Native American Heritage Commission Department of Transportation District 06 Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region State Clearinghouse 11.4.2 PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED Bakersfield Parks & Recreation Dept Allen Abe 1600 Truxtun Ave Bakersfield CA 93301 Bakersfield Fire Department Ron Fraze 2101 H Street Bakersfield CA 93301 Bakersfield Police Dept Bill Rector 1601 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield CA 93301 Bakersfield Public Works Marian Shaw 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield CA 93301 93301 Bakersfield Public Works Traffic Engineering Steve Walker 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield CA 93301 Bakersfield Water Resources Steve Choate 1000 Buena Vista Road Bakersfield CA 93311 Bakersfield Public Works Kevin Barnes ‐Solid Waste 4101 Truxtun Ave Bakersfield CA 93309 Development Services Phil Burns 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield CA 93301 Bakersfield City Clerk Councilmember Weir 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield CA 93301 Resource Manage Agency Planning Department 2700 M Street Ste 100 Bakersfield CA 93301 Kern County Public Works Roads Dept 2700 M Street Bakersfield CA 93301 Kern County Waste Mgmt 2700 M Street Suite 500 Bakersfield CA 93301 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 11.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 11.0-3 Kern Co Fire Department 5642 Victor Street Bakersfield CA 93308 Law Library 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield CA 93301 Beale Library 701 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield CA 93301 Southwest Library 8301 Ming Ave Bakersfield CA 93311 Kern COG 1401 19th Street Ste 300 Bakersfield CA 93301 LAFCO 5300 Lennox Ave, Ste 303 Bakersfield CA 93309 Hector Guerra Sr Air Quality Planner San Joaquin Valley APCD 1990 Gettysburg Ave Fresno CA 93726 Cal State Bakersfield Arch Info Center 9001 Stockdale Highway Bakersfield CA 93311 Golden Empire Transit 1830 Golden State Ave Bakersfield CA 93301 North of River Sanitary Dist #1 204 Universe Avenue Bakersfield CA 93308 Bakersfield City School Dist Michael Lingo 1300 Baker Street Bakersfield CA 93305 Superintendent of Schools Attn Mary Baker 1300 17th Street Bakersfield CA 93301 Kern High School District 5801 Sundale Ave Bakersfield CA 93309 Southern CA Gas Co Attn Homer Garza 1510 North Chester Ave Bakersfield CA 93308 So CA Edison – Electrical Tower 2425 S Blackstone Street Tulare CA 93274‐6953 Lisa Salinas/Sl So California Edison 14799 Chestnut Street Westminster CA 92683 Doug Snyder Land Serv PG &E 1918 H Street Bakersfield CA 93301 California Water Service 3725 South H Street Bakersfield CA 93304 Bill Nations Engineering Manager SBC California 4540 California Ave Ste 400 Bakersfield CA 93309 Kern Community College 2100 Chester Avenue Bakersfield CA 93301 Bright House Networks 3701 N Sillect Ave Bakersfield CA 93312 Bakersfield College 1801 Panorama Drive Bakersfield CA 93305 HBA PO Box 1848 Bakersfield CA 93303‐1848 State Clearinghouse PO Box 3044 Sacramento CA 95812‐3044 Fish & Game 1234 E Shaw Ave Fresno CA 93726 California Geological Survey Div of Mines/Geology 801 K Street Sacramento CA 95814 Joyce Jaszarowski Division of Oil & Gas 4800 Stockdale Hwy Ste 417 Bakersfield CA 93309 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 11.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 11.0-4 CA Regional Water Quality Control Board 1685 E Street Fresno CA 93706‐2007 Caltrans Lisa Zito Office Trans & Planning P O Box 12616 Fresno CA 93778 Smart Growth Coalition of Kern County 441 Vineland Road Bakersfield CA 93307 CA Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall #364 Sacramento CA 95814 Santa Rosa Rancheria Clarence Atwell, Chair PO Box 8 Lemoore CA 93245 Tule River Indian Tribe Neal Peyron, Chair PO Box 589 Porterville CA 93258 Water Resources 1416 Ninth St Room 449 Sacramento CA 95814 Kern Valley Indian Council Robert Robinson PO Box 401 Weldon CA 93283 Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians Delia Domínguez 981 N Virginia Covina CA 91722 Tejon Indian Tribe Kathy Morgan, Chair 2234 4th Street Wasco CA 93280 Chumash Council of Bakersfield James R Leon, Chair PO Box 902 Bakersfield CA 93302 Calif Dept of Forestry & Fire Protection Resource Management PO PO Box 944246 Sacramento CA 94244‐2460 County Clerk County of Kern 1115 Truxtun Ave Bakersfield CA 93301 Tabatulabals of Kern Valley Donna Begay, Chair PO Box 226 Lake Isabella CA 93240 Sierra Club Gordon Nipp PO Box 3357 Bakersfield CA 93385 BLM Caliente Resource Dist 800 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield CA 93301 Jake Sweeney City of Shafter 336 Pacific Avenue Shafter CA 93263 County Administration Office Attn: Adel Klein 1115 Truxtun Ave Bakersfield CA 93301 Kern County Li‐Library Attn: Diane Duquette 701 Truxtun Ave Bakersfield CA 93301 Robert L Gomez Jr 2619 Driller Avenue Bakersfield CA 93306 Tehachapi Indian Tribe Attn: Charlie Cooke 32835 Santiago Road Acton CA 93510 Soil Conservation Service 1601 New Stine Road #270 Bakersfield CA 93309‐4794 US Dept of Interior Fish and Wildlife Office 2800 Cottage Way Rm W‐2605 Sacramento CA 95825 Kern Audubon Society PO Box 3581 Bakersfield CA 93385‐3581 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 11.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 11.0-5 Kern Parkway Committee Rich O’Neil 208 Los Nietos Court Bakersfield CA 93309 Nor Rec and Park District 405 Galaxy Avenue Bakersfield CA 93308 Gabrielle De Gange Southern California Edison Local Public Affairs P.O. Box 800 Rosemead, CA 91770‐0800 11.5 COMMENTS RECEIVED 11.5.1 COMMENTING AGENCIES NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Dave Singleton, Program Analyst SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 1990 East Gettysburg Avenue Fresno, CA 93726 Contact: Maya H. Garcia STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION ‐DIVISION OF GAS AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES 4800 Stockdale Highway, Suite 417 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Contact: Daniel J. Tuttle, Senior Oil and Gas Engineer 11.5.2 COMMENTING PUBLIC KERN AUDUBON SOCIETY P.O. Box 3581 Bakersfield, CA 93385 Contact: Harry Love, Conservation Committee Chair NORTH OF THE RIVER – RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT 405 Galaxy Avenue Bakersfield, CA 9308 Contact: Colon G. Bywater, Planning and Construction Director Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 11.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 11.0-6 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14799 Chestnut Street Westminster, CA 92683 Contact: Steven D. Lowry, Title and Real Estate Services TEJON INDIAN TRIBE – CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TEAM 201 Warren Street Taft, CA 93268 Contact: Gloria Morgan CARLA ROMESBERG 13201 Pergola Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93314 J. SHINFLEW 6317 Derby Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93306 DANIEL VAUGHN 3429 Meadow Vista Court, Bakersfield, CA 93306 11.5.3 OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF KERN Metropolitan Division Administrative Record Case No. S‐1500‐CV‐259731, LPE Volumes 1‐6, Filed December 14, 2006 Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 12.0-1 Section 12.0 Bibliography 12.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Air Quality Impact Analysis. Amended Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance, Insight Environmental Consultants, October 2008. California Department of Food and Agriculture. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics.html. California Farmland Conversion Report, State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2002‐2004. Census 2000, United States Census Bureau Website: http://censtats.census. gov/pub/Profiles.html 2002 Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/index.asp. CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, Office of Planning and Research, 2002. City of Bakersfield, CEQA Implementation Procedures. City of Bakersfield. City of Bakersfield, Draft Housing Element of the General Plan, 2008‐2013. April 10, 2008. City of Bakersfield, Housing Element of the General Plan, 2002‐2007. Adopted January 2003. City of Bakersfield Municipal Code, Title 17, Zoning. City of Bakersfield, March 1995. City of Bakersfield, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Update, Stetson Engineers Inc., November 2007. City of Bakersfield Website: www.ci.bakersfield.ca.us/. County of Kern Website: www.co.kern.ca.us/. Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit Website: http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Estimates/E5/E5‐ 06/E‐5text2.asp. Initial Study/Environmental Checklist for Hillside Development Combining Zone, Ordinance No. 4391, Amended Hillside Ordinance, RBF Consulting, Prepared June 2008. Kern County 2000 Regional Transportation Plan. County of Kern, 2000. Hillside Development Combining Zone Ordinance Update 12.0 Bibliography Draft EIR City of Bakersfield January 2009 12.0-2 2006 Kern County Agricultural Crop Report. Department of Agricultural and Measurement Standards. Kern County General Plan. County of Kern, March 1, 1982 (revised 1990). Kern County Sheriff’s Department Website: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/sheriff/index.html Kern County Waste Management Department: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/wmd/The Kern River Plan Element, An Integral Part of the City of Bakersfield General Plan and the Kern County General Plan, July 1985. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, December 2002. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report, RBF Consulting, Certified June 2002. Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. City of Bakersfield, April 1994. State of California Employment Development Department Website, Labor Market Information Division; www.calmis.ca.gov. Traffic Study, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change – Morning Drive and Paladino Drive (The Canyons), Bakersfield, California, Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers, April 2007. U.S. Department of Agriculture – National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://www.nass.usda.gov. United States Environmental Protection Agency ‐Municipal Solid Waste, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non‐hw/muncpl/facts.htm.