Design Consultant Agreement_Parsons_HSR
pending review by the federal government and were published in the Federal Register on April 1, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 14824), and are to be provided online at www.FederalRegister.gov. The additional requirements will be added to this Agreement by amendment.
50. REPRINTS OF PUBLICATIONS.
50.1 Whenever an employee of a DESIGN CONSULTANT-related entity writes an article regarding the Project, or otherwise resulting from Work under this Agreement, that is published in a scientific, technical, or professional journal or publication, the DESIGN CONSULTANT shall ensure that the Authority is sent two reprints of the publication, clearly referenced with the appropriate identifying information.
50.2 An acknowledgment of FRA support and a disclaimer must appear in any publication, whether copyrighted or not, based on or developed under the Agreement, in the following terms:
50.3 “This material is based upon work supported by the Federal Railroad Administration under a grant/cooperative agreement FR-HSR-0009- 10-01-05, dated December 5, 2012. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Federal Railroad Administration and/or U.S. DOT.”
51. LABOR PROVISIONS. 49 U.S.C. 24405, subdivision (b) provides that any person conducting rail operations over rail infrastructure constructed or improved in whole or in part with funds provided through this Agreement shall be considered a “rail carrier,” as defined by 49 U.S.C. 10102, subdivision (5), for the purposes of Title 49, U.S.C., and any other statue that adopts that definition or in which that definition applies, including the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. § 231 et seq.), the Railway Labor Act (43 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.), and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. 351 et seq.). To the extent required by 49 U.S.C. 24405, subdivision (b) and other laws referenced above, the Contractor shall reflect these provisions in its agreements funded in whole or in part by this Agreement with entities operating rail services over such rail infrastructure.
52. LABOR PROTECTIVE ARRANGEMENTS. The DESIGN CONSULTANT will comply with the applicable protective arrangements established under section 504 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4R Act), ___________________________________________________________________________
Design Consultant Agreement_Parsons_HSR
45 U.S.C. 836. with respect to employees affected by actions taken in connection with the Project. The DESIGN CONSULTANT will also include the applicable protective arrangements established by the U.S. DOL under 45 U.S.C. 836 in its arrangements with entities operating rail services over rail infrastructure constructed as part of this Agreement.
53. PROHIBITION OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS. The DESIGN CONSULTANT agrees that during the term of this Agreement, in accordance with section 106(g) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, as amended (22 U.S.C. section 7104(g)), the DESIGN CONSULTANT and its employees, and its Subcontractors (of any tier), and all of their employees, shall not engage in severe forms of trafficking in persons, procure a commercial sex act, or use forced labor in the performance of this Agreement.
This provision must be included in all Subcontract agreements.
54. PROHIBITION OF TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING. The DESIGN CONSULTANT agrees to adopt and enforce workplace safety policies to decrease crashes caused by distracted drivers, including policies that bar text messaging while driving company-owned, leased, or rented vehicles or privately-owned vehicles when performing work under this Agreement. See Executive Order 13513 “Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging While Driving,” Oct. 1, 2009 (available at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-10-06/pdf/E9-24203.pdf) and DOT 3902.10 “Text Messaging While Driving,” Dec. 30, 2009, as implemented by Financial Assistance Policy Letter (No. FAP-2019-01, Feb. 2, 2010, available at http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/FAPL_2010-01.pdf.
55. NOTICES. All notices relative to this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be personally served or sent by certified or registered mail and be effective upon actual personal service or depositing in the United States mail. The parties shall be addressed as follows, or at any other address designated by notice:
CITY: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
CITY HALL
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
___________________________________________________________________________
Design Consultant Agreement_Parsons_HSR
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
By:
ZACHARY MEYER
Public Works Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:
VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy District Attorney
Insurance: __________
COUNTERSIGNED:
By:
RANDY MCKEEGAN
Finance Director
Attachments: Exhibit A: Request for Qualifications and Fee Proposal Exhibit B: Response to Request for Qualifications
Request for Qualification/ Proposals (RFQ/P)
Engineering Design Review, Plan Check, And Engineering Inspection Services For City Infrastructure Affected by California High-Speed Rail Issued: Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Due: Tuesday, May 06, 2025 by 5:00pm
Contact:
Roel Jaime
Public Works Department
[email protected]
661-326-3725
EXHIBIT A: RFQ/P
Contents
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 3 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SCOPE................................................................................... 3 III. INQUIRIES ............................................................................................................................ 4 IV. RFP/Q SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................... 4 V. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................ 4 VI. SCORING CRITERIA............................................................................................................ 8 VII. SELECTION OF CONSULTANT.......................................................................................... 8 VIII. FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................................. 9 IX. SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSAL............................................................................................ 15 X. SOLICITATION CAVEAT.................................................................................................. 15 XI. APPENDIX A: SIGNATURE PAGE................................................................................... 17 XII. APPENDIX B: CONSULTANT SAMPLE AGREEMENT ................................................ 18 XIII. APPENDIX C: PROJECT VISUAL.................................................................................... 32 I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Bakersfield (“City”) is seeking qualified engineering firms to provide engineering design review, plan check, and engineering inspection services for infrastructure affected by the high speed-rail project. To construct the HSR corridor on the proposed track alignment, numerous City facilities will have to be relocated or modified. These facilities include: traffic signal modifications, street lighting, sewer, water, street reconstruction or realignments, striping, bridge structures, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Throughout this RFQ/P, the term “City” applies to the City of Bakersfield. This Project is Federally funded, and Federal regulations will apply.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SCOPE
The California High-Speed Rail Authority proposes to construct a dedicated high-speed rail corridor through the City of Bakersfield. The Bakersfield High-Speed Rail Locally Generated Alternative (LGA) is located entirely in Kern County, and within the cities of Shafter and Bakersfield. The preferred alternative alignment included in the 2018 and 2019 Environmental Documents begins at the southern limit of high-speed rail Construction Package 4 at Poplar Avenue in the City of Shafter. The track alignment follows BNSF alignment south through the City of Shafter and then turns east at Riverside Street. The alignment then follows the future Northern Beltway corridor in Kern County and spans the Friant-Kern Canal, turning south as it approaches Union Pacific Railroad corridor. The southern-most half of the LGA alignment is primarily on viaduct structure for approximately 6.43 miles into the City of Bakersfield as it crosses the Kern River and ends at the Bakersfield high-speed rail station at F Street and SR204. Total project length is approximately 18.48 miles.
Services will include on-call engineering plan review services as requested by the City on all of the specialties described above. Assignment of plan check duties to the consultant will occur as needed through a task order process. Services will also include on-call engineering inspection services during construction of City of Bakersfield infrastructure. The engineering inspection work will include traffic control approval and inspection, verification of required permits, and inspection of construction operations to verify compliance with Public Works Standards.
Compensation for the agreement between the City of Bakersfield and the awarded firm will be based on an hourly rate contract. The City anticipates an annual budget ranging from $80,000 to $150,000 for this undertaking.
Anticipated Project Time Frame [Subject to Change]: 07/2025 - 08/2026.
III. INQUIRIES
All questions concerning the submittal of proposals, the City's review and evaluation of the proposals, and the City's selection of a Consultant for this Project must be submitted by e-mail, at least 7 calendar days before the proposals are due, to:
Public Works Department
1501 Truxtun Avenue,
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Attention: Paul Archer, Civil Engineer IV
[email protected]
661-326-3350
IV. RFP/Q SCHEDULE
RFP/Q SCHEDULE (SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
Distribution of RFQ............................................................ 04/15/25 Closing Date for RFQ......................................................... 05/06/25 Notification of Short List Selection ................................... 05/27/25 Interviews (Subject to Scoring Committee) ........06/09/25-06/12/25 Tentative Council Award ................................................... 07/09/25 V. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
To ensure consistency and conformity in reviewing proposals for the Project, all submitted proposals must adhere to the following criteria. Bidders who do not conform to the following requirements may be deemed as unresponsive.
A. General Formatting and Submission Requirements
a. Formatting
i. Minimum 11-point Arial font.
ii. 8.5 x 11-inch paper, single-sided printing.
iii. Margins: minimum 0.5 inches.
iv. Charts and schedules may use 11 x 17-inch format but must be folded to fit 8.5 x 11 inches.
v. Pages numbered consecutively throughout the proposal. b. Binding
i. Proposals must be bound and shall not exceed 7 pages, excluding:
1. Dividers (must contain no information).
2. Transmittal/Cover Letter (maximum 1 page).
3. Staff Resumes
4. General Information Sheet.
5. Sample Consultant Contract with Attachments.
c. Submission Details
i. Address proposals to:
Paul Archer
City of Bakersfield, Public Works
1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301
d. Proposals must contain the information requested below and be organized in the following order:
B. Qualifications and Proposal
i. Transmittal/Cover Letter
1. Proposals shall be addressed to
a. Paul Archer, City of Bakersfield, Public Works, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301.
b. Include the name, title, address, and telephone number of the person that the City may contact regarding the proposal throughout the period of evaluation.
c. Acknowledgement of receipt of any addenda shall be made in the Transmittal/Cover Letter.
d. Letter must be signed by the Proposer’s corporate principal with contractual responsibility to bind the Proposer to the terms of the agreement.
ii. Project Team Personnel/Experience
1. This section shall include:
a. Name and experience of the Project Manager who will be assigned to this project. The Project Manager shall, in addition to meeting the minimum qualifications as required for a construction inspector as shown in Item “1c” in this Section below, be a Registered Civil Engineer in the State of California with at least five years of experience as a Project Manager / Resident Engineer / Design Lead.
b. Name and experience of the inspector(s) and plan reviewers who will be assigned to this project.
c. Minimum Qualifications that must be met by individual(s) who will be assigned to inspect the construction or review plans are as follows:
i. Three years of experience as a construction
inspector or assistant construction inspector or plan
checking on public works projects.
ii. Full working knowledge of the State of California
Department of Transportation, Standard
Specifications (2024), City of Bakersfield Local
Development Standards and Details, and the
Subdivisions and Engineering Design Manual
iii. Full working knowledge of construction practices
for roadways and freeways. Individuals should be
familiar with “Caltrans Standard Plans”, “Bridge
Design Manual” and “Construction Manual”.
iv. Full working knowledge of utility relocation
process and procedures.
v. Capable of preparing comprehensive and legible
daily reports.
vi. Knowledgeable in reading construction documents
and in interpreting construction survey staking.
2. The Project Manager and inspectors of the Proposer's team and the key personnel who will be providing engineering services for the Project along with the firm they work for must be identified on an Organization Chart that has a tab for easy reference by reviewers.
3. The resumes for personnel in this section shall not exceed one page each. Resumes should include a listing in tabular form that contains previous project experience that most closely relates to the type and scope of work for this RFQ/RFP. The list should contain, at a minimum, the following information:
a. Project title, location, owner, and description, including length and estimated cost of the project.
b. The duties, tasks, and work performed by the team member on the listed project.
c. The date(s) that the experience was obtained.
d. The name of the firm under which the team member
performed the services.
e. The name of the firm primarily responsible for the project. iii. Team Organization/ Partner Firm Experience
This section should include a brief description of the Engineering Design Review/Plan Checking team. In addition, this section of the proposal should include:
1. It is expected that the Proposer shall be performing at least 50 percent of the total scope of work.
2. A listing of experience of the Proposer and other team member firms of Design Review/Plan Checking services most closely related to the scope of work for the Project, and for which services have been provided within the past 10 years. The list should include at least three different clients and should provide the following information for each project
a. Listing of client references associated with completed projects would be desirable;
b. Firm name/organization under which services were
provided to the listed project (i.e., if Proposer or team member has recently merged, purchased, or otherwise
joined with another firm who had actually performed the work for the listed project, then list that former firm's name);
c. Nature of Proposer's or team member firm’s
responsibilities, duties, tasks, and involvement in the project;
d. Name of personnel who provided the services to the listed project, the duties they performed, and indicate in bold font personnel who are also proposed to provide services for the Project for this RFQ/RFP.
3. A minimum of three references should be given for the Proposer.
The references listed should involve the project for which Proposer has provided comparable services to those in this RFQ/RFP. The City of Bakersfield reserves the right to review and utilize the information provided in the references section solely for evaluation purposes and is not obligated to contact or otherwise engage with the listed references as part of the evaluation process. References should include the following information:
a. Name, address, and telephone number of the project
owner/client and the name of a contact person;
b. Name, address, and telephone number of Proposer's client (if different from the project owner) and the name of a contact person.
c. Description of the work conducted and achievements
related to the project.
4. Capacity of key staff and anticipated turn-around times for typical plan sets.
a. Proposers should demonstrate their ability to manage workloads and meet deadlines effectively. This section
should include:
i. A detailed description of the capacity of key staff, including their availability and ability to handle the
anticipated workload.
ii. Estimated turn-around times for reviewing typical
plan sets, supported by past performance or metrics.
iv. Claims History
This section shall also include a list of the Proposer's claims history since January 1, 2020:
1. List all claims, demands for arbitration, and/or lawsuits filed by the Proposer, predecessor companies, or company officers against project owners or their agents. This list shall include the following information for each claim:
a. Name of project owner;
b. Project completion date;
c. Basis for claim;
d. Claim or suit amount;
e. Current status; and
f. Award or Settlement amount.
2. List all claims, demands for arbitration, and/or lawsuits filed by project owners, their agents, or subconsultants against the Proposer, predecessor companies, its agents, or bonding company in connection with the Proposer, its officers, its agents, or bonding company. This list shall include the following information for each claim:
a. Name of project owner;
b. Project completion date;
c. Basis for claim;
d. Claim or suit amount;
e. Current status; and
f. Award or Settlement amount.
v. Rate Schedule
Provide a comprehensive schedule of hourly rates for all personnel and positions assigned to this project, including, but not limited to, project managers, inspectors, and plan checkers.
vi. Signature Page
vii. Signed Consultant Sample Agreement
VI. SCORING CRITERIA
Project Manager Availability and Experience 15 pts
Inspectors and Plan Reviewers' Experience 40 pts
Project Team Experience 10 pts
Familiarity with State and City of Bakersfield Local Standards and Processes 15 pts References 10 pts
Proposed Plan Turnaround Time/Sample Project Timeline 10 pts Total 100 pts
VII. SELECTION OF CONSULTANT
Following the review of proposals submitted by interested firms, the City may, at its sole discretion, develop a shortlist of the most qualified firms for interviews. The City reserves the right to forego the interview process and proceed directly with negotiations with the highest-ranked firm. If an agreement cannot be reached with the top-ranked firm, the City may initiate negotiations with the next-ranked firm, continuing this process until an agreement is reached or the City determines otherwise. The City further reserves the right to award the project to a Consultant, perform the work using City staff, or opt not to award the project to any Consultant.
VIII. FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
FRA Requirements
This contract is subject to a financial assistance contract between the City of Bakersfield and the California High-Speed Rail Authority, which requires that this contract contain the following clauses:
1. Federal Requirements
The Consultant understands that the Authority has received Federal funding from the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) for the Project and acknowledges that it is required to comply with all applicable federal laws, regulations, policies, and related administrative practices, whether or not they are specifically referenced herein. The Consultant acknowledges that federal laws, regulations, policies, and related administrative practices may change and that such changed requirements will apply to the Project. The Consultant shall ensure compliance by its subconsultants and include appropriate flow-down provisions in each of its lower-tier subcontracts as required by applicable federal laws, regulations, policies and related administrative practices, whether or not specifically referenced herein.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, all FRA mandated terms shall be deemed to control in the event of a conflict with other provisions contained in this Agreement. The Consultant shall not perform any act, fail to perform any act, or refuse to comply with any City requests, which would cause the City to be in violation of FRA requirements.
2. Compliance with Federal Requirements
The Consultant’s failure to comply with Federal Requirements shall constitute a breach of this Agreement.
3. Non-Discrimination Clause
The Consultant, subrecipient, or subconsultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin in the performance of this contract. The Consultant shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26.13(b) in the award and administration of DOT assisted contracts.
Failure by the Consultant to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as the Authority deems appropriate.
4. Lobbying
The prospective participant certifies, by signing and submitting this bid or proposal, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
A. No State or Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
B. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions.
C. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
D. The prospective participant also agrees by submitting his or her bid or proposal that he or she shall require that the language of this certification be included in all lower tier subcontracts, which exceed $100,000 and that all such subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
4. Environmental Protection
The Consultant and any subconsultant under this Agreement shall comply with all applicable environmental requirements and regulations, including any amendments, as follows:
A. Clean Air
The Consultant agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq . The Consultant agrees to report each violation to the City and understands and agrees that the City will, in turn, report each violation as required to assure notification to FRA and the appropriate EPA Regional Office.
B. Clean Water
The Consultant agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq .
The Consultant agrees to report each violation to the City and understands and agrees that the City will, in turn, report each violation as required to assure notification to FRA and the appropriate EPA Regional Office.
C. Energy Conservation
The Consultant agrees to comply with mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the State energy conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6421 et seq.) D. Agreement Not To Use Violating Facilities
The Consultant agrees not to use any facility to perform work hereunder that is listed on the List of Violating Facilities maintained by the EPA. The Consultant shall promptly notify the City if the Consultant, or any subconsultant receives any communication from the EPA indicating that any facility which will be used to perform work pursuant to this Agreement is under consideration to be listed on the EPA’s List of Violating Facilities; provided, however, that the Consultant’s duty of notification hereunder shall extend only to those communications of which it is aware, or should reasonably have been aware.
E. Environmental Protection
The Consultant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.
F. Incorporation of Provisions
The Consultant shall include the above provisions (1) through (6) in every subcontract hereunder exceeding $50,000 financed in whole or in part with federal assistance provided by the FRA.
5. ARRA Funded Project
Funding for this Agreement has been provided through the America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, Pub. L. 111-5. All Consultants, including both prime and subconsultants, are subject to audit by appropriate federal or State of California (State) entities. The State has the right to cancel, terminate, or suspend the Agreement if any Consultant or subconsultant fails to comply with the reporting and operational requirements contained herein.
6. Wage Rate Requirements
Payment of prevailing wages on the Project is required by 49 U.S.C. 24405(c)(2) and ARRA section 1606. For Project components that use or would use rights-of-way owned by a railroad, the Consultant shall comply with the Provisions of 49 U.S.C. 24312. For these purposes, wages in collective bargaining agreements negotiated under the Railway Labor Act are deemed to comply with Davis-Bacon Act requirements. For Project components that do not use or would not use rights-of-way owned by a railroad, the Consultant will comply with the provisions of 40 U.S.C 3141 et seq.
7. Inspection of Records
In accordance with ARRA Sections 902, 1514 and 1515, Consultant agrees that it shall permit the State of California, the United States Comptroller General, the United States Department of Transportation Secretary, or their representatives or the appropriate Inspector General appointed under Section 3 or 8G of the United States Inspector General Act of 1978 or his representative to:
A. Examine any records that directly pertain to, and involve transactions relating to, this Agreement; and
B. Interview any officer or employee of Consultant or any of its subconsultants regarding the activities funded with funds appropriated or otherwise made available by the ARRA.
Consultant shall include this provision in all of the Consultant’s agreements with its subconsultants from whom the Consultant acquires goods or services in it execution of the ARRA funded work.
8. Reporting Requirements
Pursuant to Section 1512 of the ARRA, in order for state agencies receiving ARRA funds to prepare the required reports, Consultant agrees to provide the City with the following information on a monthly (quarterly) basis:
A. The total amount of ARRA funds received by Consultant during the Reporting Period;
B. The amount of ARRA funds that were expended or obligated during the Reporting Period;
C. A detailed list of all projects or activities for which ARRA funds were expended or obligated, including:
1. The name of the project or activity;
2. A description of the project activity;
3. An evaluation of the completion status of the project or activity; and
4. An estimate of the number of jobs created and/or retained by the project or activity;
D. For any contracts equal to or greater than $25,000:
1. The name of the entity receiving the contract;
2. The amount of the contract;
3. The transaction type;
4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code or Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number;
5. The Program source;
6. An award title descriptive of the purpose of each funding action;
7. The location of the entity receiving the contract;
8. The primary location of the contract, including the city, state, congressional district and county;
9. The DUNS number, or name and zip code for the entity headquarters;
10. A unique identifier of the entity receiving the contract and the parent entity of Consultant, should the entity be owned by another; and
11. The names and total compensation of the five most highly compensated officers of the company if received:
i. 80% or more of its annual gross revenues in Federal awards; ii. $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenue from Federal awards and;
iii. If the public does not have access to information about the compensation of senior executives through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or section 6104 of Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
E. For any contract of less than $25,000 or to individuals, the information required above may be reported in the aggregate and requires the certification of an authorized officer of Consultant that the information contained in the report is accurate.
F. Any other information reasonably requested by the State of California or required by state or federal law or regulation.
Standard data elements and federal instruction for use in complying with reporting requirements under Section 1512 of the ARRA, are pending review by the federal government, and were published in the Federal Register on April 1, 2009 [74 FR 14824], and are to be provided online at www.FederalRegister.gov. The additional requirements will be added to this Agreement(s).
9. Civil Rights
The following requirements apply to this Agreement:
A. Nondiscrimination:
In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, Section 303 of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended; 42 U.S.C. § 6102, Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; 42 U.S.C. § 12132; and 49 U.S.C. § 306, the Consultant agrees that it will not discriminate against any individual because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age or disability in any activities leading up to or in performance of this Agreement.
In addition, the Consultant agrees to comply with applicable federal implementing regulations and other implementing requirements that FRA may issue.
B. Equal Employment Opportunity:
The following equal employment opportunity requirements apply to this Agreement:
a) Race, Color, Religion, National Origin, Sex: In accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, the Consultant agrees to comply with all applicable equal opportunity requirements of U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL) regulations, “Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor,” including 41 C.F.R 60 et seq. (which implements Executive Order No. 11246, “Equal Employment Opportunity,” as amended by Executive Order No. 11375, “Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Employment Opportunity,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e note), and with any applicable federal statutes, executive orders, regulations, and federal policies that may in the future affect construction activities undertaken in the course of the Project. The Consultant agrees to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or age. Such action shall include the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. In addition, the Consultant agrees to comply with any implementing requirements FRA may issue.
b) Age: In accordance with Section 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 623, the Consultant agrees to refrain from discrimination against present and prospective employees for reason of age. In addition, the Consultant agrees to comply with any implementing requirements FRA may issue.
c) Disabilities: In accordance with Section I 02 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12112, the Consultant agrees that it will comply with the requirements of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Regulations to Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act," 29 C.F.R Part 1630, pertaining to employment of persons with disabilities. In addition, the Consultant agrees to comply with any implementing requirements FRA may issue.
The Consultant also agrees not to discriminate on the basis of drug abuse, in accordance with the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-255), as amended, alcohol abuse, in accordance with the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-616), as amended, and to comply with Sections 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act of 1912 ( 42 U.S.C. §§ 290 dd-3 and 290 ee-3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records. In addition, the Consultant agrees to comply with applicable federal implementing regulations and other implementing requirements that FRA may issue.
The Consultant also agrees to include these requirements in each subcontract financed in whole or in part with federal assistance provided by FRA, modified only if necessary to identify the affected parties.
IX. SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSAL
Firms responding to this RFQ/RFP must include three (3) physical copies and one (1) digital copy of Proposer's submittal. The submittal items must be placed in a sealed envelope bearing the Proposer's name and the following information:
Roel Jaime
RFQ/P Response
[Proposer Organization Name]
Engineering Design Review for HSR
Bakersfield, California
The submittal package must be delivered before the time on the closing date listed on page 1 of this RFQ/P
To: City of Bakersfield
Public Works Department
ATTN: Roel Jaime
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
The City assumes no responsibility for non-receipt of submittal packages due to any delay including, but not limited to, carrier delay. It is the Proposer's responsibility to meet the deadline stated above.
Submittals that do not contain the required number of copies and all of the information requested in this RFQ/RFP may be considered non-responsive and rejected without evaluation.
Submittals received after the deadline or at the wrong location may be considered non-responsive.
Fax or e-mail copies will not be accepted. All submittals become the property of the City of Bakersfield and will not be returned.
X. SOLICITATION CAVEAT
The Proposer and its subconsultants understand and agree that the City shall have no financial responsibility for any costs incurred by the Proposer and its subconsultants in responding to this RFQ/RFP and City shall not be liable for any Proposer's or its subconsultants' costs attributed to their own study and investigation of these Projects. The City shall also have no financial responsibility for any costs incurred by Consultant until Consultant has executed a contract with the City and has been authorized in writing to proceed. The City reserves the right to terminate this RFQ/RFP at any time.
The submission of a proposal shall be conclusive evidence that the Proposer and its subconsultants have investigated and satisfied themselves as to the conditions to be encountered; the character, quality, and scope of work to be performed; and any municipal and ordinance requirements of the City of Bakersfield. As outlined in Clause 25 of the Sample Consultant Agreement, once final selection occurs the Consultant will need to obtain a City of Bakersfield business tax certificate prior to execution of an Agreement with the City.
XI. APPENDIX A: SIGNATURE PAGE
Signature Page
The undersigned proposer having examined this RFP and having full knowledge of the condition under which the work described herein must be performed, hereby proposes the proposer will fulfill the obligations contained herein in accordance with all instructions, terms, conditions, and specifications set forth; and the proposer will furnish all required products/services and pay all incidental costs in strict conformity with these documents, for the stated prices as proposed.
Submitting Firm: ____________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________ City: ___________________________State: _______________ Zip: ___________ I hereby certify that I am legally authorized to sign on behalf of the Firm identified above.
Authorized Representative (print): ________________________ Title: ___________________ Authorized Signature: _________________________________ Date: ___________________
THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED TO BE CONSIDERED VALID
Contact Information:
Name: ______________________________________________________________ Title: _______________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________________ City: _______________________ State: _______________ Zip: _______________ Email: ____________________________________
Phone: ____________________________
Cell Phone: ________________________
Fax: _____________________________
XII. APPENDIX B: CONSULTANT SAMPLE AGREEMENT
A sample copy of the City’s Consultant Agreement is included as Appendix B to this RFQ/RFP.
Please review the agreement carefully. This is the contract that the Consultant will be expected to execute without alteration.
An officer of the Proposer must sign and return the “Sample Agreement Acceptance” clause located on the last page of the agreement and return the sample Consultant Contract included in the RFQ/RFP with Proposer’s proposal submittal. The signature indicates that the Proposer accepts the clauses of the contract, including the indemnity clause, as stated on the enclosed sample copy of the City's agreement, with the exception that the "COMPENSATION", “TERM AND TERMINATION”, "TIME FOR COMPLETION" clauses and other blanks where appropriate will be modified. Failure to execute the contract without alteration may result in the rejection of the Consultant's proposal and retaining of a different consultant by the City.
The City will not approve Proposer's requested modifications to the insurance clause nor the indemnity clause of this contract. At the time of contract execution, the Consultant will be required to provide evidence of insurance coverage (Certificates of Insurance) as specified in the contract.
Compensation to the Consultant under this agreement will be made with federal funds. Therefore, the terms of this agreement are subject to the requirements associated with federal funding. These requirements include a Pre Award Audit with Caltrans. Review the attached Sample Agreement for more information on these requirements. It is anticipated that the basis of payment for the services provided under this agreement shall be cost-plus-a-fixed fee.
Exhibits to the contract will be completed at a later date once the Consultant is selected and Scope and Costs are negotiated.
AGREEMENT NO._________________
DESIGN CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
This DESIGN CONSULTANT AGREEMENT is made and entered into on ______________________ (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation (referred to herein as “CITY”), and ____________________, a [business type: Sole Proprietorship; Partnership; Corporation; LLC; etc.] authorized to do business in California (referred to herein as “DESIGN CONSULTANT”).
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, CITY is currently developing the _________________________ (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, since CITY does not have expertise currently on staff to design and engineer the Project, CITY has issued a Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposal (“Request”) for those services; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the Request, including the Technical Provisions dated __________________, and being satisfied that it understands the Project’s requirements, DESIGN CONSULTANT has submitted a response to the Request, which includes a scope of work and cost proposal; and
WHEREAS, DESIGN CONSULTANT represents that it is experienced in the fields of design and engineering as required for the Project and that all of its officers, partners, and/or principals are licensed professionals in engineering, design, or similar professional areas with the appropriate professional degrees; and WHEREAS, DESIGN CONSULTANT also represents that it has an adequate number of properly licensed and experienced employees on its staff to accomplish the Scope of Work, as defined below, and that it is competent to undertake the Scope of Work; and
WHEREAS, based on these representations and all other representations made by DESIGN CONSULTANT to CITY, CITY desires to retain DESIGN CONSULTANT to perform the Scope of Work.
NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and DESIGN CONSULTANT mutually agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF WORK. In exchange for the Compensation (defined below), DESIGN CONSULTANT must competently and thoroughly design and engineer the Project as more specifically described in the Request, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, and in DESIGN CONSULTANT’s scope of work, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference (collectively, the project description in the Request and DESIGN CONSULTANT’s scope of work are referred to as “Scope of Work”). DESIGN CONSULTANT’s services shall include all the procedures necessary to properly complete the Scope of Work, whether specifically included in the Scope of Work or not.
2. COMPENSATION/PAYMENT PROCEDURE. In exchange for performing the Scope of Work and subject to the terms of this section, CITY will pay DESIGN CONSULTANT as follows (“Compensation”):
2.1 Actual Costs. CITY will reimburse DESIGN CONSULTANT’s actual costs (including labor costs, employee benefits, overhead, and other direct costs) in an amount not to exceed $_____________________ exclusive of any fixed fee. Actual costs shall not exceed the estimated wage rates and other costs set forth in DESIGN CONSULTANT’s cost proposal.
2.2 Fixed Fee. CITY will pay DESIGN CONSULTANT a fixed fee of $_______________ on a monthly basis based upon the percentage of the Scope of Work completed. This fixed fee will not be altered unless there is a significant alteration in the scope, complexity, or character of the Scope of Work.
CITY will pay DESIGN CONSULTANT within 30 days after DESIGN CONSULTANT submits an itemized invoice for the portions of the Scope of Work completed and that invoice is approved by CITY. The Compensation will be the total amount paid to DESIGN CONSULTANT for performing the Scope of Work and includes, but is not limited to, all out-of-pocket costs and taxes.
CITY will pay no other compensation to DESIGN CONSULTANT. In no case will CITY compensate DESIGN CONSULTANT more than $_____________ for performing the Scope of Work.
3. TERM. Unless terminated sooner as set forth herein, this Agreement shall terminate on .
4. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE. If at any time CITY becomes dissatisfied with the DESIGN CONSULTANT’s performance under this Agreement, CITY may terminate this Agreement after providing DESIGN CONSULTANT with ten-days written notice.
5. STARTING WORK. DESIGN CONSULTANT shall not begin work until authorized to do so in writing by CITY. No work will be authorized before the Effective Date.
6. TIME FOR COMPLETION. DESIGN CONSULTANT must complete all assigned tasks set forth in the Scope of Work no later than .
7. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR.
CITY’s Contract Administrator is:
Name:
City of Bakersfield
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Telephone: (661) 326-_______
DESIGN CONSULTANT’s Project Manager shall be designated as:
Telephone: ( )
The Contract Administrator and the Project Manager shall be the primary contact persons for CITY and DESIGN CONSULTANT, respectively.
8. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS. DESIGN CONSULTANT shall, at DESIGN CONSULTANT’s sole cost, comply with all applicable requirements of Municipal, State, and Federal authorities now in force, or which may hereafter be in force, pertaining to this Agreement, and shall faithfully observe in all activities relating to or growing out of this Agreement all Municipal ordinances and State and Federal statutes, rules or regulations, and permitting requirements now in force or which may hereafter be in force including, without limitation, obtaining a City of Bakersfield business tax certificate (Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 5.02) where required.
9. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. This Agreement calls for DESIGN CONSULTANT’s performance of the Scope of Work as an independent contractor.
DESIGN CONSULTANT is not an agent or employee of CITY for any purpose and is not entitled to any of the benefits provided by CITY to its employees. This Agreement shall not be construed as forming a partnership or any other association with DESIGN CONSULTANT other than that of an independent contractor.
10. DIRECTION. DESIGN CONSULTANT retains the right to control or direct the manner in which the services described herein are performed.
11. EQUIPMENT. DESIGN CONSULTANT will supply all equipment, tools, materials and supplies necessary to perform the services under this Agreement.
12. KEY PERSONNEL. DESIGN CONSULTANT shall name all key personnel to be assigned to perform the Scope of Work. All key personnel shall be properly licensed and experienced for the work to be performed under this Agreement.
DESIGN CONSULTANT shall provide background for each of the key personnel including, without limitation, resumes and work experience performing work similar to the Scope of Work. CITY reserves the right to approve key personnel.
Once the key personnel are approved, DESIGN CONSULTANT shall not change such personnel without CITY’s written approval.
13. LICENSES. DESIGN CONSULTANT shall, at DESIGN CONSULTANT’s sole cost and expense, have at the time of bidding or proposal submission and shall keep in full force and effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required for DESIGN CONSULTANT to practice its profession in the State of California and perform the Scope of Work.
DESIGN CONSULTANT must also ensure that all employees or subcontractors assigned to perform any portion of the Scope of Work are properly licensed. If DESIGN CONSULTANT is a corporation, at least one officer or key employee shall hold the required licenses or professional degrees. If DESIGN CONSULTANT is a partnership, at least one partner shall hold the required licensees or professional degrees. DESIGN CONSULTANT must provide proof that the requirements of this section are met when requested by CITY.
14. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. DESIGN CONSULTANT hereby represents that both corporately and individually the firm and its employees and subconsultants:
14.1 Do not have, and will not have, financial interest in either the success or failure of any project which is dependent upon DESIGN CONSULTANT’s performance of the Scope of Work; and
14.2 Are not currently, and will not be, employed by or under contract to any contractor who may be awarded the contract to construct the Project.
15. SB 854 COMPLIANCE. To the extent Labor Code Section 1771.1 applies to this Agreement, a contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, be subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of Labor Code Section 1771.1 for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded. The prime contractor is required to post job site notices in compliance with Title 8 California Code of Regulations Section 16451. This project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.
16. ACCEPTANCE OF WORK. CITY’s acceptance of work or payment for work shall not constitute a waiver of any portion or any provision of this Agreement.
17. NO WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The failure of any party to enforce against another party any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that party’s right to enforce such a provision at a later time, and shall not serve to vary the terms of this Agreement.
18. INSURANCE.
18.1 Types and Limits of Insurance. In addition to any other insurance or security required under this Agreement, DESIGN CONSULTANT must procure and maintain, for the duration of this Agreement, the types and limits of insurance below (“Basic Insurance Requirements”).
18.1.1 Professional liability insurance, providing coverage on claims made basis for errors and omissions with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.
18.1.2 Automobile liability insurance, providing coverage for owned, non-owned, and hired autos on an occurrence
basis for bodily injury, including death, of one or more persons, property damage, and personal injury, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.
18.1.3 Commercial general liability insurance, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Risk Manager, providing coverage on
an occurrence basis for bodily injury, including death, of one or more persons, property damage, and personal
injury, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.
The policy must:
18.1.3.1 Provide contractual liability coverage for the terms of this Agreement;
18.1.3.2 Provide products and completed operations
coverage;
18.1.3.3 Provide premises, operations, and mobile
equipment coverage; and
18.1.3.4 Contain an additional insured endorsement in
favor of CITY and its mayor, council, officers,
agents, employees, and designated volunteers.
18.1.4 Workers' compensation insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. In accordance with the
provisions of Labor Code Section 3700, every contractor will be required to secure the payment of compensation to his employees. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, DESIGN
CONSULTANT must submit to CITY the following certification before beginning any work on the Improvements:
I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the
Labor Code which require every employer to be
insured against liability for worker’s compensation or
to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that code, and I will comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of
the work of this contract.
By executing this Agreement, DESIGN CONSULTANT is
submitting the certification required above.
The policy must contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of CITY and its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees, and designated volunteers.
18.2 General Provisions Applying to All Insurance Types.
18.2.1 All policies required of DESIGN CONSULTANT must be written on a first-dollar coverage basis, or contain a deductible provision. Subject to CITY’s advance approval, DESIGN
CONSULTANT may utilize a self-insured retention in any or all of the policies provided, but the policy or policies may not contain language, whether added by endorsement or
contained in the policy conditions, that prohibits
satisfaction of any self-insured provision or requirement by anyone other than the named insured or by any means
including other insurance or which is intended to defeat the intent or protection of an additional insured.
18.2.2 Except for professional liability insurance, all policies required of DESIGN CONSULTANT must be primary insurance as to CITY and its mayor, council, officers, agents,
employees, or designated volunteers and any insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY and its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees, and designated volunteers
must be excess of DESIGN CONSULTANT’s insurance and
must not contribute with it.
18.2.3 The insurance required above, except for workers’ compensation insurance, must be placed with insurers with a Best’s rating as approved by CITY’s Risk Manager, but in no event less than A-:VII. Any deductibles, self-insured retentions, or insurance in lesser amounts, or lack of certain types of insurance otherwise required by this Agreement, or insurance rated below Best’s A-:VII, must be declared prior to execution of this Agreement and approved by CITY in
writing.
18.2.4 The insurance required in this section must be maintained until the Scope of Work is satisfactorily completed as
evidenced by CITY’s written acceptance. All policies must provide that there will be continuing liability thereon, notwithstanding any recovery on any policy.
18.2.5 Full compensation for all premiums which the DESIGN CONSULTANT is required to pay to satisfy the Basic Insurance Requirements shall be considered as included in the prices paid for the performance of the Scope of Work, and no
additional allowance will be made therefor or for additional premiums which may be required by extensions of the
policies of insurance.
18.2.6 It is further understood and agreed by DESIGN CONSULTANT that its liability to CITY will not in any way be limited to or affected by the amount of insurance obtained and carried by DESIGN CONSULTANT in connection with this Agreement.
18.2.7 Unless otherwise approved by CITY, if any part of the Scope of Work is subcontracted, the Basic Insurance Requirements must be provided by, or on behalf of, all subcontractors even if CITY has approved lesser insurance requirements for DESIGN CONSULTANT, and all subcontractors must agree in writing to be bound by the provisions of this section.
19. THIRD PARTY CLAIMS. In the case of public works contracts CITY will timely notify DESIGN CONSULTANT of third party claims relating to this contract. CITY shall be allowed to recover from DESIGN CONSULTANT, and DESIGN CONSULTANT shall pay on demand, all costs of notification.
20. INDEMNITY.
20.1 DESIGN CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY and CITY’s officers, agents and employees against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, arising from DESIGN CONSULTANT’s negligence, fraud, willful misconduct, criminal conduct, errors and omissions, or breaches of contract, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, arising out of, connected with, or caused by DESIGN CONSULTANT or DESIGN CONSULTANT’s employees, agents, independent contractors, companies, or subcontractors in the performance of, or in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this Agreement whether or not caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct.
20.2 To the extent Civil Code Section 2782.8 is applicable to this Agreement, the DESIGN CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY and CITY’s officers, agents and employees against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands, against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, that only arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of DESIGN CONSULTANT. In no event shall the cost to defend charged to the design professional exceed the design professional's proportionate percentage of fault. However, notwithstanding the previous sentence, in the event one or more defendants is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, the design professional shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid defense costs. The duty to indemnify, including the duty and the cost to defend, is limited as provided in this section. This section shall not be waived or modified by contractual agreement, act, or omission of the parties.
21. ASSIGNMENT. Neither this Agreement nor any rights, interests, duties, liabilities, obligations or responsibilities arising out of, concerning or related in any way to this Agreement (including, but not limited to, accounts, actions, causes of action, claims, damages, demands, liabilities, losses, obligations, or reckonings of any kind or nature whatsoever, for compensatory or exemplary and punitive damages, or declaratory, equitable or injunctive relief, whether based on contract, equity, tort or other theories of recovery provided for by the common or statutory law) may be assigned or transferred by any party. Any such assignment is prohibited, and shall be unenforceable and otherwise null and void without the need for further action by the non-assigning party or parties.
22. CONFIDENTIALITY. During the term of this Agreement, DESIGN CONSULTANT may have disclosed to it information of a legal and confidential nature, and such information could severely damage CITY if disclosed to outside parties. Except as otherwise required by law, when informed that information is confidential, DESIGN CONSULTANT will not disclose to any person, directly or indirectly, either during the term of this Agreement or at any time thereafter, any such information or use such information other than as necessary in the course of this Agreement. All documents DESIGN CONSULTANT prepares and confidential information given to DESIGN CONSULTANT under this Agreement are the exclusive property of CITY.
Under no circumstances shall any such information or documents be removed from CITY without CITY’s prior written consent.
23. ACCOUNTING RECORDS. DESIGN CONSULTANT shall maintain accurate accounting records and other written documentation pertaining to all costs incurred in performance of this Agreement. Such records and documentation shall be kept at DESIGN CONSULTANT’s office during the term of this Agreement, and for a period of three years from the date of the final payment hereunder, and made available to CITY representatives upon request at any time during regular business hours.
24. BINDING EFFECT. The rights and obligations of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties to the Agreement and their heirs, administrators, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns.
25. CORPORATE AUTHORITY. Each individual signing this Agreement on behalf of entities represents and warrants that they are, respectively, duly authorized to sign on behalf of the entities and to bind the entities fully to each and all of the obligations set forth in this Agreement.
26. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered as an original and be effective as such.
27. EXECUTION. This Agreement is effective upon execution. It is the product of negotiation and all parties are equally responsible for authorship of this Agreement. Section 1654 of the California Civil Code shall not apply to the interpretation of this Agreement.
28. EXHIBITS. In the event of a conflict between the terms, conditions or specifications set forth in this Agreement and those in exhibits attached hereto, the terms, conditions, or specifications set forth in this Agreement shall prevail. All exhibits to which reference is made in this Agreement are deemed incorporated in this Agreement, whether or not actually attached.
29. FURTHER ASSURANCES. Each party shall execute and deliver such papers, documents, and instruments, and perform such acts as are necessary or appropriate, to implement the terms of this Agreement and the intent of the parties to this Agreement.
30. GOVERNING LAW. The laws of the State of California will govern the validity of this Agreement and its interpretation and performance. Any litigation arising in any way from this Agreement shall be brought in Kern County, California.
31. INTERPRETATION. Whenever the context so requires, the masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter, and the singular number includes the plural.
32. MERGER AND MODIFICATION. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all other oral or written representations. This Agreement may be modified only in a writing approved by the City Council and signed by all the parties.
33. NEWS RELEASES/INTERVIEWS. All news releases, media interviews, testimony at hearings and public comments relating to this Agreement by DESIGN CONSULTANT shall be prohibited unless authorized by CITY.
34. NON-INTEREST. No CITY officer or employee shall hold any interest in this Agreement (California Government Code section 1090).
35. NOTICES. All notices relative to this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be personally served or sent by certified or registered mail and be effective upon actual personal service or depositing in the United States mail. The parties shall be addressed as follows, or at any other address designated by notice:
CITY: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
CITY HALL
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
DESIGN CONSULTANT: ____________________________
36. RESOURCE ALLOCATION. All CITY obligations under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation and allocation of resources by the City Council.
37. TITLE TO DOCUMENTS. All documents, plans, and drawings, maps, photographs, and other papers, or copies thereof prepared by DESIGN CONSULTANT pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, shall, upon preparation, become CITY property.
38. TAX NUMBERS.
DESIGN CONSULTANT’s Federal Tax ID Number
DESIGN CONSULTANT is a corporation? Yes No (Please check one.) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the Effective Date.
“CITY” “DESIGN CONSULTANT”
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD (COMPANY NAME)
By: By:_________________________________
KAREN GOH, Mayor
Type or Print Name:
Title:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
By:
ZAC MEYER
Public Works Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:
(NAME & TITLE)
Insurance: __________
COUNTERSIGNED:
By:
RANDY MCKEEGAN
Finance Director
Attachments: Exhibits A, B, and C
An Acknowledgment Line below the “Sample Agreement Acceptance” clause will be found below the signature line on the sample agreement. The officer must review the sample agreement carefully prior to signing it. The clause states:
“I have received and reviewed the sample CONSULTANT’S AGREEMENT including the INDEMNITY clause which was included in the City’s RFQ/RFP.
My signature above shall signify our firm’s acceptance of said contract if our firm is selected for awarding a contract for one of these projects as described in said RFQ/RFP. This acceptance is made with the understanding that the Compensation and Time for Completion clauses will be modified or created to contain the amounts and dates established for this contract.”
Signature of Authorized Representative
Name:
Title:
Date
XIII. APPENDIX C: PROJECT VISUAL
Scope of work includes but is not limited to the depicted location. 9600 Ming Avenue, Suite 310, Bakersfield, CA 93311
Office: +1 661.831.8782 / parsons.com
May 6, 2025
Paul Archer
City of Bakersfield, Public Works Department
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Subject: Engineering Design Review, Plan Check, and Engineering Inspection Services for City Infrastructure Affected by California High-Speed Rail
Dear Paul Archer:
As you anticipate the arrival of California High-Speed Rail (CHSR), the City requires a responsive partner to verify the CHSR facilities and necessary modifications to Bakersfield infrastructure, including roads, utilities, and bridges, are designed optimally and per City or other required criteria and constructed per specifications.
Parsons Transportation Group (Parsons) brings directly relevant experience to partner with you to verify highquality work and optimal integration of City and CHSR infrastructure.
Parsons is the right team for this role because we offer:
Unparalleled combination of qualifications and capabilities that include City, HSR, and station experience.
Parsons brings 20 years of working with the City of Bakersfield and 10-plus years of California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) experience. We designed more than 30 miles of HSR alignment on the Construction Package 1 project, from Madera to Fresno, which included over 60 structures, roadway/street relocations, utility relocations, and retaining walls, and we continue to provide design support during construction. Our expertise with the City’s and CHSRA’s design parameters will be critical to delivering responsive, highquality reviews and inspections. A proven responsive team tailored to meet the City’s needs.
Our team offers the CHSR and City design knowledge of standards and procedures and understanding of the local conditions and stakeholders to deliver services responsively and with high quality that best serves the City. We look forward to supporting you and the City of Bakersfield on this cornerstone project. Please don’t hesitate to contact us with any questions about the enclosed proposal. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Nicole DePuy, PE, Vice President / [email protected] / 619.200.4755 11315 Rancho Bernardo Rd, Ste 134, San Diego, California 92127 Exhibit B: Response to RFQ/P
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Proposal for Engineering Design Review, Plan Check, and Engineering Inspection Services for City Infrastructure Affected by CA HSR 1 Project Manager
Minerva Rodriguez, PE, PMP brings to the City of Bakersfield (City) more than 30 years of experience in the design and management of major infrastructure projects for Caltrans, Kern County, and the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). As a registered Civil Engineer in the State of California, with more than 27 years at Caltrans District 6, she advanced through a variety of roles—from design engineer to project manager—developing deep expertise in the delivery of transportation projects in full compliance with Caltrans standards and procedures.
Her extensive background includes Engineering Design Review, Plan Check, and Engineering Inspection Services. As a licensed engineer at Caltrans, Minerva contributed to the design of major projects such as the SR-14 Mojave Bypass and SR-41 Freeway. As a Project Manager, she successfully delivered TRIP program projects, overseeing design reviews and plan checks to ensure quality and adherence to standards. Minerva also served as the Construction Manager for multiple projects under the Kern County Public Works Department’s Construction Management and Inspection On-Call contract. In this role, she was the primary point of contact for the contractor, the County, and all external agencies, ensuring successful project coordination and execution.
Her work with the CHSRA includes serving as the Verification & Validation (V&V) Manager for Construction Package 2-3, where she oversaw and reviewed all V&V submittals and reports, including utility design and relocation packages. On the CHSRA Local Generated Alternative (LGA) design package, she led Utilities and Third-Party Design Coordination, managing critical collaboration with Caltrans, the City of Shafter, the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, and multiple utility agencies.
Minerva has extensive knowledge of the State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (2024), City of Bakersfield Local Development Standards and Details, and the Subdivisions and Engineering Design Manual. She also has a strong understanding of construction practices related to roadways and freeways. Her familiarity with the “Caltrans Standard Plans,” “Bridge Design Manual,” and “Construction Manual” further reinforces her capability to guide complex projects from planning through construction. Throughout her career, Minerva has remained committed to improving transparency and enhancing communication at every stage of project delivery. Her leadership, technical knowledge, and collaborative approach have been instrumental in the success of numerous high-profile transportation projects.
Subcontractor
Enterris Associates, Inc. is a full-service consulting firm, focusing on construction management and inspection for the public sector, private sector and utility clients.
Enterris is a certified MBE (21000934) by the California Public Utilities Commission, LACMTA certified SBE, and California Unified Certification Program certified DBE (50810). Enterris Associates is a small minority-owned business headquartered in Orange County, California and was formally incorporated in July 2021. Our staff has experience on projects such as the City of Bakersfield EB58/NB99 7th Movement Loop Connector Project, OCTA I-405 Improvement Project, LA Metro Sepulveda Transit Corridor, City of Inglewood Transit Connector, the City of Camarillo US101/Springville Interchange Project, and the City of San Marcos Borden Bridge Project.
Inspector and Plan Reviewers
Richard Hebert, PE, a licensed engineer who has 40 years of construction inspection and plan review experience. Using his expertise in the various components of road and bridge construction, claims and schedules issues, Richard will lead a team of talented inspectors who have decades of experience. We understand the importance of familiarizing ourselves with project plans and specifications for the potential of identifying, mitigating and resolving non-conforming work and potential disputes that have the potential to elevate beyond the project team.
PROJECT TEAM PERSONNEL / EXPERIENCE
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Proposal for Engineering Design Review, Plan Check, and Engineering Inspection Services for City Infrastructure Affected by CA HSR 2 Our inspectors have relevant experience in construction inspection, construction management, civil engineering, change management, and schedule/time impact analysis. They have extensive experience performing field inspections in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications, Standard Plans, Construction Manual, Bridge Design Manual, Bridge Construction Records and Procedures Manual, and its policies, and practices. They are knowledgeable and have experience performing field inspections in accordance with Green Book Construction Specifications and Standard Plans, and the City of Bakersfield Local Development Standards and Details, and the Subdivisions and Engineering Design Manual. They have performed constructability reviews of early plans and specifications and performed field inspections during construction. Several have direct HSR experience. Design Review Manager, Nathan Maack will draw upon both his design and management experience to ensure assigned plan reviewers perform thorough checks against City and other pertinent design criteria. An example of his experience in plan checking was the LA Metro Division 16 rail maintenance yard project where he led a team of design reviewers of various disciplines in checking both preliminary and final designs against project design criteria. Please refer to the organization chart for the list of inspector(s) and plan reviewer(s) who will be assigned to this project.
Minimum Qualifications
All personnel assigned to plan, review, or construction inspection meet the required qualifications. They possess the following expertise and credentials essential for their roles:
Resumes
Resumes for our proposed project manager and team members are provided in the appendix, featuring a detailed list of previous project experiences. These include project information, specific duties and tasks performed, dates of experience, the firms where the experience was gained, and the name of the prime firm responsible for each project.
Organization Chart
The organization chart clearly identifies our team, including the project manager, inspectors, and key staff who will be providing engineering services. Role and responsibilities are outlined, along with the firm each team member represents. The chart identifies the structure and hierarchy of the team and ensures transparency and facilitates efficient communication among all stakeholders involved in the project.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Proposal for Engineering Design Review, Plan Check, and Engineering Inspection Services for City Infrastructure Affected by CA HSR 3 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Proposal for Engineering Design Review, Plan Check, and Engineering Inspection Services for City Infrastructure Affected by CA HSR 4 Engineering Design Review/Plan Checking Team
Design Management
Parsons assembled a team of design engineers with a depth of experience in designing and reviewing city public works transportation infrastructure improvements, including road alignments, bridge structures, traffic signals, curb/gutter/sidewalk designs, and utility relocations. Our staff have gained this experience from Parsons’ roles on numerous civil design projects for the City, and from extensive design work performed for Caltrans and California High-Speed Rail (CHSR) Segment CP-1.
An essential part of the design process is to perform discipline and interdisciplinary design reviews as part of the quality control process. The level of effort and expertise our design teams regularly draw upon to accurately complete these internal quality reviews on our large design projects are the same qualities that we will use to provide these design review services for the City. Upon Notice to Proceed (NTP), we will first create design review checklists from the City, Caltrans, and appropriate utility design criteria covering road improvements, bridge structures, and utility design reviews. These checklists will be used as a starting point for each on-call design review to ensure a thorough review has been completed.
Regularly scheduled calls with City staff will provide a status update of our progress along with resolving any coordination topics. Internal design calls will be held with task order reviewers to ensure they have a common understanding of the design, and a comprehensive review is completed with clear and constructive comments provided. Comment logs will be screened to ensure no duplicate or conflicting comments are submitted. To accomplish all of this, we will use a full suite of professional file sharing and communication tools such as SharePoint, Bluebeam, and Microsoft Teams.
Stations Management
Our team of station designers brings a wealth of experience and expertise in the design and review of rail station projects, with direct experience with HSR, commuter rail, and light rail projects locally and across the nation. We are adept at familiarizing ourselves with project plans and specifications to identify, mitigate, and prevent design and construction issues and potential disputes. Our reviewers have relevant experience in architectural design, station requirements, site coordination, ADA requirements, sustainable design practices, and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). We have been involved in all phases of rail station design development, from preliminary engineering through construction, and are well suited to perform constructability reviews and plan checking of early design plans and specifications. In addition to our comprehensive understanding of the impacts of a HSR corridor on the existing infrastructure and facilities of an urban environment, we will review for compliance with ADA standards, with an eye towards incorporating sustainable design practices as appropriate to encourage energy efficiency and reduce environmental impact. We will provide thorough and accurate reviews, contributing to the successful project.
Scope of Work
Scope of Work Commitment: Parsons is committed to performing at least 50 percent of the total scope of work, ensuring that our expertise and resources are fully utilized to meet the project's objectives and deliver high-quality results.
Design Review/Plan Checking Services Experience
Parsons provides comprehensive Engineering Design Review and Plan Checking Services for city infrastructure projects impacted by the CHSR system. Leveraging our extensive experience with HSR projects such as Brightline West HSR and CHSRA Package 1, and our extensive city roadways engineering expertise, we ensure all designs meet stringent safety, functionality, and regulatory standards.
TEAM ORGANIZATION / PARTNER FIRM EXPERIENCE
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Proposal for Engineering Design Review, Plan Check, and Engineering Inspection Services for City Infrastructure Affected by CA HSR 5 We will develop the Project Design Quality Management Plan (DQMP) to comply with Parsons’ Quality Management System (QMS), the ISO 9001: 2015 standard, project-specific quality requirements, and regulatory requirements. Parsons’ QMP has gone through numerous rigorous client audits. Project Manager Minerva Rodriguez is ultimately responsible for overall quality management and coordination and will oversee the team’s performance, including subconsultants, in meeting their obligations. Parsons will develop our project DQMP in concurrence with the Project Management Plan and will be consistent with the City’s requirements. The QMS helps make sure the quality of project operations meets the prescribed standards. City staff will be integrated into our decision-making process. Quality deliverables will only be submitted following our rigorous quality control methodology, for which we take full ownership. 24TH STREET WIDENING
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Parsons served as the oversight authority for the 24th Street Widening project, ensuring compliance with the City of Bakersfield's criteria for street, drainage, and retaining wall plans. This project expanded a 1.5-mile stretch from four to six lanes, including soundwalls and cul-de-sac local streets. Our team collaborated closely with the City to address right-of-way and other civil engineering elements, providing comprehensive design validation and quality assurance. Despite legal delays that paused the PS&E package from 2016 to 2018, Parsons successfully conducted an environmental revalidation, updating critical assessments and studies. The project was completed in 2020, with landscaping finalized in 2021, earning the California Transportation Foundation Award for Roadway Widening. Project staff who will be assigned to this RFQ/P: Daniel Wagner.
BRIGHTLINE WEST HIGH-SPEED RAIL
CALIFORNIA
Brightline West is developing a privately run electrified high-speed passenger rail system in the existing I-15 median, currently under construction, as a crucial link from Las Vegas, Nevada, and Rancho Cucamonga in Greater Los Angeles. The 218-mile, all-electric highspeed rail service is proposed to travel at 186+ miles per hour and is expected to be completed by 2028. Parsons has a contract with Brightline West to assist California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) with design reviews on the impact of the project to Caltrans state highway facilities. The scope of work is to perform technical reviews related to roadway, drainage, traffic, and structures on the Brightline West HSR alignment with close coordination with Caltrans District 8 Design Management, Headquarters Structures Design, Structure Hydraulics, Materials Engineering, and Geotechnical Engineering functional units. The project within California is divided into nine segments from the Nevada-California state line to the Rancho Cucamonga station. Parsons is working with five teams of reviewers to support Caltrans District 8. Additionally, our team has reviewed type selection reports for 15 structures that involve under-crossings, over-crossings, bridges. Project staff who will be assigned to this RFQ/P: Dennis Serafica, Brian Patschull, Kevin Michalski, Jon Hermstad.
FIRM NAME
PROJECT DATES
02/2016-05/2021
CLIENT REFERENCE
City of Bakersfield
Luis Topete
[email protected]
661.316.9519
FIRM NAME
PROJECT DATES
11/2015-11/2021
CLIENT REFERENCE
Caltrans, D8
Juan Carlos Velasquez
jcvelasquez@brightlinewest.
com
702.945.1306
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Proposal for Engineering Design Review, Plan Check, and Engineering Inspection Services for City Infrastructure Affected by CA HSR 6 CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL
CONSTRUCTION PACKAGE 1
MADERA TO FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
Parsons is a member of the design-build joint venture, providing construction services and serving as the lead designer for the team.
Given the design-build environment, the Parsons design team was required to deliver high quality, buildable designs to the team’s construction forces quickly and efficiently in order to meet the overall project budget and tight schedule. To accomplish this, we developed an innovative approach to advance the designs in six geographically segmented packages simultaneously using a matrix organization, where segment design teams are supported by discipline-based, project-wide leads in the areas of civil, drainage, utilities, maintenance of traffic, geotechnical, structures, environmental, systems, and guideway design. Project staff who will be assigned to this RFQ/P: Daniel Wagner; Ardalan Shahkar
PALMDALE BOULEVARD WIDENING
PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA
Caltrans, in cooperation with the City of Palmdale as the sponsoring agency, proposes to widen Palmdale Boulevard/SR- 138 between 5th Street East and 10th Street East in downtown Palmdale from two lanes to three lanes in each direction, to increase capacity and improve safety and operations. The project work scope includes ROW engineering and acquisition, management of traffic (MOT) during construction, traffic signal and lighting system upgrades, reconstructing existing curb ramps to meet current ADA standards, utility relocations, and safety improvements at the existing at-grade railroad crossing. Parsons prepared an Environmental IS and Environmental Assessment (EA) as part of previous larger phase for the project and then prepared a revalidation for this phase of the project. Project Staff who will be assigned to this RFQ/P: Daniel Kachi, Greta Aiken, Kevin Michalski.
FIRM NAME
PROJECT DATES
08/2013-12/2026
CLIENT REFERENCE
California HSR Authority
Benjamin Ruiz, Jr., SE, PE
[email protected]
559.301.3145
FIRM NAME
PROJECT DATES
04/2021-Ongoing
CLIENT REFERENCE
City of Palmdale
Cody Hicks
[email protected]
661.267.5253
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Proposal for Engineering Design Review, Plan Check, and Engineering Inspection Services for City Infrastructure Affected by CA HSR 7 Proposer References
Project Owner/Client Reference Description of Work & Achievements Related to Project
Client Name: City of Menifee
Contact Person: Nick Fidler
29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586
Phone #: 951.723.3703
As-needed traffic design review, Menifee
Road Widening (Engineering Lead)
Client Name: Kern COG
Contact Person: Ahron Hakimi
1401 19th Street, Ste. 300, Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone #: 661.635.2901
Bakersfield Centennial Corridor
Client Name: City of Tehachapi
Contact Person: John Schlosser
115 S. Robinson Street, Tehachapi, CA 93561
Phone #: 661.822.2200 ext. 115
Tehachapi Blvd./SR-58 Operational
Improvements Project Study Report/Project
Development Support (PSR/PDS)
Capacity of Key Staff
At Parsons, our key staff members are highly skilled professionals with extensive experience in their respective fields, ensuring they are well-equipped to handle the anticipated workload. Each team member is selected based on their proven track record of managing complex projects and their ability to adapt to dynamic work environments. Our staff is committed to maintaining high availability, with flexible schedules that accommodate project demands and ensure timely completion of tasks. We employ a robust resource management system that allows us to allocate personnel efficiently, balancing workloads to prevent burnout and maintain productivity. This comprehensive approach ensures that our key staff can consistently deliver high-quality results, even under tight deadlines.
Turn-around Times for Typical Plan Sets (Calendar Days) Like any other global engineering and consulting organization, Parsons may become involved in litigation from time to time. Parsons carries insurance coverage in amounts sufficient to satisfy the requirements of its contractual obligations and to address claims that may be brought against Parsons. Parsons consistently works with its clients to address concerns related to any given project and thus attempts to avoid litigation whenever possible. Although Parsons may be included in legal proceedings from time to time, there are currently no proceedings pending against the company that would be considered to have a material adverse effect upon its financial position or operations.
CLAIMS HISTORY
RESUMES
RODRIGUEZ
MINERVA RODRIGUEZ, PE, PMP
PROJECT MANAGER
Minerva has experience managing transportation projects in accordance with Caltrans standards and procedures. Her career has centered on increasing transparency and enhancing communication on each project she oversees, and her leadership and dedication have been instrumental in the successful delivery of many major transportation projects. Minerva also worked at Caltrans for 27 years, coordinating cross-functional efforts to support the efficient, effective delivery of projects. She negotiated route adoption, freeway, relinquishment, and cooperative agreements with local agencies and provided support for local capital outlay projects.
Work Experience
Caltrans Project Manager. City of Bakersfield, Thomas Roads Improvement Program (TRIP), Bakersfield, CA. 12/2008-12/2019.
Employer: Parsons. Minerva oversaw these large, $1.5B complex transportation projects. Her work was a major factor in District 6’s (D6) continued success at delivering complex politically sensitive projects.
Minerva’s role as oversight project manager was key in the delivery of the TRIP projects, such as Centennial Corridor, Morning Drive Interchange, SR 178 Widening, and Hageman Flyover. She worked closely with the City of Bakersfield and Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) to secure funding for all the Centennial Corridor phases. She has delivered projects along State Routes 58, 178, 14, 99, and 46, and Interstate 5 (I-5). Caltrans / Caltrans, District 6.
Utilities and Third-Party Design Coordination Lead. California HighSpeed Rail Authority, Locally Generated Alternative, Shafter to Bakersfield, CA. 09/2022-12/2023. Employer: Parsons. Minerva was responsible for providing third-party coordination for Caltrans, the cities of Shafter and Bakersfield, Kern County, and utility companies for this $45M project. Responsibilities included using strong relationships to work collaboratively with local, regional, state, and federal agencies; railroads; franchise utility owners; and other permitting and regulatory agencies to resolve project conflicts and constraints. Anser Advisory / California High-Speed Rail Authority.
Project Manager. Kern County Public Works Department, Calloway Drive Road Widening and Improvements, Kern County, CA. 5/2021- 12/2023. Employer: Parsons. Minerva was project manager and primary point of contact for Kern County, Caltrans, and external agencies for this $1M project. She managed the widening of Calloway Dr. between Greenacres Dr. and Rosedale Highway which included installation of medians, paving, sidewalks, drive approaches, curb ramps, curbs, and gutters. Coordinated traffic signal installation, thermoplastic striping, and pavement markings. Anser Advisory / County of Kern.
YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE
Total: 33
With Parsons: 1
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science,
Civil Engineering
REGISTRATIONS
Civil Engineer, 64251,
California
CERTIFICATIONS
Project Management
Professional (PMP),
Project Management
Institute
WAGNER
DANIEL B. WAGNER, PE
QA/QC
Daniel brings a wealth of experience in project development, spanning from initiation through design approval to construction completion. He excels in managing projects and providing engineering support during construction, with specialized expertise in securing project and environmental approvals. His proficiency encompasses a wide range of areas, including road and highway design, ADA compliance, drainage, rightof-way, utility coordination, traffic signal, lighting, and railroad design, and addressing noise, air quality, visual, Section 4(f) impacts, ensuring constructability, accurate cost estimating, and maintaining rigorous Quality Assurance standards.
Work Experience
Deputy Design Manager. California High-Speed Rail Authority, California HighSpeed Rail Construction Package 1, Madera to Fresno, CA. 04/2017-04/2025.
Employer/Firm Primarily Responsible: Parsons. This 29-mile, $3B segment of an 800-mile high-speed rail system connecting San Diego to Sacramento, designed for trains exceeding 200 mph. Features include 27 grade separations, a 250-foot jacked box tunnel, 3.4 miles of aerial structures, major river crossings, and 2.7 miles of trench. Daniel leads a team of Parsons engineers, supporting Tutor Perini in project execution. Responsibilities encompass utility design (water, sewer, telecommunications, electrical, gas), irrigation districts, drainage, railroad operations, power drops, right-of-way, constructability reviews, and engineering support during construction. He also manages project-wide scheduling, delay analysis, and change order processes, including initiating change notices and presenting escalation justifications.
Project Engineer. City of Bakersfield, Centennial Corridor Design and Preliminary Engineering, Bakersfield, CA. 09/2011-10/2016. Employer/Firm Primarily Responsible: Parsons. Parsons provided advanced preliminary engineering for the $650M Centennial Corridor, from SR-58 to SR-99. A portion of the improvements are located on existing SR-99 from Mile Post 21.2 to 23.6.
Improvements in this area include adding collector/distributors, auxiliary lanes, and additional improvements at the SR-99/Ming Avenue Interchange. Daniel oversaw staff and subconsultants for project report preparation and approval and coordinated environmental documentation and technical studies.
YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE
Total: 20
With Parsons: 13
EDUCATION
BS, Civil
Engineering
REGISTRATIONS
Civil Engineer,
75814, California
MAACK
NATHAN B. MAACK, PE, PMP, ENV SP
DESIGN REVIEW MANAGER
Nathan has experience in civil engineering design and project management in the areas of track alignments, passenger rail stations, atgrade railroad crossings, and storage and maintenance rail yards. His work on large design projects has entailed interdisciplinary coordination and project controls management covering all phases of project development from planning studies to construction. Nathan’s careful application of design criteria has resulted in economic design solutions, and his ability to understand construction contracts and bid documents has significantly reduced project costs of construction change orders.
WORK EXPERIENCE
Project Manager. Metro, LA Metro Division 20 Portal Widening Turnback Facility, Los Angeles, CA. 10/2020-12/2022. Employer:
TYLin (Prime Consultant). This highly complex $900M project involved expanding Metro’s existing Division 20 rail yard vehicle storage capacity from 100 to more than 250 train cars. Nathan managed the design team during construction, including a staff of 25+ full-time equivalent design professionals in preparing owner requested design changes. He was responsible for regularly interacting with Metro and separate Metrocontracted construction management staff and leading the design team in ensuring all designs were properly implemented during construction.
Engineering Manager. Metro, West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Environmental Study, Los Angeles County, CA. 05/2018- 10/2020. Employer: WSP (Prime Consultant). This project, with a $9B capital cost estimate, involved a new 19-mile-long light rail line along primarily existing railroad right-of-way connecting Los Angeles to the Gateway Cities and terminating in Artesia, CA. Nathan led a large design team of engineers and technical specialists in completing all conceptual engineering designs to support the environmental process. A major task involved building consensus on design solutions within the design team.
Lead Civil Engineer. California High-Speed Rail Authority, Palmdale to Los Angeles Segment, Los Angeles, CA. 11/2009-12/2013.
Employer: Hatch Mott MacDonald (Prime Consultant). The $20B project involved the conceptual design of an approximately 65-mile-long high-speed rail system between Palmdale and downtown Los Angeles that included new stations, six tunnels, numerous grade separations, and realignment of commuter rail tracks. Nathan was the Task Manager for designing rail yards options, developing right-of-way plans, designing stations at five locations, and designing a new set of alternative alignments. He also managed the work of subconsultants for the right-ofway and station designs, coordinated the work assignments of internal civil designers, and facilitated biweekly design coordination meetings with discipline leads.
YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE
Total: 23
With Parsons: <1
EDUCATION
Master of Science,
Systems Engineering,
University of
Pennsylvania
Bachelor of Science,
Civil Engineering,
Rutgers University–
New Brunswick
REGISTRATIONS
Civil Engineer,
C77834, California
CERTIFICATIONS
Project Management
Professional (PMP),
Project Management
Institute
Envision Sustainability
Professional (ENV SP),
Institute for Sustainable
Infrastructure
Project Manager
Development (PMD)
Model, Parsons
JACKSON
DAMIEN JACKSON, RA, LEED AP BD+C
STATION DESIGN
Damien is an architect and project manager with Parsons. He currently serves as technical director, responsible for architecture and urban design activities of Parsons’ Rail and Bus Transit Systems and Infrastructure market. He has extensive experience in the technical design and design management of transit stations and transportation facilities. He has been involved in all aspects of design, from programming and station planning to detailing station amenities, developing designs for construction, and supporting contractors and clients during construction.
Work Experience
Deputy Design Manager. Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority, Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2B, Los Angeles, CA. 07/2019-04/2025. Employer: Parsons. Parsons, in a fully integrated joint venture, is providing engineering and design services for the $805M Foothill Gold Line Phase 2B light rail extension from Glendora to Pomona in southern California. The design-build project extends the current Metro Gold Line by approximately 10 miles. Parsons’ work includes light rail and freight track; electrification systems, including traction power supply substations and overhead catenary systems; signals and signal upgrades; commuter rail grade crossings; several new bridges; four light rail stations; utility relocations; stormwater and drainage improvements; and excavation and embankment improvements. Damien supports the project manager in overseeing and coordinating all design elements for the project, including work performed by Parsons and project subcontractors. Also serves as the architect of record for the six stations along the alignment and other elements with building code or aesthetic components.
Project Architect and Deputy Facilities Design Lead. Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation, Honolulu Rail Transit Airport Guideway and Stations Design-Build, Honolulu, HI. 11/2016-03/2025.
Employer: Parsons. Parsons is the lead designer for the design and construction of 5.2 miles of elevated double-track guideway, four elevated stations, and associated elements necessary for a $1B rail transit system.
The eastbound guideway segment begins near the USS Arizona Memorial and ends at the eastbound track station in the median of Kamehameha Highway on the east side of the Middle Street Transit Center Station.
Damien serves as the architect of record for the four stations and as deputy facilities design manager for the design-build team.
Responsibilities include coordinating the design and production of all disciplines involved in the station and landscape design and interacting with other disciplines involved in the design of the elevated guideway and systems infrastructure. Leads weekly task force and working group meetings with the client and owner during the design phase and supports the construction effort.
YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE
Total: 23
With Parsons: 15
EDUCATION
Master, Architecture,
University of California
Bachelor, Architecture,
Columbia University
REGISTRATIONS
Architect, C32902,
California
Architect, 005585, New
Mexico
Architect, 25657,
Texas
Architect, 0401016913,
Virginia
Licensed Architect,
001024360, Illinois
Professional Architect,
AR-17913, Hawaii
CERTIFICATIONS
LEED AP Building
Design + Construction
(LEED AP BD+C),
Green Business
Certification, Inc.
Project Manager
Certification, Parsons
LORMAND
JEFFREY R. LORMAND, RLA, OALA
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
Jeff is a Parsons Landscape Architect Manager with extensive experience involving transportation landscape architecture, environmental planning, and urban design projects. His experience includes highway landscape, revegetation, and streetscape designs; intermodal and transit center studies; transit and highway aesthetic designs, including structural aesthetic elements; bikeway and pedestrian trail designs; and environmental mitigation for highways, including noise wall aesthetic treatments, wetlands mitigation designs, and visual environmental assessments.
Work Experience
Lead Landscape Architect. City of Edmonton, Valley Line West Light Rail Transit Extension (DBF, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 11/2020- 04/2025. Employer: Parsons. The City of Edmonton selected Marigold Infrastructure Partners, an equal joint venture partnership between Colas and Parsons, as the preferred proponent for this $2.6B design-buildfinance light rail transit extension, which is the second stage of the Valley Line. Jeff is responsible for leading a team of nine landscape architects and support team members in developing plans and details for this highly intricate project. Explicit corridor design elements were detailed for specific project locations, including within downtown Edmonton, Jasper Place, and the Glenora and Grovenor neighborhoods. In addition to the corridor, the team is developing the landscape architecture for the stations and stops within the project, including the West Edmonton Mall and Misericordia Stations. Responsible for functioning as the coordination point between landscape architecture and other project disciplines (civil, stations, and architecture) to ensure a seamless approach to design development and to verify that work is correctly developed by all teams.
Principal Landscape Architect. OCTA, SR 57 Northbound
Improvements, Orange County, CA. 02/2023-04/2025. Employer:
Parsons. Parsons is providing design and construction support services for the SR 57 Northbound Improvement Project between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue. The scope of this $80M dollar project included preparing plans, specifications, and estimates to widen 1 mile of the northbound side of the freeway from south of Orangewood Avenue undercrossing north to the Katella Avenue undercrossing and includes constructing a fifth northbound general-purpose lane, upgrading medians and sight distances, and reconfiguring existing ramps. Jeff is responsible for leading the landscape effort, beginning with developing an aesthetics plan report outlining the proposed aesthetic treatments for the project structures and landscaping followed by developing the landscape drawings upon acceptance of the report, including preparing planting and irrigation plans in compliance with California Department of Transportation plan development requirements.
YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE
Total: 39
With Parsons: 34
EDUCATION
Master, Landscape
Architecture
Bachelor of Science,
Ornamental
Horticulture
REGISTRATIONS
Landscape Architect,
404, Alberta
Landscape Architect,
27769, Arizona
Landscape Architect,
3576, California
Landscape Architect,
LA.0000387, Colorado
Landscape Architect,
625, Nevada
Landscape Architect,
1505, North Carolina
Landscape Architect,
19050468, Ontario
Landscape Architect,
351507-5301, Utah
Landscape Architect,
0406002273, Virginia
Landscape Architect,
1111, Washington
Professional
Landscape Architect,
LA-17945, Hawaii
Registered Landscape
Architect, LA6666840,
Florida
Registered Landscape
Architect, LA283, New
Mexico
SHINMEI
ROBERT M. SHINMEI, PE
ROADWAY
Robert Shinmei is a transportation engineer with experience in roadway, traffic, and surveying projects through all phases of design and construction. He has supported clients including the City of Bakersfield, Los Angeles World Airports, City of Los Angeles, Caltrans, and LA Metro, bringing strong technical skills, communication, and a client-focused, team-oriented approach.
Work Experience
Project Engineer. City of Bakersfield, Centennial Corridor Southbound SR 99 to Westbound SR 58 Connector, Bakersfield, California, United States. 12/2024-Current. Employer: Parsons.
Parsons is delivering final design and right-of-way services for the $51M eighth and final connector at the SR 58/SR 99 Interchange, including a direct southbound SR 99 to westbound SR 58 connector via a flyover viaduct structure, property acquisition, and utility relocations. Robert is leading the roadway design, responsible for final plans, specifications, estimates, and ready-to-list documents.
Senior Civil Engineer. City of Bakersfield Public Works Department, Friant Kern Canal Multiuse Pathway, Bakersfield, California, United States. 11/2021-Current. Employer: Parsons. Parsons provided engineering and design services for a $16M, 6-mile multiuse bike and pedestrian path along the Friant-Kern Canal, connecting northwest Bakersfield to a Parkway Trail promoting alternative transportation, recreation, and pedestrian safety. Robert was the design lead responsible for preparing the final plans, coordinated client and agency meetings; prepared the engineer’s estimates; and provided Design Services During Construction addressing submittals and RFI’s.
Project Engineer. Centennial Corridor EB to NB Connector, Bakersfield, California, United States. 10/2022-Current. Employer:
Parsons. Parsons provided engineering and design services for the $27M improvements along the SR-58/SR-99 EB to NB loop connector. The loop connector includes widening the existing EB-SR58/SR-99 Grade Separation and a new bridge crossing over Wible Road. Robert was a task lead for various portions of the project, wrote the DSDD, and provided utility coordination and agreements for each utility owner. He’s currently supporting the city with Design Services During Construction support addressing RFI’s.
YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE
Total: 12
With Parsons: 4
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science,
Civil Engineering
REGISTRATIONS
Civil Engineer, 88334,
California
CERTIFICATIONS
Project Manager
Development (PMD)
Model, Parsons
HEBERT
RICHARD HEBERT, PE
ENGINEERING INSPECTION MANAGER
Richard has experience on many civil and infrastructure design and construction projects. He has diversified experience in both the public and private sectors, working for owners as the contractor, positioning him as a strong industry leader. He contributes strong technical acumen and interpersonal skills with effective communication to oversee projects and interact across all levels of staff. His technical roles have included civil design engineer, structural design engineer, and construction temporary works design engineer. Richard’s management experience for owners includes roles as resident engineer and structures representative.
Work Experience
Project Manager. RCTC, I-15 Express Lanes Program Management, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, CA. 09/2023-08/2024.
Employer: Parsons. Parsons provided project and construction management services for the $175M I-15 Express Lanes project for RCTC. The project includes toll system planning and policy development; procurement strategy development for a design-builder, a systems integrator, and a toll operator; procurement and contract document development; conceptual engineering to support the design-build procurement; and third-party coordination to implement 14.5 miles of tolled managed lanes along I-15, including providing construction management services during construction for the design-build civil construction and the toll system installation and startup. Rich replaced the departing project manager during the construction phase of the project.
Responsibilities included managing a team of designers, field inspectors, surveyors, and administrative staff in completing construction and closing the project. Participated in change order reviews, analysis, and negotiations; project staffing updates; and contract adjustments.
Project Manager / Resident Engineer. RCTC, SR 91 Refresh, Riverside County, CA. 01/2022-02/2024. Employer: Parsons. Parsons provided design oversight and construction management services for the $26M SR 91 Refresh project, which improved an 8-mile-long stretch of the SR 91 Freeway, extending the SR 91 Express Lanes Connector design-build project. The scope included various repairs and improvements, such as ground stabilization, bridge approach slab reconstruction, and electrical repairs. Rich was responsible for providing oversight and guidance to Parsons’ project employees and for coordinating between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and on-site Parsons and subconsultant staff performing design reviews, submittal reviews, field inspections, materials testing, document management, field as-built red-line drawings, and document closeout.
Participated in change order review and analysis, project staffing updates, and contract adjustments with RCTC.
YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE
Total: 43
With Parsons: 3
EDUCATION
Bachelor of
Engineering, Civil
Engineering, Saint
Martin's University
REGISTRATIONS
Civil Engineer, 51549,
California
APPENDIX A
SIGNATURE PAGE
XI. APPENDIX A: SIGNATURE PAGE
Signature Page
The undersigned proposer having examined this RFP and having full knowledge of the condition under which the work described herein must be performed, hereby proposes the proposer will fulfill the obligations contained herein in accordance with all instructions, terms, conditions, and specifications set forth; and the proposer will furnish all required products/services and pay all incidental costs in strict conformity with these documents, for the stated prices as proposed.
Submitting Firm: ____________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________ City: ___________________________State: _______________ Zip: ___________ I hereby certify that I am legally authorized to sign on behalf of the Firm identified above.
Authorized Representative (print): ________________________ Title: ___________________ Authorized Signature: _________________________________ Date: ___________________
THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED TO BE CONSIDERED VALID
Contact Information:
Name: ______________________________________________________________ Title: _______________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________________ City: _______________________ State: _______________ Zip: _______________ Email: ____________________________________
Phone: ____________________________
Cell Phone: ________________________
Fax: _____________________________
Parsons Transportation Group, Inc.
100 West Walnut Street
Pasadena California 91124
Nicole DePuy Vice President
May 6, 2025
Nicole DePuy
Vice President
100 West Walnut Street
Pasadena California 91124
[email protected]
619.200.4755
619.515.5135
N/A
SAMPLE AGREEMENT
ACCEPTANCE
An Acknowledgment Line below the “Sample Agreement Acceptance” clause will be found below the signature line on the sample agreement. The officer must review the sample agreement carefully prior to signing it. The clause states:
“I have received and reviewed the sample CONSULTANT’S AGREEMENT including the INDEMNITY clause which was included in the City’s RFQ/RFP.
My signature above shall signify our firm’s acceptance of said contract if our firm is selected for awarding a contract for one of these projects as described in said RFQ/RFP. This acceptance is made with the understanding that the Compensation and Time for Completion clauses will be modified or created to contain the amounts and dates established for this contract.”
Signature of Authorized Representative
Name:
Title:
Date
Nicole DePuy
Vice President
May 6, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 10, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent – Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: August 26, 2025
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2023-226 with Resource Machinery and Engineering (extend term to September 13, 2026) to continue on-call maintenance and repair of Scarabs and McCloskey Trommel Screens.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
BACKGROUND:
The Public Works Department’s Fleet Division is responsible for the maintenance and repair of City vehicles and equipment. The City’s vehicles and equipment often need additional resources primarily for repair, maintenance, and outfitting of vehicle components and systems.
On September 13, 2023, the City entered into Agreement No. 2023-226 with Resource Machinery & Engineering to provide maintenance and repair of Scarabs and McCloskey Trommel Screens. Resource Machinery & Engineering was selected through a formal Request for Proposal and Qualifications process.
The City’s partnership with Resource Machinery & Engineering has been a success as the vendor is efficient in responding to and performing on-call services to City equipment in a timely manner and provides quality work.
Amendment No. 1 will extend the term one year to continue repair and maintenance of Scarabs and McCloskey Trommel Screens.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Sufficient funds are within the Fiscal Year budget 2025-26 and available in the Equipment Fund to cover costs associated with this amendment.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Innovative and Efficient City Government
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Amendment
AGREEMENT NO. 2023-226 (1)
AMENDMENT NO. [1] TO
AGREEMENT NO. 2023-226
This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 2023-226 is made and entered into on ______, by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation (referred to herein as "CITY"), and RESOURCE MACHINERY & ENGINEERING a Corporation authorized to do business in California (referred to herein as "CONTRACTOR").
R ECI T ALS
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2023, CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into Agreement No. 2023-226, wherein CONTRACTOR would provide maintenance and repair ofScarabs and McCloskey Trammel Screens; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into Amendment No. l to Agreement No. 2023-226 to extend the term one year.
NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and CONTRACTOR mutually agree as follows:
1. Section 3 of Agreement No. 2023-226 entitled "Term" is hereby amended to read as follows:
3. TERM. Unless terminated sooner, as set forth herein, CONTRACTOR shall provide additional services to the term date of September 13, 2026.
2. Except as amended herein, all provisions of Agreement No. 2023- 226 shall remain in full force and effect.
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
Updated -August 15, 2022
-- oOo -
S:\Agreements\2025\Resource Machinery & Eng Amendment No. 1 06 18 2025.doc -- Page 1 of 2 Pages --
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 10, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jennifer M. Byers, Economic & Community Development Director DATE: August 27, 2025
SUBJECT: Kern Community Foundation Bakersfield Youth Jobs Program
1. Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 2024-244 with the Kern Community Foundation (not to exceed $3,805,303.68) for administration of the Bakersfield Youth Jobs Program.
2. Appropriate $2,153,015.60 of California Volunteers grant funds into Economic and Community Development Department operating budget.
3. Appropriate $244,358.40 of California Volunteers grant funds into City Manager’s Office operating budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of agreement amendment and to appropriate funds.
BACKGROUND:
Since March 2022, the City of Bakersfield has received $6,527,631.26 in grant funds from the Office of the Governor, California Volunteers for the Bakersfield Youth Jobs Program (BYJP). In May 2025, the City was awarded additional grant funds of $2,397,374 to continue the BYJP until end of year 2026. In total, these funds include four program years from July 2022 to December 2026.
California Volunteers, in partnership with California cities, bring together youth from across the state to help address urgent challenges in their communities, learn key skills, earn money, and create career pathways to public and community service. As of June 2025, there has locally been 296 participants, with nearly 100,000 hours served, with 69 participants finding permanent employment and 118 with plans to enroll in a full-time educational opportunity.
On September 11, 2024, the City Council approved Agreement No. 2024-244 in the amount of $1,591,980.22 to Kern Community Foundation to serve as the program manager and implement the Bakersfield Youth Jobs Program. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2024-244 increased the amount to not exceed $1,845,887.42 to include additional wrap-around services.
With the additional funding from California Volunteers, staff proposes Amendment No. 2 to Agreement 2024-244 with Kern Community Foundation to add the fourth year of funding in the amount of $1,959,416.26 (not to exceed $3,805,303.68) and to appropriate $2,397,374 to the Economic and Community Development and the City Manager’s Office operating budgets.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This program is fully funded by the California Volunteers grant, thus this has no impact on the City General Funds.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Economic Opportunity for All
ATTACHMENT:
1. Amendment to Agreement
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 10, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Bids TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: August 8, 2025
SUBJECT: Traffic Signal and Lighting System Installation at the Intersection of Mt Ridge Drive and Berkshire Road; and Mt Ridge Drive and McCutchen Road
1. Accept bid and approve contract with A-C Electric ($1,217,934.00) for said project.
2. Appropriate $200,000 from Transportation Development Fund (TDF) fund balance into the Public Works Department’s Capital Improvement Program within the TDF fund for said project.
3. Authorize staff to approve, as necessary, up to $50,000 in City-controlled contingency for unforeseen conditions encountered during construction of said project. (Ward 7) RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of low bid, approval of contract, appropriation of funds, and approval of City- controlled contingency.
BACKGROUND:
The work to be performed consists, in general, of installing two complete Traffic Signal and Lighting Systems at the intersections of Mt Ridge Drive and Berkshire Road; and at Mt Ridge Drive and McCutchen Road. The project also consists of removing existing street lights, traffic pavement striping and marking modifications, removal of existing roadside signs and installation of new roadside signs.
Item No. 1. This project is funded through both the Gas Tax Fund (GTF) and Transportation Development Funds (TDF).
The Engineer’s Estimate for this project is $868,000.00.
On July 31, 2025, the City received five (5) bids for this project. Four (4) of those bids were deemed acceptable with one (1) bid deemed non-responsive. The four (4) acceptable bids are as follows:
A-C Electric
2921 Hanger Way
Bakersfield, CA 93308 in the amount of $1,217,934.00
Loop Electric
7040 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93308 in the amount of $1,224,419.80
CA Professional Engineering
19062 San Jose
La Puente, CA 91748 in the amount of $1,238,137.50
Select Electric, Inc.
1700 E. Via Burton
Anaheim, CA 92806
in the amount of $1,388,500.00
The non-responsive bidder did not submit a complete bid proposal due to missing documents for the NonCollusion Affidavit, which is a requirement of the bidding procedures as outlined in the specifications.
Therefore, their bid was deemed non-responsive.
Staff recommends acceptance of the bids and approval of the construction contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, A-C Electric.
Item No. 2. Currently $1,100,000 is budgeted within the Capital Improvement Program budget for this project. The current bid price of $1,217,934, plus a $50,000 City-controlled contingency and a $32,066 construction inspection cost, results in a deficit of approximately $200,000. Staff recommends appropriating the additional funding in the amount of $200,000 from the Transportation Development Funds (TDF). Any unused portion of funding would be returned to the fund balance.
Item No. 3. Bakersfield Municipal Code section 3.20.105(E) authorizes Public Works Contract Amendments to be executed via Change Order, provided that Change Orders which exceed $10,000 must be approved by the City Council. Staff is requesting pre-approval of up to $50,000 for City-controlled contingency for unforeseen conditions encountered during construction of this project, to be executed via authorized Change Order(s). Any costs which exceed the City Council approved contingency, cumulative or otherwise, would require action and approval from the City Council. This City-controlled contingency will save staff time by not having to prepare multiple Council reports for individual routine change orders throughout the project, should they arise. All remaining contingency funds not used will be returned to the fund balance at the end of the project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This project is funded by Transportation Development Funds (TDF) and Gas Tax Funds (GTF); therefore, there is no general fund impact associated with this contract award. There are sufficient funds (T4K309 and 25PWTE01) for the award of this contract, contingencies, and construction engineering staff time COUNCIL GOAL:
Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Signed Construction Projects Agreement
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 10, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent-Miscellaneous TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin Albertson, Fire Chief
DATE: August 28, 2025
SUBJECT: Appropriate $10,000 charitable donation from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) charitable giving program
Appropriate $10,000 from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) charitable giving program to the Fire Department General Fund Operating budget to purchase thermal imaging cameras.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the appropriation.
BACKGROUND:
The Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD) was awarded a $10,000 charitable donation from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to purchase thermal imaging cameras. This donation was made through PG&E’s charitable giving program funds, which is dedicated to supporting initiatives that foster safer and more resilient communities. The funds will be used to procure thermal imaging cameras to strengthen the Bakersfield Fire Department’s emergency response capabilities, enhancing fire safety and survival measures in the event of a firefighter mayday incident.
The Bakersfield Fire Department has accepted a charitable donation of $10,000 from PG&E’s Charitable Giving Program and recommends the approval to appropriate the funds to the Fire Department’s General Fund Operating budget towards the acquisition of thermal imaging cameras.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for equipment will be provided by donation, thus no City General Funds will be used for the purchase of the cameras.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Innovative and Efficient City Government
ATTACHMENTS:
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 10, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - PSVS TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jennifer M. Byers, Economic & Community Development Director DATE: August 15, 2025
SUBJECT: Termination of Economic Opportunity Area Grant Agreement No. 2024-139 with BChamp, LLC ($32,760) (Ward 3)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends termination of the grant agreement.
BACKGROUND:
The Economic Opportunity Area (EOA) Incentive Program offers incentives to encourage business growth and redevelopment with financial assistance, such as grants and development assistance, for a business or non-profit within an EOA or planning to open or expand a business within an EOA.
On June 12, 2024, City Council approved Agreement No. 2024-139 with B-Champ, LLC as part of the 2023 Downtown Competitive EOA Program. The agreement awarded a reimbursable grant in the amount of $32,760 for site improvements, including exterior painting and related work, for the business location at 2603 G Street. Section 12 of Agreement No. 2024-139 includes specific requirements that the applicant agrees to complete work and submit a reimbursement request described in the Agreement within six months from the effective date of the Agreement to receive grant funding.
In order to complete the work, the initial six-month term, as well as two ninety-day extensions were granted to allow additional time for completion of the project scope of work. Between June 2024 to June 2025, the project was neither complete nor was there any notification or communication to staff as to the status of the project. Therefore, due to lack of performance and failure to comply with the provisions of the Agreement, staff requests that City Council terminate Agreement No. 2024-139. To date, no funds have been reimbursed to the business.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The funding was originally allocated in FY 2023-24. The $32,760 in funding will be reallocated to other eligible EOA projects.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Innovative and Efficient City Government
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Termination Letter
2. Agreement
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 10, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - PSVS - Agreement TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jennifer M. Byers, Economic and Community Development Director DATE: September 4, 2025
SUBJECT: Agreement with Be Finally Free (not to exceed $200,000) for the continued implementation of the Community Connectors Program. (Ward 2) RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the agreement.
BACKGROUND:
The City is committed to addressing and reducing homelessness within the community through focused outreach efforts to engage individuals on the streets and assist them with accessing critical resources.
On June 7, 2025, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for qualified agencies that specialize in targeted outreach, litter removal, and other supportive services to unsheltered populations in Old Town Kern through the Community Connectors program.
The City received three submittals. Be Finally Free was ranked as the most responsible bidder. The City desires to enter into an agreement with Be Finally Free not to exceed $200,000 to continue the Community Connectors program and the City’s efforts to reduce homelessness, connect individuals with immediate services, and promote public safety and community resilience.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The department allocated funds within its FY 2025-2026 Budget, therefore no additional General Funds is requested.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Safety and Resilience
Community Character & Quality of Life
ATTACHMENT:
1. Agreement
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 10, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Hearings TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: September 5, 2025
SUBJECT: Public Appeal Hearing of Planning Commission’s Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased) and its proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Mcintosh & Associates, representing Opal Land Company Co-Ownership Interests, LLC & BGM, LLC & 7-G’s Investment Group, LLC, is proposing Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased)to subdivide approximately 32.66 acres into 176 single-family residential lots and 5 public landscape lots in the R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) zone located at the southwest corner of Olive Drive and Rosedale Ranch Parkway. (Ward 4) Consideration of a Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7450 (Phased).
Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, submitted an appeal to the Planning Commission’s approval of the request.
RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7450 and its proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 7450 consists of 176 residential lots and 5 public landscape lots on 32.66 acres. Residential lots range in size from 4,500 square feet (s.f.) to 12, 657 s.f., and the typical lot size is approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep (5,000 square feet). The net density is 5.86 units per net acre which is consistent with the LR designation of the project site of less than or equal to 7.26 dwelling units per net acre. Access to this subdivision would be from Rosedale Ranch Parkway (future collector) on the subdivision's east boundary and from Reina Road (collector) on the south.
Planning Commission Decision. VTTM No. 7450 (Phased) was scheduled for Planning Commission consideration for the January 16, 2025, and February 20, 2025 meetings but VTTM No. 7450 (Phased) was referred back to staff for further review and to respond to comments submitted by Gordan Nipp on behalf of the Sierra Club and Carol Bender. On July 17, 2025, the Planning Commission considered VTTM No. 7450 (Phased). Comments and concerns were addressed in the staff report and a memorandum was prepared summarizing the comments with staff’s response.
At the July 17, 2025 meeting, Blaine Neptune representing McIntosh and Associates, Inc. and Tom Dee representing Opal Land Company Co-Ownership Interests, LLC & BGM, LLC & 7-G’s Investment Group, LLC were present in support. Eddy Laine representing the Sierra Club were present in opposition to the project. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the request with Commissioners Neal and Martin absent. The Planning Commission’s findings are contained in Resolution No. 35-25 (attached).
Appeal to Planning Commission’s Decision. On July 25, 2025, Sierra Club filed an appeal to the Planning Commission’s decision to approve VTTM No. 7450. The basis for the appeal was set forth in the letter which states:
The Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club, with approximately 1,150 local members, would be affected by project construction impacts related to air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and habitat loss.
Prior written and oral comments regarding cumulative climate change, cumulative air pollution, and habitat loss impacts have not been adequately addressed. Mitigation measures for cumulative environmental impacts are insufficient. Additional detail supporting the appeal is provided in the Sierra Club’s July 15, 2025 letter on record for the project.
The property owner provided a detailed response to each of the concerns raised. A copy of the appeal and response are attached.
Environmental Review. Based upon an initial study, Staff determined the proposed project, with mitigation, would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The MND was circulated for public and agency review from June 10, 2025 to July 10, 2025. The following special studies were submitted: biological resources, cultural resources, traffic, and air quality analysis.
Public Notification. All required public notices have been given for both the Planning Commission public hearings held January 16, 2025, February 20, 2025 and July 17, 2025, and the City Council public hearing of September 10, 2025. Correspondence received for the Planning Commission is attached with the Planning Commission staff report. No correspondence has been received in response to the City Council noticing.
CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS:
The City Council may sustain, modify, reject, or overrule any ruling of the Planning Commission for this subdivision of land. Two Resolutions have been provided for your Council’s consideration regarding the appeal:
1. Deny the Appeal and Approve VTTM No. 7450 (Phased). If the City Council were to deny the appeal and uphold Planning Commission's approval, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map would be approved and facilitate construction of 176 residential lots and 5 public landscape lots on 32.66 acres.
2. Approve the Appeal and Deny VTTM No. 7450 (Phased). If the City Council were to approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's approval, the project site could not be developed as proposed and would retain its current state.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes the proposed subdivision of land is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; the site is physically suitable for the type of development; the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; the design of the subdivision will not likely cause serious public health problems; and the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
Overall Recommendation. Staff makes the determination that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area, land use designation, and zoning ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends to the City Council consider the whole of the record, to include the appellant’s concerns and consultant’s responses, and deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7450.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact with the proposed subdivision of land. Development as a result of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7450 will be subject to the appropriate application processing fees that have been determined to be sufficient to cover all operational expenses related to processing projects.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Community Character & Quality of Life
Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:
A. City Council Resolution to Deny Appeal and Approve VTTM 7450 B. City Council Resolution to Approve Appeal and Deny VTTM 7450 C. Map Set
D. Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments
E. Planning Commission Staff Report
F. Planning Commission Memorandum
G. Planning Commission Resolution
H. Appeal Letter of Planning Commission Decision
I. Memorandum Summarizing Responses to Appeal Letter
RESOLUTION NO. _____________
RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE
APPEAL AND APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7450
(PHASED) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF OLIVE DRIVE AND ROSEDALE RANCH PARKWAY IN NORTHWEST BAKERSFIELD.
WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates representing Opal Land Company CoOwnership Interests, LLC & BGM, LLC & 7-G’s Investment Group, filed an application with the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department Planning Division requesting approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased). The proposed subdivision would consist of 176 lots and 5 public landscape lots on 32.66 acres located at the southwest corner of Olive Drive and Rosedale Ranch Parkway in northwest Bakersfield, as shown on attached Exhibit “B” (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on November 20, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission, did set, Thursday, January 16, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Project. Subsequent to setting the project for consideration, Staff requested VTTM 7450 be referred back for readvertising and public notification; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission, did set, Thursday, February 20, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Project. Subsequent to setting the project for consideration, Staff requested VTTM 7450 be referred back to respond to address comments and for further environmental evaluation; and
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission, did set, Thursday, July 17, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Project, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, After the July 17, 2025 public hearing concluded, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the project, with Blaine Neptune representing McIntosh and Associates, Inc. and Tom Dee representing Opal Land Company CoOwnership Interests, LLC & BGM, LLC & 7-G’s Investment Group, LLC present in support.
Eddy Laine representing the Sierra Club was present to voice opposition. Notably, two Commissioners were absent during the vote (Resolution 35-25); and WHEREAS, On July 25, 2025, Sierra Club, the appellant, filed a written appeal with the City Clerk to the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, through the City Clerk, did set the time and place of the public hearing as Wednesday, September 10, 2025, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, to consider the appeal, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, during the September 10, 2025, public hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s action; and
WHEREAS, staff has determined the Project will not significantly effect the environment and, pursuant to State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is adequate and no further environmental documentation is necessary; and WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to CEQA and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Department (1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and
WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report, environmental review, and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above-referenced public hearing support the findings contained in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby make the following finding:
1. All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation, 10 days prior to the hearing.
2. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, staff prepared an initial study and indicated that because mitigation measures relating to biological resources, cultural resources and air quality analysis have been incorporated into the Project, the Project will have less than significant impact on the physical environment.
3. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.
4. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
5. The site is physically suitable for the type of development.
6. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
7. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
8. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
9. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
10. Urban services are available for the proposed development. The Project is within an area to be served by all necessary utilities and waste disposal systems.
Improvements proposed as part of the Project will deliver utilities to the individual lots or parcels to be created.
11. Mineral right owners' signatures may be waived on the final map pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060.A.1. The applicant has provided evidence with the Project application that it is appropriate to waive mineral right owners’ signatures because in accordance with BMC Section 16.20.060 A.1., the party’s right of surface entry has been waived by recorded document prior to recordation of any final map.
12. The conditions of approval are necessary for orderly development and to provide for public health, welfare, and safety.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield City Council as follows:
1. The above recitals and findings incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. The decision of the Planning Commission is upheld, subject to conditions of approval shown in attached Exhibit “A”.
3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is adopted.
4. The appeal is denied.
5. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7450 is hereby approved, subject to the conditions of approval shown in attached Exhibit “A” and shown in attached Exhibit “C”.
o0o
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on September 10, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: ARIAS, GONZALES, WEIR, SMITH, KOMAN, BASHIRTASH, KAUR NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________ ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________
JULIE DRIMAKIS, CMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED
_______________________________
KAREN GOH
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By: ____________________________
VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibits:
A Conditions of Approval
B Location Map with Zoning
C Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased)
By NT \S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7450 Conditions.docx
EXHIBIT “A”
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 7450
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
NOTE to Subdivider/Applicant: It is important that you review and comply with requirements and deadlines listed in the “FOR YOUR INFORMATION” packet that is provided separately. This packet contains existing ordinance requirements, policies, and departmental operating procedures as they may apply to this subdivision.
PUBLIC WORKS
1. There was no letter submitted requesting deviations from standards.
2. Approval of this tentative map does not indicate approval of grading, drainage lines and appurtenant facilities shown, or any variations from ordinance, standard, and policy requirements which have neither been requested nor specifically approved.
3. Prior to grading plan review submit the following for review and approval:
3.1. A drainage study for the entire subdivision, or a revision to the approved study.
The study shall be approved, any required retention shall be provided, and necessary easements shall be dedicated to the City.
3.2. Sewer service will be provided by North of the River Sanitary District (NORSD).
Please contact NORSD for their planning, design, and construction requirements.
Sewer service fees shall be paid to NORSD prior to building permits being issued.
3.3. If the tract is discharging storm water to a canal, a channel, or the Kern River: In order to meet the requirements of the City of Bakersfield’s NPDES permit, and to prevent the introduction of sediments from construction or from storm events to the waters of the US, all storm water systems that ultimately convey drainage to the river or a canal shall have a mechanical device in the storm drain system to remove or minimize the introduction of oil, grease, trash, and sediments. This device shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and shall provide the greatest benefit to the storm drain system with the least maintenance cost.
4. The following conditions must be reflected in the design of the improvement plans:
4.1. Final plan check fees shall be submitted with the first plan check submission.
4.2. Per Resolution 108-2023 the area within the Tract shall implement and comply with the “complete streets” policy. Complete streets will require pedestrian and bicycle access to the Tract from existing sidewalks and bike lanes. If there is a gap less than ¼ mile then construction of asphalt sidewalks and bike lanes to the tract will be required.
4.3. Install traffic signal interconnect conduit and pull rope for the frontage in all arterials and collectors. Install conduit and pull ropes in future traffic signal locations.
4.4. In addition to other paving requirements, on and off-site road improvements may be required from any collector or arterial street to provide left turn and right turn channelization into each street (or access point) within the subdivision (or Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7450
By NT\S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7450 Conditions.docx
development), where warranted and as directed by the City Engineer. Said channelization shall be developed to provide necessary transitions and deceleration lanes to meet the current CalTrans standards for the design speed of the roadway in question.
4.5. Off-site pavement and striping construction will be required to transition from the proposed/ultimate on-site improvements to the existing conditions at the time construction commences. Transitions must be designed in accordance with City Standards and/or the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. If existing conditions change during the period of time between street improvement plan approval and construction commencement, the street improvement plans must be revised and approved by the City Engineer.
4.6. Right turn deceleration lanes are required on arterials at all streets and access points if the 85th percentile speed is less than 45 mph and the peak hour turning volume is over 200, or if the 85th percentile speed is 45 mph or greater and the peak hour turning volume is over 25.
5. The subdivider shall either construct the equivalent full width landscaped median island in Olive Dr for the site’s frontage or pay $100 per Linear Feet (their proportionate share of the cost for the future construction of the median). Median islands shall be designed by the first tract or development to be approved on a side.
6. The subdivide is responsible for implementing the following:
6.1. The phasing map as submitted may be unbalanced with respect to the required improvements along the tract frontages. Therefore, in order to promote orderly development, each phase shall be responsible for an equal dollar amount of frontage improvement. Prior to recordation of each final map for any phase that does not construct its share of the improvements, the difference between the cost of the frontage improvements constructed and the phase share shall be placed into an escrow account. The money deposited in this account would be for the use of the developer of any future phase responsible for more than its share of improvements. The final per-lot share will be based upon an approved engineer’s estimate. In lieu of the use of an escrow account, the developer may choose to construct with each phase its proportionate share of the frontage improvements, with approval of the City Engineer.
6.2. The following conditions are based upon the premise that filing of Final Maps will occur in the order shown on the map with Phase 1 first, then Phase 2, then Phase 3, etc. If recordation does not occur in that normal progression, then, prior to recordation of each final map, the City Engineer shall determine the extent of improvements to be done with that particular phase.
6.2.1. The following shall occur with Phase 1:
6.2.1.1. Construct Olive Drive to full ½ width arterial street standards from the western tract boundary to the eastern tract boundary.
6.2.1.2. Construct Rosedale Ranch Parkway to full ½ width collector street standards from the northern tract boundary to the phase 1/2 boundary.
Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7450
By NT\S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7450 Conditions.docx
6.2.2. The following shall occur with Phase 2:
6.2.2.1. Construct Rosedale Ranch Parkway to full ½ width collector street standards from the phase 1/2 boundary to the eastern tract boundary.
6.2.2.2. Construct Willowsong Rd along the Phase 2 frontage. Willowsong Rd shall be constructed as a boundary street if the east half of the street is not already constructed.
6.2.2.3. A temporary turnaround will be required on Fir Tree Rd at the eastern tract boundary, if a connection to Rosedale Ranch Parkway or Reina Rd does not exist.
6.2.2.4. An in-lieu fee shall be paid for the landscape improvements, which will not be constructed with this tract, on the west side of Redwood Hill St within Phase 2.
6.2.3. The following shall occur with Phase 3:
6.2.3.1. Construct Willowsong Rd from the Phase 2/3 boundary to the southern tract boundary. Willowsong Rd shall be constructed as a boundary street if the east half of the street is not already constructed.
6.2.3.2. Construct Reina Rd from the western tract boundary to the eastern tract boundary. Reina Rd shall be constructed as a boundary street.
6.2.3.3. An-lieu fee shall be paid for the landscape improvements, which will not be constructed with this tract, on the west side of Redwood Hill St & Acorn RidgeWay within Phase 2.
If the number of phases or the boundaries of the phases are changed, the developer must submit to the City Engineer an exhibit showing the number and configuration of the proposed phases. The City Engineer will review the exhibit and determine the order and extent of improvements to be constructed with each new phase. The improvement plans may require revision to conform to the new conditions.
6.3. The subdivider is responsible for verifying that existing streets within the boundary of the tract are constructed to city standards and he will reconstruct streets within the boundary if not to standard.
6.4. Where streets do not have curb and gutter, construct a minimum section of 36 feet wide consisting of 2-12’ lanes, 2-4’ paved shoulders and 2 additional feet per side of either AC or other dust proof surface.
6.5. The use of interim, non-standard drainage retention areas shall be in accordance with the drainage policy adopted by letter dated January 24, 1997.
6.6. To preserve the permeability of the sump and to prevent the introduction of sediments from construction or from storm events, Best Management Practices for complying with the requirements of the Clean Water Act are required.
Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7450
By NT\S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7450 Conditions.docx
6.7. All lots with sumps and water well facilities will have wall and landscaping to the appropriate street standards, at the building setback with landscaping as approved by the Public Works and Parks Directors.
6.8. Drainage basins shall be reviewed and approved by both the Public Works Department and the Water Resources Department.
6.9. Install blue markers in the street at the fire hydrants per the Fire Department requirements.
7. The following must be reflected in the final map design:
7.1. A waiver of direct access shall be required for all lots abutting any arterials and collectors.
8. Prior to recordation of the first final map within this project site, subdivider shall make written notification to the City Engineer of any public improvements required to be financed or constructed outside the boundaries of the tentative map (i.e., “offsite improvements) as defined in BMC 116.16.080(E), and the cost of such offsite improvements. The notice shall include an engineer’s estimate or other documentation as required by the City Engineer that outlines by line item the specific offsite improvements for purposes of verifying extension of time eligibility pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.6(a). The written notification and documentation are subject to approval by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
9. Prior to recording the first final map:
9.1. The City Council must have taken final action for the inclusion of this tract within the Consolidated Maintenance District.
9.2. The developer is required to construct an improvement which is on the facilities list for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Olive Dr. The developer shall receive credit against his traffic impact fees for constructing this project. The developer must submit an appraisal, to be approved by the City Engineer, verifying the cost of the right-of-way to be acquired. This credit is not available until the improvement has been constructed by the developer and accepted for maintenance by the City. Any building permit issued prior to this acceptance shall pay the full impact fee.
9.3. If it becomes necessary to obtain any off-site right of way and if the subdivider is unable to obtain the required right of way, then he shall pay to the City the upfront costs for eminent domain proceedings and enter into an agreement and post security for the purchase and improvement of said right of way.
10. Prior to recording each final map:
10.1. All facilities within the boundaries of this subdivision identified by the approved drainage study shall be constructed in accordance with the plans approved by the City Engineer, and all easements required shall be provided.
10.2. The subdivider shall submit an enforceable, recordable document approved by the City Attorney to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map which will Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7450
By NT\S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7450 Conditions.docx
prohibit occupancy of any lot until all improvements have been completed by the subdivider and accepted by the City.
10.3. The subdivider shall submit an enforceable, recordable document approved by the City Attorney to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map containing information with respect to the addition of this subdivision to the consolidated maintenance district. Said covenant shall also contain information pertaining to the maximum anticipated annual cost per single family dwelling for the maintenance of landscaping associated with this tract. Said covenant shall be provided to each new property owner through escrow proceedings. If the parcel is already within a consolidated maintenance district, the owner shall update the maintenance district documents, including Proposition 218 Ballot and Covenant, which shall be signed and notarized.
11. Prior to Notice of Completion:
11.1. The storm drain system, including the sump, shall be inspected and any debris removed.
11.2. Street Name Signs (SNS):
11.2.1. Metro Size SNS shall be installed at the intersection of local streets with Arterial and collector streets.
11.2.2. Standard SNS shall be installed at all other locations.
FIRE SAFETY DIVISION
12. Pipeline Easements.
12.1. Concurrently with recordation of any phase that includes the pipeline easements or portions thereof, subdivider shall show the easements on the final map with a notation that structures including accessory buildings, habitable portion of a structure, garage, deck/patio, swimming pools or unoccupied permanent structure, are prohibited within the setback and record a corresponding covenant.
12.2. Prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase that includes the pipeline easements or portions thereof, subdivider shall show on the final map that no habitable portion of a structure, garage, deck/patio, swimming pools or unoccupied permanent structure may be built within 50 feet of a gas main, or transmission line, or refined liquid product line with 36 inches of cover and record a corresponding covenant.
12.3. No structure may be within 40 feet of a hazardous liquids pipeline bearing refined product, within 48 inches or more of cover. If a pipeline meets these criteria, the 40-foot setback line shall be shown in the final map and a corresponding covenant shall be recorded prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase that is affected.
12.4. No habitable portion of a structure may be built within thirty (30) feet of a crude oil pipeline operating at twenty percent (20%) or greater of its design strength.
Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7450
By NT\S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7450 Conditions.docx
12.5. Prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase within 250 feet of the pipeline easements, subdivider shall record a covenant disclosing the location of the pipelines on all lots of this subdivision within 250 feet of the pipelines.
American Petroleum Institute Standards and Guidelines for property development
13. Fire Apparatus Access Roads and Hydrants
13.1. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for protection, is required to be installed, such shall be installed and made serviceable prior to any building permit issuance and throughout the time of construction.
13.2. Dead-End fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4 (California Fire Code)
Table D103.4
Requirments for Dead-End Fire Apparatus Access Roads
Length
(Feet)
Width
(Feet)
Turnaround Required
0-150 20 None required
151-500 20
120-foot Hammerhead, 60-foot "Y" or 96-foot
diameter cul-de-sac
501-750 26
120-foot Hammerhead, 60-foot "Y" or 96-foot
diameter cul-de-sac
Over 750 Special Approval Required
13.3. Fire Apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds and shall be surfaced with the first lift of asphalt to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
RECREATION AND PARKS
14. Prior to recordation of a final map, the subdivider shall dedicate land with free and clear title to North of the River Recreation and Park District based on a park land dedication requirement of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population in accordance with Chapter 15.80 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. If the number of dwelling units increases or decreases upon recordation of a final map(s), the park land requirement will change accordingly. Prior to the recordation of a final map, the subdivider shall record a covenant North of the River Recreation and Park District. Prior to recordation of the second phase, the subdivider shall enter into an agreement with North of the River Recreation and Park District to implement and satisfy this condition. This subdivision is located within the boundaries of North of the River Recreation and Park District.
Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7450
By NT\S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7450 Conditions.docx
14.1. Subdivider shall dedicate approximately 1.4 acres and/or pay Quimby fees on the remaining portion of the park land requirement. Refer to BMC Chapter 15.80 and Planning Information Sheet regarding calculation and payment of Quimby fee. If the number of dwelling units increases or decreases upon recordation of a final map, the parkland and/or fee requirement will change accordingly.
BMC Chapter 15.80 requires the Planning Commission to determine if a subdivider is to dedicate park land, pay Quimby fee, reserve park land or a combination of these in order to satisfy the City’s park land ordinance for North of the River Recreation and Park District. Staff is recommending this condition in accordance with BMC Chapter 15.80.
15. Prior to recordation of any final map, the subdivider shall record a covenant on the property disclosing the requirement to dedicate/reserve a public park pursuant to a park agreement with the North of the River Recreation and Park District. Covenant shall be reviewed for approval by the North of the River Recreation and Park District prior to recordation.
North of the River Recreation and Park District requested condition for orderly development.
16. Prior to recordation of a final map, the subdivider shall provide the Planning Department written proof/verification from North of the River Recreation and Park District that said project is within the NOR Park Maintenance District.
North of the River Recreation and Park District requested condition for orderly development.
CITY ATTORNEY
17. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not limited to related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the applicant, and/or property owner and/or subdivider ("Applicant" herein) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents, employees, departments, commissioners and boards ("City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including without limitation any CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed by the City, or not, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct.
This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any decision by the City related to this project and the obligations of this condition apply regardless of whether any other permits or entitlements are issued.
The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, falling under this condition within thirty (30) days of actually receiving such claim. The City, in its sole discretion, shall be allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend the City at the sole cost and expense of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to use any law firm or attorney chosen by another entity or party.
Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7450
By NT\S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7450 Conditions.docx
PLANNING
18. This subdivision shall comply with all provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, and applicable resolutions, policies and standards in effect at the time the application for the subdivision map was deemed complete per Government Code Section 66474.2.
19. The subdivision shall be recorded in no more than 4 phases. Phases shall be identified numerically and not alphabetically.
Orderly development.
20. Prior to recordation of each final map, subdivider shall submit a “will serve” or “water availability” letter or other documentation acceptable to the Planning Director from the water purveyor stating the purveyor will provide water service to the phase to be recorded.
Required for orderly development and provide for the public health, welfare and safety by ensuring water service to the subdivision at the time of final map recordation because the water purveyor has included an expiration date in the initial “will serve” letter.
21. Mineral Rights: Prior to recordation of the first final map, the following shall apply:
21.1. Subdivider shall submit written evidence that waiver(s) of surface entry has been obtained from 100% of the mineral right interest(s) for the entire area of this tract.
Written evidence shall be submitted to the Planning Director in the form of a recorded document such as a grant deed or other instrument approved by the City Attorney. The proposed lots shown underlying the drill site shall be allowed to record subject all other conditions of approval of the tentative map.
21.2. Subdivider does not provide verification to the Planning Director that waiver of surface entry from all mineral rights owners have been obtained, the minimum 2- acre drill site drill site reservation as approved by the Planning Commission shall be recorded with the first final map, and prior to or concurrently with a the final map subdivider shall:
21.2.1. Record a covenant encumbering the drill site as such;
21.2.2. Record a covenant of all lots of this subdivision within 500 feet of the drill site disclosing the drill site location and possible activities;
21.2.3. Construct a six-foot high masonry wall with gate access around the drill site as shown on the tentative tract. However, upon approval by the Planning Director, wall construction may be defer until adjacent residential lots are recorded. Wall height shall be measured to the highest adjacent grade.
21.2.4. Have covenants reviewed approved by the City Attorney and Planning Director prior to recording.
Required to verify compliance with BMC Section 16.20.060 A.1 and orderly development.
22. In the event a previously undocumented well is uncovered or discovered on the project site, the subdivider is responsible to contact the Department of Conservation’s Division of Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM). The subdivider is responsible for Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7450
By NT\S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7450 Conditions.docx
any remedial operations on the well required by CalGEM. Subdivider shall also be subject to provisions of BMC Section 15.66.080 (B.)
Police power based on public health, welfare and safety.
23. Prior to recordation of or concurrently with a final map of a phase affected by the 50- foot non-buildable area of the Southern California Edison gas transmission line, subdivider shall record a covenant disclosing the non-buildable area for those lots affected. The final map shall depict and label the setback line on the final map. The covenant shall be reviewed and receive approval by the City Attorney and Planning director prior to recordation.
24. Concurrently with recordation of any phase that includes the pipeline easements or portions thereof, subdivider shall show the easements on the final map with a notation that structures including accessory buildings and swimming pools, are prohibited within the easements and record a corresponding covenant.
25. Prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase within 250 feet of the pipeline easements, subdivider shall record a covenant disclosing the location of the pipelines on all lots of this subdivision within 250 feet of the pipelines.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures Biological Resources:
26. BIO-1: A biological resource pre-activity survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30-days before the start of construction activities.
27. BIO-2: There will be biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance.
28. BIO-3: Compliance reporting shall be provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted.
29. BIO-4: A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special-status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented.
30. BIO-5: If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or during Ground Disturbance (2011) shall be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.
31. BIO-6: Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet.
32. BIO-7: Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped shall be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.
33. BIO-8: Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater in diameter shall be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.
34. BIO-9: If ground-disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7450
By NT\S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7450 Conditions.docx
31), nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance should occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist. Appropriate avoidance should be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests should be implemented as follows:
1. Ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters),
2. Burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW may be warranted,
3. Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers),
4. Other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters).
Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
35. CUL-1: During construction, if cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work shall immediately cease, and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Project is subject to any recommendations of the qualified specialist.
36. CUL-2: During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99.
37. CUL -3: Prior to final map approval, provide cultural resource study to the Planning Director.
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures:
38. GHG-1: Using controls that reduce exhaust from construction equipment.
39. GHG-2: Using electricity for power instead of diesel, when possible.
40. GHG-3: No idling of construction equipment engines.
41. GHG-4: Construct buildings with Uniform Building Code standards to minimize total consumption of energy.
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Measures
42. HAZ-1: Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a comprehensive assessment shall be conducted to identify the types and quantities of pesticides and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) historically used on the project site. The assessment shall include, but not be limited to, analysis for dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), toxaphene, and dieldrin.
If any of these OCPs are detected at concentrations exceeding applicable screening levels, including those identified in the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3 or DTSC-SLs approved local area background thresholds, additional Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7450
By NT\S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7450 Conditions.docx
sampling and risk evaluation shall be performed. If contaminant levels are found to exceed acceptable thresholds, remedial actions shall be implemented to reduce concentrations below regulatory levels prior to construction.
The assessment shall also evaluate arsenic levels; any detection of arsenic shall require further analysis and must demonstrate compliance with HHRA Note Number 3, DTSCSLs, or applicable local baseline levels. If concentrations exceed such thresholds, appropriate remedial actions shall be taken.
Potential contaminants of concern (COCs) associated with former agricultural operations, including but not limited to pesticide mixing/loading areas, drainage ditches, former farmhouses, and outbuildings, shall be identified, sampled, and analyzed. If smudge pots were historically used on-site, additional sampling for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) shall be conducted. All necessary sampling and remediation activities shall be completed to the satisfaction of the appropriate regulatory agency (e.g., DTSC or Regional Water Quality Control Board) prior to the issuance of grading permits.
43. HAZ-2: Prior to the importation of any soil or fill material to the project site, the applicant shall ensure that all imported material is free of contaminants and suitable for the intended land use. All imported soil and fill shall be tested in accordance with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual to assess potential contaminants of concern and verify that concentrations do not exceed applicable screening levels.
To minimize the risk of introducing contaminated materials to the site, the source and origin of the imported soil or fill shall be documented. Sampling and analysis of imported materials shall be conducted, as appropriate, based on knowledge of the source site and its prior uses. The sampling protocol shall be designed to identify contaminants commonly associated with the source area’s historical land use.
Imported materials shall meet the criteria outlined in DTSC’s Information Advisory:
Clean Imported Fill Material fact sheet. Soil that does not meet the applicable screening criteria shall not be imported to the site. Documentation of compliance, including laboratory analytical results and source information, shall be maintained on file and provided to the lead agency for review prior to the issuance of any grading permits.
Additional guidance may be obtained from DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) website to support evaluation and ensure consistency with current DTSC risk assessment practices.
Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measures
44. TRAN-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall participate in the Regional Traffic Impact Fee (RTIF) program by paying the adopted fees in place for the land use type at time of development.
11/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_
C-2
M-1
M-1 M-1 M-1 M-1 M-1 M-1 M-1
C-2
R-1
R-2 R-2
R-2
R-2
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-2 R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-4
CITY LIMIT
GRAFHAM
WOOD
WAY
ARDEN
FOREST DR
SCAFELL
PIKEST
MORNING
BREEZE ST
LEONARD ALVARADO
RD
REIN
REINA RD
A RD
REINA RD
ROSEDALE RANCH PKWY
OLIVE DR
RENFRO RD
SANTA FE WAY
Zoning
R-1 One Family Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
R-1-4.5 One Family Dwelling
4,500 sq.ft. min lot size
E Estate
10,000 sq.ft. min lot size
R-S Residential Suburban
24,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit
R-S-( ) Residential Suburban
1, 2.5, 5 or 10 min lot size
R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling
4,500 sq.ft. min lot size (single family)
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size (multifamily)
2,500 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit
R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
1,250 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit
R-4 High Density Multiple Family Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
600 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit
R-H Residential Holding
20 acre min lot size
A Agriculture
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
A-20A Agriculture
20 acre min lot size
A-WR Agriculture-Water Recharge
Combining
PUD Planned Unit Development
TT Travel Trailer Park
MH Mobilehome
C-O Professional & Administrative Office
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2 Regional Commercial
C-C Commercial Center
C-B Central Business
PCD Planned Commercial Development
M-1 Light Manufacturing
M-2 General Manufacturing
M-3 Heavy Industrial
P Automobile Parking
RE Recreation
Ch Church Overlay
OS Open Space
HOSP Hospital Overlay
AD Architectural Design Overlay
FP-P Floodplain Primary
FP-S Floodplain Secondary
AA Airport Approach
DI Drilling Island
PE Petroleum Extraction Combining
SC Senior Citizen Overlay
HD Hillside Development Combining
WM West Ming Specific Plan
VTTM 7450
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7450
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Exhibit B
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE LR
Exhibit C
RESOLUTION NO. _____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING
THE APPEAL AND DENYING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7450 (PHASED) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF OLIVE DRIVE AND ROSEDALE RANCH PARKWAY IN NORTHWEST BAKERSFIELD.
WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates representing Opal Land Company CoOwnership Interests, LLC & BGM, LLC & 7-G’s Investment Group, filed an application with the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department Planning Division requesting approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased). The proposed subdivision would consist of 176 lots and 5 public landscape lots on 32.66 acres located at the southwest corner of Olive Drive and Rosedale Ranch Parkway in northwest Bakersfield (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on November 20, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission, did set, Thursday, January 16, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Project. Subsequent to setting the project for consideration, Staff requested VTTM 7450 be referred back for readvertising and public notification; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission, did set, Thursday, February 20, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Project. Subsequent to setting the project for consideration, Staff requested VTTM 7450 be referred back to respond to address comments and for further environmental evaluation; and
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission, did set, Thursday, July 17, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Project, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, After the July 17, 2025 public hearing concluded, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the project, with Blaine Neptune representing McIntosh and Associates, Inc. and Tom Dee representing Opal Land Company CoOwnership Interests, LLC & BGM, LLC & 7-G’s Investment Group, LLC present in support.
Eddy Laine representing the Sierra Club was present to voice opposition. Notably, two Commissioners were absent during the vote (Resolution 35-25); and WHEREAS, On July 25, 2025, Sierra Club, the appellant, filed a written appeal with the City Clerk to the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project; and WHEREAS, , the City Council, through the City Clerk, did set the time and place of the public hearing as Wednesday, September 10, 2025, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, to consider the appeal, and notice of
the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, during the September 10, 2025 public hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s action; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby make the following finding:
1. Based on the preponderance of the evidence on the record, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7450 as proposed is not in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield City Council as follows:
2. The above recitals and findings incorporated herein, are true and correct.
3. The Planning Commission's findings as contained in its Resolution No. 35-25 are hereby overturned.
4. The City Council hereby upholds the appeal.
5. The City Council hereby denies Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7450 without prejudice.
o0o
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on September 10, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: ARIAS, GONZALES, WEIR, SMITH, KOMAN, BASHIRTASH, KAUR NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________ ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________
JULIE DRIMAKIS, CMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED
_______________________________
KAREN GOH
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By: ____________________________
VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibits:
A Location Map with Zoning
B Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased)
11/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_
C-2
M-1
M-1 M-1 M-1 M-1 M-1 M-1 M-1
C-2
R-1
R-2 R-2
R-2
R-2
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-2 R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-4
CITY LIMIT
GRAFHAM
WOOD
WAY
ARDEN
FOREST DR
SCAFELL
PIKE ST
MORNING
BREEZE ST
LEONARD ALVARADO
RD
REIN
REINA RD
A RD
REINA RD
ROSEDALE RANCH PKWY
OLIVE DR
RENFRO RD
SANTA FE WAY
Zoning
R-1 One Family Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
R-1-4.5 One Family Dwelling
4,500 sq.ft. min lot size
E Estate
10,000 sq.ft. min lot size
R-S Residential Suburban
24,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit
R-S-( ) Residential Suburban
1, 2.5, 5 or 10 min lot size
R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling
4,500 sq.ft. min lot size (single family)
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size (multifamily)
2,500 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit
R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
1,250 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit
R-4 High Density Multiple Family Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
600 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit
R-H Residential Holding
20 acre min lot size
A Agriculture
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
A-20A Agriculture
20 acre min lot size
A-WR Agriculture-Water Recharge
Combining
PUD Planned Unit Development
TT Travel Trailer Park
MH Mobilehome
C-O Professional & Administrative Office
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2 Regional Commercial
C-C Commercial Center
C-B Central Business
PCD Planned Commercial Development
M-1 Light Manufacturing
M-2 General Manufacturing
M-3 Heavy Industrial
P Automobile Parking
RE Recreation
Ch Church Overlay
OS Open Space
HOSP Hospital Overlay
AD Architectural Design Overlay
FP-P Floodplain Primary
FP-S Floodplain Secondary
AA Airport Approach
DI Drilling Island
PE Petroleum Extraction Combining
SC Senior Citizen Overlay
HD Hillside Development Combining
WM West Ming Specific Plan
VTTM 7450
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7450
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Exhibit A
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE LR
Exhibit B
MAP SET
11/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_
CITY LIMIT
GRAFHAM
WOOD
WAY
ARDEN
FOREST DR
SCAFELL
PIKEST
MORNING
BREEZE ST
L
E
O
N
A
R
D
A
L
V
A
R
A
D
O
R
D
REINA RD
REINA RD
REINA RD
ROSEDALE RANCH PKWY
OLIVE DR
RENFRO RD
SANTA FE WAY
Copyright nearmap 2015
AERIAL
VTTM 7450
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7450
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
11/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_
CITY LIMIT
GRAFHAM
WOOD
WAY
ARDEN
FOREST DR
SCAFELL
PIKEST
MORNING
BREEZE ST
L
E
O
N
A
R
D
A
L
V
A
R
A
D
O
R
D
REINA RD
REINA RD
REINA RD
ROSEDALE RANCH PKWY
OLIVE DR
RENFRO RD
SANTA FE WAY
C-2
M-1
C-2/P.C.D.
M-1
C-2
R-1
R-2
R-2
R-1
R-1
R-2
R-2
R-1
R-2
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-4
Zoning
Commercial Zone Designations
C-2 Regional Commercial
C-2/P.C.D. Combining
Industrial Zone Designations
M-1 Light Manufacturing
Residential Zone Designations
R-1 One Family Dwelling
R-2 Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling Zone - 1 unit/2,500 sq. ft.
R-4 Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling Zone - 1 unit/600 sq. ft.
VTTM 7450
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7450
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
11/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_
CITY LIMIT
GRAFHAM
WOOD
WAY
ARDEN
FOREST DR
SCAFELL
PIKEST
MORNING
BREEZE ST
L
E
O
N
A
R
D
A
L
V
A
R
A
D
O
R
D
REINA RD
REINA RD
REINA RD
ROSEDALE RANCH PKWY
OLIVE DR
RENFRO RD
SANTA FE WAY
R-IA
HMR
GC
GC
LR
MUC
LMR
LMR
LR
LR
LR
LI
LI LI
Land Use
RESIDENTIAL
LMR - Low Medium Density
Residential: > 4 units but ≤ 10
dwelling units/net acre
HMR - High Medium Density
Residential: > 7.26 units but ≤
17.42 dwelling units/net acre
LR - Low Density Residential: ≤
7.26 dwelling units/net acre
COMMERCIAL
GC - General Commercial
MUC - Mixed Use Commercial
INDUSTRIAL
LI - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
RESOURCE
R-IA - Resource - Intensive
Agriculture: 20 acre minimum parcel
size
VTTM 7450
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7450
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE LR
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 1 of 42 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakersfield Community Development Department has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures.
PROJECT NO. (or Title): Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased) COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: June 10, 2025
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: July 10, 2025
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):
Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
BIO-1 A biological resource pre-activity survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30-days before the start of construction activities.
BIO-2 There will be biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance.
BIO-3 Compliance reporting shall be provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted.
BIO-4 A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special-status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented.
BIO-5 If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or during Ground Disturbance (2011) shall be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.
BIO-6 Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet.
BIO-7 Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped shall be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.
BIO-8 Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater in diameter shall be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 2 of 42 BIO-9 If ground-disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance should occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist.
Appropriate avoidance should be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests should be implemented as follows:
1. Ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters),
2. Burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW may be warranted,
3. Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers),
4. Other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters).
Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
CUL-1 During construction, if cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work shall immediately cease, and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Project is subject to any recommendations of the qualified specialist.
CUL-2 During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99.
CUL -3 Prior to final map approval, provide cultural resource study to the Planning Director.
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures:
GHG-1 Using controls that reduce exhaust from construction equipment.
GHG-2 Using electricity for power instead of diesel, when possible.
GHG-3 No idling of construction equipment engines.
GHG-4 Construct buildings with Uniform Building Code standards to minimize total consumption of energy.
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Measures
HAZ-1 Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a comprehensive assessment shall be conducted to identify the types and quantities of pesticides and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) historically used on the project site. The assessment shall include, but not be limited to, analysis for dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), toxaphene, and dieldrin.
If any of these OCPs are detected at concentrations exceeding applicable screening levels, including those identified in the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3 or DTSC-SLs approved local area background thresholds, additional sampling and risk evaluation shall be performed. If contaminant levels are found to exceed S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 3 of 42 acceptable thresholds, remedial actions shall be implemented to reduce concentrations below regulatory levels prior to construction.
The assessment shall also evaluate arsenic levels; any detection of arsenic shall require further analysis and must demonstrate compliance with HHRA Note Number 3, DTSC-SLs, or applicable local baseline levels. If concentrations exceed such thresholds, appropriate remedial actions shall be taken.
Potential contaminants of concern (COCs) associated with former agricultural operations, including but not limited to pesticide mixing/loading areas, drainage ditches, former farmhouses, and outbuildings, shall be identified, sampled, and analyzed. If smudge pots were historically used on-site, additional sampling for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) shall be conducted. All necessary sampling and remediation activities shall be completed to the satisfaction of the appropriate regulatory agency (e.g., DTSC or Regional Water Quality Control Board) prior to the issuance of grading permits.
HAZ-2 Prior to the importation of any soil or fill material to the project site, the applicant shall ensure that all imported material is free of contaminants and suitable for the intended land use. All imported soil and fill shall be tested in accordance with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual to assess potential contaminants of concern and verify that concentrations do not exceed applicable screening levels.
To minimize the risk of introducing contaminated materials to the site, the source and origin of the imported soil or fill shall be documented. Sampling and analysis of imported materials shall be conducted, as appropriate, based on knowledge of the source site and its prior uses. The sampling protocol shall be designed to identify contaminants commonly associated with the source area’s historical land use.
Imported materials shall meet the criteria outlined in DTSC’s Information Advisory: Clean Imported Fill Material fact sheet. Soil that does not meet the applicable screening criteria shall not be imported to the site. Documentation of compliance, including laboratory analytical results and source information, shall be maintained on file and provided to the lead agency for review prior to the issuance of any grading permits.
Additional guidance may be obtained from DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) website to support evaluation and ensure consistency with current DTSC risk assessment practices.
Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measures
TRAN-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall participate in the Regional Traffic Impact Fee (RTIF) program by paying the adopted fees in place for the land use type at time of development.
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 4 of 42
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1. Project (Title & No.): Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased)
2. Lead Agency (name and address): City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
3. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Noeli Topete
(661) 326-3165
4. Project Location: The project is located at the southwest corner of Olive Drive and Rosedale Ranch Parkway in northwest Bakersfield (Accessor Parcel Numbers 529-011-33 and 529-011-34)
5. Applicant (name and address): McIntosh & Associates
Attn: Whitney Jackson
10800 Stockdale Hwy, Suite 103
Bakersfield, CA 93311
6. General Plan Designation: LR (Low Density Residential)
7. Zoning: R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling
8. Description of Project (describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.):
McIntosh & Associates, representing Opal Land Company Co-Ownership Interests, LLC & BGM Property, LLC & 7-G’s Investment Group, LLC (Owner), is proposing a vesting tentative tract map for 176 residential lots and 5 public landscape lots on 32.66 acres, zoned R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling). In addition, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the signatures of each party owning a recorded interest in, or right to minerals, not including lessees pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) Section 16.20.060 A.1.
9. Environmental setting (briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses):
The proposed project site is currently agricultural land and is bounded by the RRID Main Canal to the north; agricultural land to the east, west and south.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement):
• City of Bakersfield – Mitigated Negative Declaration consideration and adoption • City of Bakersfield – Improvement Plans
• City of Bakersfield – Building permits
• City of Bakersfield – Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program and Local Mitigation • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – Indirect Source Rule compliance • State Water Resources Control Board – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General permit
11/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_
CITY LIMIT
GRAFHAM
WOOD
WAY
ARDEN
FOREST DR
SCAFELL
PIKEST
MORNING
BREEZE ST
L
E
O
N
A
R
D
A
L
V
A
R
A
D
O
R
D
REINA RD
REINA RD
REINA RD
ROSEDALE RANCH PKWY
OLIVE DR
RENFRO RD
SANTA FE WAY
Copyright nearmap 2015
AERIAL
VTTM 7450
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7450
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
11/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_
CITY LIMIT
GRAFHAM
WOOD
WAY
ARDEN
FOREST DR
SCAFELL
PIKEST
MORNING
BREEZE ST
L
E
O
N
A
R
D
A
L
V
A
R
A
D
O
R
D
REINA RD
REINA RD
REINA RD
ROSEDALE RANCH PKWY
OLIVE DR
RENFRO RD
SANTA FE WAY
C-2
M-1
C-2/P.C.D.
M-1
C-2
R-1
R-2
R-2
R-1
R-1
R-2
R-2
R-1
R-2
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-4
Zoning
Commercial Zone Designations
C-2 Regional Commercial
C-2/P.C.D. Combining
Industrial Zone Designations
M-1 Light Manufacturing
Residential Zone Designations
R-1 One Family Dwelling
R-2 Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling Zone - 1 unit/2,500 sq. ft.
R-4 Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling Zone - 1 unit/600 sq. ft.
VTTM 7450
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7450
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
11/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_
CITY LIMIT
GRAFHAM
WOOD
WAY
ARDEN
FOREST DR
SCAFELL
PIKEST
MORNING
BREEZE ST
L
E
O
N
A
R
D
A
L
V
A
R
A
D
O
R
D
REINA RD
REINA RD
REINA RD
ROSEDALE RANCH PKWY
OLIVE DR
RENFRO RD
SANTA FE WAY
R-IA
HMR
GC
GC
LR
MUC
LMR
LMR
LR
LR
LR
LI
LI LI
Land Use
RESIDENTIAL
LMR - Low Medium Density
Residential: > 4 units but ≤ 10
dwelling units/net acre
HMR - High Medium Density
Residential: > 7.26 units but ≤
17.42 dwelling units/net acre
LR - Low Density Residential: ≤
7.26 dwelling units/net acre
COMMERCIAL
GC - General Commercial
MUC - Mixed Use Commercial
INDUSTRIAL
LI - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
RESOURCE
R-IA - Resource - Intensive
Agriculture: 20 acre minimum parcel
size
VTTM 7450
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7450
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE LR
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 11 of 42 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
As indicated by the checklist on the following pages, the project would result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the environmental factors checked below (Impacts reduced to a less than significant level through the incorporation of mitigation are not considered potentially significant.):
□ Aesthetics □ Agricultural Resources □ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Geology / Soils □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions □ Hazards & Hazardous Materials □ Hydrology / Water Quality □ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise
□ Population / Housing □ Public Services □ Recreation
□ Transportation / Traffic □ Utilities / Service Systems □ Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration will be prepared.
■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A mitigated negative declaration will be prepared. □ I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental impact report is required.
□ I find that the proposed project may have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect has been (1) adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An environmental impact report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been (1) analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
June 26, 2025
Signature Date
____________Noeli Topete___________
Printed name
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 12 of 42
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 13 of 42
Environmental Checklist and Analysis Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project;
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project is located within the City limits at the southwest corner of Olive Drive and Rosedale Ranch Parkway in northwest Bakersfield. The existing visual environment in the area adjacent to the project is agricultural land. The construction of singlefamily residential at the site would be in character and compatible with existing urban land uses in the vicinity of the site and is a natural extension of the urban growth occurring in the project area. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts are less than significant.
b. No impact. There are no trees, rock outcrops, or historic buildings located at the project site.
Additionally, the project is not located adjacent to or near any officially designated or potentially eligible scenic highways to be listed on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System (Caltrans, n.d.). The closest section of highway eligible for state scenic highway designation is State Route (SR) 14 located in Kern County over 60 miles to the southeast of the project area. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
c. Less than significant impact. Please refer to responses I.a, I.b and I.d. The project does not conflict with any applicable vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements or design criteria of federal, state, or local agencies and, the project would be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) designations and Zoning Ordinance classifications for the project area. The area is not regarded or designated within the MBGP as visually important or “scenic.” Therefore, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. d. Less than significant impact. This project involves incremental urban growth within the City of Bakersfield’s jurisdiction. This project would have to comply with City development standards, including Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance), Title 15 (buildings and construction), as well as California Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 14 of 42
Code of Regulations Title 24. Together, these local and state requirements oblige project compliance with current lighting and signage standards that minimize unwanted light or glare to spill over into neighboring properties. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project;
a. Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project site is designated as Prime Farmland by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (CDOC, 2022). The project site was granted a nonagricultural entitlement through a prezone from County A (Exclusive Agriculture) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) in 2010 (ZC 09-0591; Ordinance 4611). Subsequently, the project site zone changed from R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) to R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) in 2024 (ZC 24-0055; Ordinance 1576). The project would not convert 100 acres or more of the farmlands designated prime, unique or of statewide significance to non-agricultural uses. State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15206 does not regard the cancellation of less than 100 acres of land from the Williamson Act to be of statewide, regional or areawide significance. The project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract (KernGIS, 2025). Therefore, the project would result in a less than Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 15 of 42
significant impact related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use. b. No impact. The project site is currently zoned R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) and is not under a Williamson Act contract (KernGIS, 2025). Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c. No impact. As discussed in II.b, the project site is zoned R-2. There are no forest lands located on the site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. d. No impact. There are no forestlands within the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest. e. Less than significant impact. Please refer to responses II.a through II.d. This project is in an area designated for urban development by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The project itself is typical of the development found in Metropolitan Bakersfield. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to the change in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use..
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY:
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Memorandum was prepared for the project (Trinity Consultants, 2025). The project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) jurisdiction, in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for ozone, particulate matter less than 10 Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 16 of 42
microns (PM10) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The SJVAPCD has annual emission significance thresholds used to determine whether a project would result in a substantial contribution for both operational and construction emissions (See Table 1 and Table 2). The project’s construction and operational emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2 and EMFAC2011 from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Estimates of the project’s construction and operational emissions are summarized respectively in Table 1 and Table 2 below (Trinity Consultants, 2025).
Table 1 Construction Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutants (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2025 0.10 0.89 0.99 0.002 0.15 0.08
2026 0.17 1.38 2.02 0.003 0.13 0.07
2027 4.10 0.08 0.12 0.000 0.01 0.00
Maximum 4.10 1.38 2.02 0.003 0.15 0.08
Annual Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
*Note: 0.000 could represent < 0.000
Source: (Trinity Consultants, 2025)
Table 2 Annual Operational Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutants (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 1.03 1.60 8.83 0.03 2.49 0.65
Area 5.78 0.09 2.55 0.01 0.24 0.23
Energy 0.02 0.31 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03
Maximum 6.83 2.01 11.51 0.04 2.76 0.91
Annual Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Source: (Trinity Consultants, 2025)
As shown in Table 1 and Table 2 above, the emissions generated by the project would not exceed the SJVAPCD regional significance thresholds and are consistent with applicable air quality attainment plans, including associated control measures and regulations. (Trinity Consultants, 2025). Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on the implementation of an air quality plan.
b. Less than significant impact. As discussed in response III.a above, emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 associated with the construction and operation of the project would not exceed the SJVAPCD significance thresholds. Therefore, the project would not have substantial adverse effects related to criteria pollutants.
c. Less than significant impact. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved that expose sensitive receptors to sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Examples of the types of land use that are sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. The most sensitive portions of the population are children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site would be residential uses 0.14 miles south of the project site; however, the residential uses will be separated from the project by Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) main line railroad. There are no schools within 0.25 miles of the project site.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 17 of 42
SJVAPCD considers a cancer risk to be significant if it exceeds 20 in one million, and non-cancer health risks to be significant if the hazard index is greater than 1.0. For this analysis, a 2-year exposure duration was assumed. As shown in Table 3, the maximum cancer risk and non-cancer hazard index from the proposed Project are below these thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant health risk impact under CEQA (Trinity Consultants, 2025). Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts are less than significant.
Table 3 Maximum Potential Health Impacts
Value UTM East UTM North
Express Cancer Risk 0.028 in a
million
303777.1 3921178.9
Chronic Hazard Index 0.0000162 303777.1 3921178.9
Source: (Trinity Consultants, 2025)
d. No impact. The land use proposed for this project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors. This project is not included on the list of land uses generally regarded to have site odor problems per Table 6 of the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVAPCD, 2015). Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect related to odors.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project;
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
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?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 18 of 42
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?
Discussion
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. A Biological Clearance Survey Report was prepared by Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc. (PruettBio) for the project (PruettBio, 2025). The fieldwork conducted for report was consistent with the federal and state general survey guidelines for timing and spacing requirements for the detection of special-status species required for a biological clearance survey. Initial fieldwork was first conducted on April 30, 2025.
The project was surveyed by walking the perimeter and random transects to evaluate all representative habitat features of the site. The field study conducted, allowed for 100% visual coverage of the project site.
Federal- and State-Listed or otherwise special-status species that have the historical or current distributions within a 10-mile radius of the project site include, but are not limited to: Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila; BNLL), San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsoni; SJAS), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica; SJKF), and Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides; TKR), Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei; BACA), Kern mallow (Eremalche parryi ssp. kernensis), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; BUOW). BUOW populations in the San Joaquin Valley occur in close association with California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) (PruettBio, 2025).
No special-status species were observed on the project site during the biological survey. No BACA is present within the project site, and the project site does not provide suitable habitat for Kern mallow or BNLL. No BUOW, BUOW burrows, or evidence of BUOW presence were detected, and no avian ground nests were observed. The site is located outside the known range of SJAS and TKR, and no burrows or indicators of kangaroo rat presence were found. No SWHA nests are known within a five-mile radius, and due to the limited number of SWHA nests in Kern County and the size and location of the project, impacts to SWHA foraging are expected to be less than significant. While the site has some potential for SJKF burrowing and foraging, no SJKF dens (natal, known, or potential), scat, tracks, or other sign were observed during the field survey.
Additionally, no burrows typical of California ground squirrel were found, further supporting the absence of BUOW and SJKF. Avoidance and minimization measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would be implemented to avoid the probability of take occurring during project activities (PruettBio, 2025).
With implementation of measures BIO-1 through BIO-9, the project 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 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS).
b. No impact. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities located at the site.
This project is also not located within, or adjacent to, the Kern River riparian habitat area.
Therefore, the project would result in no impacts on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
c. No impact. There are no wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, located at the project site, and no features identified as wetlands categories are found in the Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 19 of 42
National Wetlands Inventory within the project area (USFWS, 2023). Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally-protected wetlands. d. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No evidence of nursery sites was observed during the site survey. In addition, the project site is not within an essential habitat connectivity area (CDFW, 2010). However, measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would be implemented to avoid the probability of take during project activities. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites. e. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site does not include biological resources that are protected by local policies. However, as stated in responses IV.a and IV.d, measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would be implemented to avoid the probability of take during project activities. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to responses IV.a, IV.d, and IV.e.
With implementation of measure BIO-1 through BIO-9, the project 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.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project;
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
a. No impact. A Cultural Resources Records Search was conducted for the project site (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, 2014). The Cultural Resources Records Search concluded that there are no cultural resources within the project site that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, 2014). In addition, according to the Historic Buildings and Sites in Bakersfield Map, the project site does not include a historic building or site (City of Bakersfield, 2022). Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. It has been concluded that the project site does not contain any known archaeological resources (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, 2014). In addition, according to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the MCGP, the majority of archeological sites within the city lie outside of urban development areas.
The soil within the project site has been disturbed previously; therefore, the likelihood of Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 20 of 42
archeological resources being present and intact is low. However, in the event that any unknown resources are encountered, measure CUL-1 would be implemented. With implementation of measure CUL-1 through CUL-3, the project would not significantly affect archeological resources.
c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site, previously used for agricultural purposes, has been previously disturbed. There are no known human remains on the site, and it is neither located within nor adjacent to a former cemetery. The project could inadvertently uncover, or damage previously unknown human remains. Measure CUL-2 requires that if any human remains are found at the site during construction, work would cease, and the remains would be handled pursuant to applicable law. With implementation of measure CUL-2, the project would not significantly disturb any human remains.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY: Would the project;
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. Project construction would require temporary energy demands typical of other commercial projects that occur throughout the state and this development’s construction would not result in inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources beyond typical commercial construction. All new construction within the City of Bakersfield must adhere to modern building standards, including California Code of Regulations Title 24, which outlines energy efficiency standards for new commercial buildings to ensure that they do not wastefully, inefficiently, or unnecessarily consume energy. Therefore, the project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. b. Less than significant impact. There is no adopted plan by the City of Bakersfield for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As mentioned above, all new development projects within the City are required to adhere to modern building standards related to energy efficiency. Additionally, the City encourages applicants and developers to go beyond the required standards and make their developments even more efficient through programs such as LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, which is a green building rating system that provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings. Other encouraged programs available to applicants and developers are Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards and 2005 building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 21 of 42
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project;
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
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?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion
a. The following discusses the potential for the project to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects because of various geologic hazards. The City is within a seismically active area.
According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these major active fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge-Kern County, Garlock, Pond Poso, and White Wolf faults. There are numerous additional smaller faults suspected to occur within the Bakersfield area, which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge-Kern County) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides. i. No Impact. Ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of a fault during an earthquake. According to the California Department of Conservation’s (CDOC) Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map, the project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone (CDOC, n.d.). Therefore, the project would not expose Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 22 of 42
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii. Less than significant impact. The City is within a seismically active area. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (specifically Seismic Zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake construction standards. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking.
iii. Less than significant impact. The most common seismic-related ground failure is liquefaction and lateral spreading. In both cases, during periods of ground motion caused by an event such as an earthquake, loose materials are transformed from a solid state to near-liquid state as a result of increased pore water pressure. Such ground failure generally requires a high-water table and poorly draining soils in order for such ground failure to occur.
Soils underlain the project site include Wasco sandy loam (USDA, n.d.). The potential for liquefaction at the project site is low. The site is not within an area with a high ground water. In addition, future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
iv. Less than significant impact. In Kern County, the common types of landslides induced by earthquake occur on steeper slopes found in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon; in these areas, landslides are generally associated with bluff and stream bank failure, rockslide, and slope slip on steep slopes. The project site is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides. b. Less than significant impact. The relatively low precipitation in the project area [on average about 6 inches/year results in surface runoff that is intermittent and temporary in nature (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2025).The erosion potential at the site and the fact that the soils are well drained coupled with low average rainfall in the area does not make the project site likely to have substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The project site’s soils have low-to-moderate susceptibility to erosion by rainfall (USDA, n.d.).
Construction of the site would temporarily disturb soils, which could loosen soil, and the removal of vegetation could contribute to future soil loss and erosion by wind and storm water runoff. The project would have to request coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (No. 2012-0006-DWQ) (General Permit) because the project would result in 1 or more acres of ground disturbance. To conform to the requirements of the General Permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would need to be prepared that specifies best management (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants, including eroded soils (such as topsoil), from moving offsite. Implementation of the General Permit and BMPs requirements would mitigate erosion of soil during construction activities.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 23 of 42
During operation, the soils would be sufficiently compacted to required engineered specifications, revegetated in compliance with City requirements, or paved over with impervious surfaces such that the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. c. Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the project site’s soils would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides.
Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low-density materials that collapse and compact under the addition of water or excessive loading. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
d. No impact. The soil identified on site, Wasco sandy loam, does not have a high potential to be expansive (USDA, n.d.). Additionally, future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property. e. No impact. The project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because the project would connect to existing City sewer services in the area.
Therefore, there would be no impacts related to soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.
f. No impact. According to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the MCGP, the city has a very low potential to contain paleontological resources. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on unique paleontological resources, sites or unique geologic features.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project;
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Discussion
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Memorandum was prepared for the project (Trinity Consultants, 2025). The project would generate an incremental contribution and, when combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases (GHG), could contribute to global climate change impacts.
Although the project is expected to emit GHG, the emission of GHG by a single project into the atmosphere is not itself necessarily an adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 24 of 42
accumulation of GHG from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change. The result consequences of that climate change can cause adverse environmental effects. A project’s GHG emissions typically would be relatively very small in comparison to state or global GHG emissions and, consequently, they would, in isolation, have no significant direct impact on climate change. Therefore, a project’s GHG emissions and the resulting significance of potential impacts are more properly assessed on a cumulative basis.
The project would potentially contribute to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. However, the contribution would not be cumulatively considerable, given the efforts made to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from the project through design measures and standards, plus further mitigation accomplished at the statewide level through California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations and other statewide regulations adopted pursuant to Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). With proposed design measures, state regulation and air quality regulation implemented, GHG emissions will be reduced by at least 16%, in compliance with AB 32, and impacts will remain below a level of significance. Measures GHG-1 through GHG-4 would be incorporated as design features to reduce GHG emissions by at least 16%.
Because the project applicant is implementing the operational measures GHG-1 through GHG-4 as suggested by the SJVAPCD, the proposed project would have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact on global climate. Implementation of these measures also ensures that the project is in compliance with the Climate Change Action Plan being implemented by the SJVAPCD.
b. Less than significant impact. The City of Bakersfield has not adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan or completed the necessary steps such as a GHG inventory or target-setting to allow for CEQA streamlining under SB 97 or the 2018 CEQA Guidelines amendments. While the SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Action Plan, it does not contain measures applicable to individual development projects and therefore cannot be applied to this project. In the absence of a local or regional GHG reduction plan, the project’s consistency with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plans, including the 2008 Scoping Plan and 2017 Update, was evaluated.
The project would comply with existing regulations and implementation of applicable design features. Based on the project’s emissions and alignment with statewide strategies for reducing GHG emissions across key sectors, the project is considered consistent with State GHG reduction goals and would not result in a significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project; a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 25 of 42
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. However, construction activities would require the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials such as fuels and greases for the fueling/servicing of construction equipment, and there is the potential for upset and accident conditions that could release such material into the environment. Such substances would be stored in temporary storage tanks/sheds that would be located at the site. Although these types of materials are not acutely hazardous, they are classified as hazardous materials and create the potential for accidental spillage, which could expose construction workers. All transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials used in the construction of the project would be in strict accordance with federal and state laws and regulations. In addition, measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would be implemented to properly analyze soil prior to ground disturbance and ensure it is properly disposed of and remediated if necessary. During construction of the project, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all applicable materials present at the site would be made readily available to onsite personnel. During construction, non-hazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of at approved facilities for handling such waste. Also, during construction, waste disposal would be managed using portable toilets located at reasonably accessible onsite locations.
The project is the development of up to 176 single family residential units. Day-to-day activities in residences do not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. Maintenance of residences would require the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides. Residential users should follow any instructions for use and storage provided on product labels carefully to prevent any accidents at home. Users should also read product labels for disposal directions to reduce the risk of products exploding, igniting, leaking, mixing with other chemicals, or posing other hazards on the way to a disposal facility. Additionally, residential hazardous waste can be dropped off at Metro Kern County Special Waste Facility located at 4951 Standard Street or at one-day hazardous waste collection events that take place throughout the year. Therefore, the project would not create a Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 26 of 42
significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
b. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to response VIX.a.
Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment.
c. No impact. The closest school is Frontier High School located approximately 0.4 mile east of the project site. Therefore, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school.
d. No impact. The EnviroStor (DTSC, 2025) and Cortese lists (DTSC, n.d.) pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65962.5 were reviewed. No portion of the project site is identified on either list, which provides the location of known hazardous waste concerns. Therefore, the project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to GC Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
e. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area (Kern County, 2011). The closest airport to the project site is the Meadows Field Airport, which is located approximately 6 miles east of the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The project is not located within a distance an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted.
f. Less than significant impact. Access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period, and appropriate detours would be provided in the event of potential temporary road closures. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in a substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield, and is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (City of Bakersfield, 1996). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
g. Less than significant impact. The project site is not located within a “very high,” “high,” or “moderate” fire hazard severity zone (City of Bakersfield, 2025). The site is surrounded by extensively developed land, and its vicinity is agricultural and urban and does not possess high fuel loads that have a high potential to cause a wildland fire. The project site would be developed with hardscapes and irrigated landscaping, which would further reduce fire potential at the site. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 27 of 42
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project;
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
d. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? e. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? f. 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?
g. Impede or redirect flood flows?
h. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
i. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. Construction would include ground disturbing activities. As discussed in VII.b, the project site’s soil types have a low-to-medium susceptibility to sheet and rill erosion by rainfall and a low susceptibility to wind erosion at the ground surface. Disturbance of onsite soils during construction could result in soil erosion and siltation, and subsequent water quality degradation through increased turbidity and sediment deposition during storm events to offsite locations. Additionally, disturbed soils have an increased potential for fugitive dust to be released into the air and carried offsite. As described in VII.b, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit. To conform to the requirements of the General Permit, a SWPPP would need to be prepared that specifies BMPs to prevent construction pollutants from moving offsite. The project is required to comply with the General Permit because project-related construction activities would disturb at least 1 acre of soil. b. Less than significant impact. Potable water from the project would be supplied by California Water Service (Cal Water). Cal Water provided a “Will Serve Letter” for the project, and therefore groundwater levels have already been accounted for in the UWMP with the project (a future entitlement) (CalWater, 2024). Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 28 of 42
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. c. The following discusses whether the project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces.
i. Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain any blue-line streams or other surface water features and therefore, the project would not alter the course of a river or stream. The project site would be graded and, as a result, the internal drainage pattern at the site would be altered from the baseline condition. Additionally, the project would result in increased impervious surfaces (i.e., building pads, sidewalks, asphalt parking area, etc.) at the site, which would reduce percolation to ground and result in greater amounts of storm water runoff concentrations at the site. If uncontrolled, differences in drainage patterns and increased impervious surfaces could result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. However, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit during construction and MS4 permit during operation. In order to comply with the MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with adopted building codes, including complying with an approved drainage plan, which avoids on- and offsite flooding, erosion, and siltation problems. Therefore, the project would not 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 that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite.
ii. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.c.i. Therefore, the project would not 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 that would result in flooding on- or offsite. iii. Less than significant impact. In order to comply with the City’s MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with an approved drainage plan that would avoid on- and offsite flooding thus, the project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
iv. Less than significant impact. A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Maps, shows the project site is located in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain (FEMA, n.d.). Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows. d. Less than significant impact. The City of Bakersfield is located within Central California and is not near a coastal environment that risks flood inundation. In addition, the City is not located within a tsunami zone as identified by the California Department of Conservation’s Tsunami Map. As mentioned above, the project site is located in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1- percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain. The project site, like most of the City, is located within the Lake Isabella flood inundation area (USACE, n.d), which is the area that would experience flooding in the event that there was a catastrophic failure of the Lake Isabella Dam. There is an approved Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan (Kern County Fire Department, 2009)) that establishes a process and procedures for the mass evacuation and short-term support of populations at risk below the Lake Isabella Dam. The City would utilize the Evacuation Plan to support its Emergency Operations Plans. Due to the project’s location and Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 29 of 42
implementation of related emergency safety plans, the project would not likely risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. e. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.c.i. There is currently no adopted groundwater management plan for the project site or its vicinity. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project;
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern of the City or is an infill development. The project is not a long and linear feature, such as a freeway, railroad track, block wall, etc., that would have the potential to divide a community. The project is the development of a finite 32.66-acre project site that does not impede existing or future movement or development of the City. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community.
b. No impact. The project does not require any land use or zoning change. The proposed singlefamily residential development is consistent with the Low-Density designation of the MBGP and R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) zone on the site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project;
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
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?
Discussion
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 30 of 42
a. No impact. The project site is not within the administrative boundaries of an oilfield and there are no oil wells found on the site (CDOC, n.d.). Therefore, the project would not 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.
b. No impact. The project site is currently designated LR (Low Density Residential). No portion of the site is designated for a potential mineral resource extraction use such as R-MP (Mineral and Petroleum). Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project would generate noise during construction by the use of construction equipment. Typical construction equipment generates sound levels between 80 and 85 A-weighted decibels (dBA), which is a decibel system reflective of human hearing characteristics. At 80 to 85 dBA, the human response to such a sound level is annoyance and difficulty hearing conversation. Using the rule of thumb that noise attenuates 7.5 dBA per a doubling of distance away from the sound-emitting source, it would require 800 feet away from an 85-dBA sound-emitting source to obtain a 55 dBA sound level, which is considered “quiet” to the human ear. There are sensitive receptors (existing SFR) approximately 900 feet to the southwest of the project site. However, project construction would be limited to 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends per Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter
9.22 (Noise).
Project operations would generate sound levels typical of single-family residential land uses and residents would have to comply with Bakersfield Municipal Code regarding noise. Therefore, the project would not expose 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.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 31 of 42
b. Less than significant impact. Some ground-borne vibration and noise would originate from earth movement and building activities during the project’s construction phase. Ground-borne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low to moderate. The operation of typical construction equipment would generate ground-borne vibrations that would not exceed guidelines that are considered unsafe for any type of buildings. Operation of the proposed neighborhood commercial use would not generate ground-borne vibration. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.
c. No impact. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project result in:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project would accommodate population growth in this area through the development of new homes, and the project is the logical extension of existing urban development. The project would also require the extension of infrastructure. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on growth. b. No impact. The project site consists of agricultural land. Therefore, the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in:
a. 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:
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 32 of 42
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Discussion
a. The following discusses whether the project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts to public services. The need for additional public service is generally directly correlated to population growth and the resultant additional population’s need for services beyond what is currently available.
i. Less than significant impact. Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County.
Potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not 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 fire protection. ii. Less than significant impact. Police protection for the project would be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department. Potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or 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 police protection.
iii. Less than significant impact. The project would produce up to 176 units to accommodate 563 residents and generate approximately 85 school-aged children as indicated in Table 4 below.
Table 4 Generation of School Aged Children
Number and Type
of Dwelling Units Elementary (K-8) High School (9-12) Total Pupils 363 single-family
units 176 x 0.31 176 x 0.17 85
Totals 55 30
This increase may necessitate the construction of additional school facilities. However, the need for additional schools can be paid for by existing school impact fees and increased property tax revenues. Therefore, the project would not 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 Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 33 of 42
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools.
iv. Less than significant impact. The project proposes a population increase of 563 and may result in an impact upon the quality and/or quantity of existing recreational opportunities and may also create a need for new parks or recreational facilities. The parkland requirements for the proposed project are calculated based on the General Plan and City Ordinance park standards of 2.5 acres for every 1,000 people and therefore, the park acreage estimated for the project is 1.41 acres. In addition, every residential unit must pay a park land development fee at the time of the issuance of building permits.
Compliance with the park acreage dedication ordinance and the park development fee ordinance ensures that parks are dedicated and built in accordance with City standards to accommodate the increased population. Therefore, the project would not 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 parks.
v. Less than significant impact. The project and eventual buildup of this area would result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City. Though the project may necessitate increased maintenance for other public facilities, this potential increase can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or 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 other public facilities.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION: Would the project result in:
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?
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?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. Therefore, the project would not 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.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 34 of 42
b. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. Therefore, the project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project result in:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. A Traffic Letter dated March 20, 2025, was prepared for the project by McIntosh & Associates (McIntosh & Associates Inc., 2025). The City of Bakersfield Traffic Division reviewed the Traffic Letter and concurred with its findings (City of Bakersfield Traffic Division, 2025). Construction workers traveling to and from the project site as well as construction material delivery would result in additional vehicle trips to the area’s roadway system. Construction material delivery may require a number of trips for oversized vehicles that may travel at slower speeds than existing traffic and, due to their size, may intrude into adjacent travel lanes. These trips may temporarily degrade level of service (LOS) on area roadways and at intersections. Additionally, the total number of vehicle trips associated with all construction-related traffic (including construction worker trips) could temporarily increase daily traffic volumes on local roadways and intersections. The project may require temporary lane closures or the need for flagmen to safely direct traffic on roadways near the project site.
However, once the project is built, it would not result in any permanent traffic-related effects.
Policy 36 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Circulation Element states:
Prevent streets and intersections from degrading below Level of Service “C” where possible due to physical constraints (as defined in a Level of Service standard) or when the existing Level of Service if below “C” prevent where possible further degradation due to new development or expansion of existing development with a three-part mitigation program:
adjacent right-of-way dedication, access improvements and/or an area-wide impact fee.
The area-wide impact fee would be used where the physical changes for mitigation are not possible due to existing development and/or the mitigation measure is part of a larger project, such as freeways, which will be built at a later date.
Policy 36 of the Circulation Element of the MBGP requires the City to prevent streets and intersections from degrading below a level of service C, where possible, through dedication of adjacent right-of-way, access improvements, or an area wide impact fee. In addition, the Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 35 of 42
Subdivision Ordinance requires all on-site street improvements and a proportional share of boundary street improvements to be built at the time the property is developed.
Mitigation measure TRAN-1 would require that the applicant/developer participation in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) Program and the payment of Local Mitigation fees.
With implementation of this mitigation measure, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to response XVII.a. With implementation of measure TRAN-1, the project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
c. Less than significant impact. The project would have to comply with all conditions placed on it by the City Traffic Engineering Division in order to comply with accepted traffic engineering standards intended to reduce traffic hazards, including designing the roads so that they do not result in design feature hazards. The project is with the City limits and surrounded by compatible existing and planned land uses and land use designations. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. d. Less than significant impact. There is the potential that, during the construction phase, the project would impede emergency access. For projects that require minor impediments of a short duration (e.g., pouring a new driveway entrance), the project would be required to obtain a street permit from City Public Works. If a project requires lane closures and/or the diversion of traffic, then a Traffic Control Plan, subject to Public Works approval, would be required. During operations, the project would have to comply with all applicable City policies and requirements to ensure adequate emergency access. The need for such permits is determined by the Public Works Department during the permitting and construction phases of their permitting process. In addition, the site plans have been designed in accordance with all City development standards. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project result in:
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 36 of 42
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. A Cultural Resources Records Search was conducted for the project site (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, 2014). The Cultural Resources Records Search determined that there are no cultural resources within the project site. Additionally, no portion of the site is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, 2014). However, in the event that any unknown resources are encountered, measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 would be implemented. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on tribal cultural resources. b. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. See response XVII.a. above. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project result in:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the waste water 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?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project would require the construction of new water, storm water drainage, sewer facilities; above and/or belowground electrical facilities, natural gas Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 37 of 42
facilities, and telecommunications (e.g., cable, fiber optics, phone, etc.) typical of residential development. Water, storm water, and sewer structures would have to be designed to meet the City’s Current Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual (City of Bakersfield, 1989). Compliance with the Design Manual would ensure that the such facilities would not result in significant environmental effects. Electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities would be placed by the individual serving utilities; these entities already have in place safety and siting protocols to ensure that placement of new utilities to serve new construction would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. b. Less than significant impact. The Cal Water has provided a “Will Serve Letter” stating that water service can be supplied to the development (Cal Water, 2024). The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Therefore, the project would have sufficient water supplies available from existing entitlements and resources, and new or expanded entitlements would not be needed.
c. Less than significant impact. Wastewater as a result of the project would be treated at the North of the River Sanitary District (NORSD). NORSD has a capacity of 7.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and treats an average inflow of 5.6 MGD. NORSD is proposing an expansion of the existing wastewater treatment plant to service its existing and planned population. It has sufficient capacity to serve the project (ESA, 2025). As a result, it has been determined that the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. d. Less than significant impact. It is assumed that solid waste generated as a result of the project would be disposed at the Bena Landfill located at 2951 Neumarkel Road, Bakersfield, CA 93307.
In accordance with city standards which are designed to achieve State waste stream reduction and recycling goals, the Solid Waste Division of Public Works will conduct a detailed review of the facility at the time of development to incorporate appropriate on-site trash facilities, subject to city approval. Therefore, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. e. Less than significant impact. By law, the project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, including those relating to waste reduction, litter control, and solid waste disposal.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRES: Would the project result in:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 38 of 42
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The project is located in an urbanized area and access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield, and is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Bakersfield, 1996). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. b. Less than significant impact. As mentioned above, the project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Additionally, the project site is relatively flat, not near wildlands, the site and its surrounding do not possess high fuel loads (i.e., lots of vegetation and other burnable material) to exacerbate wildfire risks and therefore, fire-related pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfires and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors. c. Less than significant impact. The project is located within the Metropolitan Bakersfield city limits and the site, as well as the surrounding area, is extensively developed with existing infrastructure such as roads, power lines, utilities etc., to support the development of this project. Therefore, the project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. d. Less than significant impact. The project site is relatively flat, is not within a floodplain, and is not in a moderate- to high-risk area for wildfires. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Would the project result in:
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of life of the environment, substantially Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 39 of 42
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,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project must comply with listed plant and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), as directed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, respectively. In addition, measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would be implemented to avoid any impacts to special status species. There are no important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory found at the site.
However, measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 would be implemented to avoid any potential impacts to cultural or historical resources. Therefore, with the implementation of measures, the project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b. Less than significant impact. Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” This section further states that cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”
Past, present, and future projects in proximity to the project were considered and evaluated as part of this Initial Study. Also, in addition to project specific impacts, this Initial Study considered the projects potential for incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable. As described in the responses above, there is no substantial evidence that there are cumulative effects associated with this project. In addition, any future development projects not identified above would be required to undergo a separate environmental analysis and mitigate any project- or site-specific potential impacts, as necessary. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 40 of 42
c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described in the responses above, the project, with mitigation, would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 41 of 42
References
Caltrans. (n.d.). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Retrieved from California Department of Transportation:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa
CalWater. (2024). WIll Serve Letter.
CDOC. (2022). California Important Farmland FInder. Retrieved from California Department of Conservation: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ CDOC. (n.d.). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Retrieved from Department of Conservation California Geological Survey:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/ CDOC. (n.d.). Well Finder. Retrieved from California Department of Conservation:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/
City of Bakersfield. (1989). Subdivision and Engineering Design Policy Manual. Bakersfield. Retrieved from https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/ca-bakersfield/e1fc107e-67a1-4264-8cad21b263cfe3e8/subdivision-engineering-design-manual-1989-pdf-.pdf?sq=cb0ab94f-1777-ce46- 5822-690d8a00f8f2&scope=all
City of Bakersfield. (1996). Hazardous Materials Area Plan. Bakersfield.
City of Bakersfield. (2022, July 26). Historic Buildings and Sites in Bakersfield. Retrieved from https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/eb1b154414724e1d8b39ef7ff1ee46a2 City of Bakersfield. (2025). Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area. Bakersfield. Retrieved from https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/1cb624df-5c64-473b-95e4- c6b51c7537ea?cache=1800
City of Bakersfield Traffic Division. (2025). TM 7450 Traffic Impact Analysis Exemption.
DTSC. (2025). Envirostor. Retrieved from California Department of Toxic Substances Control:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
DTSC. (n.d.). Department of Toxic Substances Control. Retrieved from DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List): https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/ ESA. (2025). NORSD Wster Resource Recovery Facility Project. Retrieved from https://www.norsd.com/files/3133b4f0d/NORSD+WRRF+Project.pdf FEMA. (n.d.). FEMA Flood Map Service Center. United Stataes. Retrieved from https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home
Kern County. (2011). Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. California, Kern County. Retrieved from https://docs.bakersfieldcity.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=932206&page=1&cr=1 Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 42 of 42
Kern County Fire Department. (2009, December). Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan. California, Kern County. Retrieved from https://kerncountyfire.org/wp-content/uploads/Isabella-DamFailure-Plan.pdf KernGIS. (2025, March 17). ArcGIS. Retrieved from Kern COunty WIlliamson Act- Active:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=49aeef8ba48e4159a64923306820a c69
McIntosh & Associates Inc. (2025). Traffic Letter.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2025). NOW Data. Retrieved from National Weather Service: https://www.weather.gov/wrh/Climate?wfo=hnx PruettBio. (2025). Biological Clearance Survey – 32.66 Gross Acres, Tract 7450, Bakersfield, California.
Bakersfield.
SJVAPCD. (2015, March 19). Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Retrieved from https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf
Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. (2014). Cultural Resources Records Search. Bakersfield.
Trinity Consultants. (2025). Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Memorandum. Bakersfield.
USACE. (n.d). Anticipated areas to flood in unlikely failure of Isabella Dam. Californa, Kern County.
Retrieved from
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/bakersfield.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/edit orial/8/04/804257c6-3a0c-54aa-a8b0-c8feb01b5631/594469881bd09.pdf.pdf USDA. (n.d.). United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service.
Retrieved from Web Soil Survey: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx USFWS. (2023, April 25). National Wetlands Inventory Surface Waters and Wetlands. Retrieved from United States Fish and Wildlife Service:
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ JE: NT\ S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 17, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: 5.c.
TO: Chair Strickland and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J. Eng
DATE: July 11, 2025
FILE: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased) (Ward 4) STAFF PLANNER: Noeli Topete, Associate Planner
REQUEST: A proposed vesting tentative tract map for 176 residential lots and 5 public landscape lots on
32.66 acres, zoned R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling), including a request to waive mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 A.1 (Ward 4).
APPLICANT: OWNER:
McIntosh & Associates Opal Land Company Co-Ownership Interests, 10800 Stockdale Hwy Suite 103 LLC & BGM, LLC & 7-G’s Investment Group, LLC Bakersfield CA 93311 10000 Stockdale Hwy
Bakersfield, CA 93311
LOCATION: Southwest corner of Olive Drive and Rosedale Ranch Parkway in northwest Bakersfield.
APN: 529-011-33 and 529-011-34
PROJECT SIZE: 32.66 acres CEQA: Section 15162 (MND)
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LR (Low Density Residential) EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution and suggested findings APPROVING Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 with conditions.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site is agricultural land. Surrounding properties are primarily developed as: north – RRID Main Canal; east - agriculture; south - agriculture; and west - agriculture.
BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:
• January 13, 2010 – City Council approved the pre-zoning of property within the sphere of influence boundary (ZC No. 09-0591). The project site was prezoned to R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) (Ordinance 4611).
VTTM 7450
• March 15, 2011 - The project site was annexed into the City as part of the Kratzmeyer Ranch annexation (Annexation No. 625).
• April 24, 2024 – City Council approved a Zone Change to change the zoning of 988 acres in various properties throughout the City from various zoning classifications to MX-1 (Mixed-Use Neighborhood), MX-2 (Mixed-Use Transit), R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling), R-3 (Medium Density Multi-unit Dwelling), R-4 (High-Density Multi-Unit Dwelling), R-4-HD (High-Density Multi-Unit Dwelling – Hillside Development Overlay), and R-5 (Very-High Density Multi-Unit Dwelling) (ZC No. 24- 0055; Ordinance No. 5176). The zoning classification of the project site changed from R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) to R-2 (Small-Lot Single Unit Dwelling).
• November 20, 2024 – The application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased) was deemed complete.
• January 16, 2025 – Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased) was scheduled for Planning Commission consideration. Subsequent to setting the project for consideration, staff requested VTTM 7450 (Phased) be referred back for readvertising and public notification. • February 20, 2025 – Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased) was scheduled for Planning Commission consideration. Staff received correspondence from Gordan Nipp on behalf of the Sierra Club and Carol Bender. Staff requested VTTM 7450 (Phased) be referred back to address comments and for further environmental evaluation.
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
The proposed vesting tentative tract subdivision consists of 176 residential lots and 5 public landscape lots on 32.66 acres. The residential lots range in size from 4,500 square feet (s.f.) to 12, 657 s.f., and the typical lot size is approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep (5,000 square feet). The net density is 5.86 units per net acre which is consistent with the LR designation of the project site of less than or equal to
7.26 dwelling units per net acre.
Circulation. Access to this subdivision would be from Rosedale Ranch Parkway (future collector) on the subdivision's east boundary and from Reina Road (collector) on the south.
Park Land In-Lieu Fees/Dedication. North of the River provides park and recreational services to the project site. The nearest existing NOR park is Austin Creek Park located approximately 0.6 miles south of the project site. The subdivider shall dedicate land based on the dedication requirement of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population. In addition, the subdivider shall enter into an agreement with NOR (Condition 14).
Mineral Rights. The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission approve waiver of mineral rights signatures on the final map pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 A.1 as the party’s right of surface entry has been waived by recorded document prior to recordation of any final map. Staff has received evidence of surface waiver; therefore, the final map shall have a statement indicating the mineral owner’s name and nature of his or her interest. Nonetheless, should ownership change, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring that prior to recordation of the first final map, the subdivider shall provide evidence verifying surface waiver from mineral interests otherwise the subdivider must return for a public hearing for a revised tentative map before the Planning Commission in accordance with BMC Section 16.20.060.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve waiver of these signatures on the final map, subject to the condition.
VTTM 7450
The applicant submitted a letter stating that the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM) stated that the project site is beyond their administrative boundaries of any oil or gas fields. There are no known wells on the property and no known active operators of record. If a well is uncovered, the subdivider must consult with CalGEM regarding proper abandonment of the well, in accordance with the municipal code (Condition 22).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:
Based upon an initial study, Staff determined the proposed project, with mitigation, would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The MND was circulated for public and agency review from June 10, 2025 to July 10, 2025. The following special studies were submitted: biological resources, cultural resources, traffic, and air quality analysis.
Comments Received. Staff received two letters regarding the proposed MND from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).
The DTSC (Letter dated June 18, 2025) submitted comments requesting:
1. DTSC recommends assessing the site for historical agricultural contaminants such as pesticides, arsenic, and hydrocarbons, especially in areas like storage zones and outbuildings, and requires remediation if contaminant levels exceed health-based thresholds.
2. All imported soil or fill must be tested and documented to ensure it is free of harmful substances and suitable for residential use, in accordance with DTSC guidance.
Responses to the DTSC comments:
Staff has reviewed the DTSC comment letter and incorporated the recommended measures into the MND as mitigation measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2.
The SJVAPCD (Letter dated July 9, 2025) submitted comments requesting:
1. The use of the cleanest available off-road construction equipment to reduce diesel exhaust emissions during construction activities.
2. Consideration of vegetative barriers and urban greening to reduce air pollution exposure for nearby residential units, using drought-tolerant, low-maintenance greenery.
3. Promotion of electric lawn and garden equipment use by future residents and consideration of the District’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) incentive programs.
4. Compliance with applicable District rules and regulations, such as rules 2010, 2201,9510, 4601, 4901, 4102, 4641, and 8021.
5. That the project proponent be provided a copy of the District’s comment letter for awareness and compliance purposes.
Responses to the SJVAPCD comments:
Staff has reviewed the SJVAPCD comment letter and has transmitted it to the project applicant. Comments 1 through 3 provide recommendations rather than identify specific environmental impacts; therefore, these measures will be forwarded to the applicant for consideration but will not be incorporated as mitigation. In response to Comment 4, the applicant is required to comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations; as such, these requirements are regulatory in nature and do not necessitate inclusion as mitigation measures. Regarding Comment 5, the comment letter has been provided to the applicant as requested.
VTTM 7450
Environmental Conclusion. The State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed in the evaluation of the environmental effects of this project. With mitigation, environmental impacts for the proposed project have been reduced to less than significant.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in The Bakersfield Californian and posted on the bulletin board in the City of Bakersfield Development Services Building, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California. All property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified by United States Postal Service mail regarding this public hearing in accordance with city ordinance and state law. Signs are required as part of the public notification process and must be posted between 20 to 60 days before the public hearing date. Photographs of the posted signage and the Declaration of Posting Public Hearing Notice signed by the applicant are on file at the Planning Division.
Comments Received. Following the distribution of the February 20, 2025 Planning Commission staff report for VTTM 7450 (Phased), staff received correspondence from Gordon Nipp (on behalf of the Sierra Club) and Carol Bender. The project was referred back to address comments and for further environmental evaluation. An MND was prepared to address the comments.
Comments submitted by Gordon Nip, Sierra Club, were evaluated and addressed within the Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions sections of the MND. To support the analysis, an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Memorandum and a Biological Clearance Survey Report were prepared. The findings and recommendations from these technical studies informed the environmental conclusions and resulted in the incorporation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 and GHG-1 through GHG-4 into the MND.
Comments submitted by Carol Bender were addressed in the Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Utilities and Service Systems sections. Based on the analysis, no mitigation measures were determined to be necessary for these resource areas of the MND.
As of this writing, no further written public comments have been received.
CONCLUSIONS:
Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has requested approval of VTTM 7450 (Phased) to subdivide 32.66 acres into 176 residential lots and 5 public landscape lots ranging in size from 4,500 s.f. to 12,657 s.f., on property designated LR in a R-2 zone. The purpose of this request is to facilitate future residential development.. The proposal is consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan, which encourages continuity of existing development and allows incremental expansion of infrastructure. Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and any future development onsite will also be required to comply with all applicable regulations and design standards as identified in the Zoning Ordinance.
Recommendation. Staff finds that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal is compatible with the existing land use designation and land uses in the surrounding area. Staff finds the proposed subdivision is reasonable and the request to waive mineral rights is consistent with BMC Section 16.20.060 A.1. Based on information in the record, Staff recommends your Commission adopt the Resolution and findings APPROVING Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased) as outlined in this staff report subject to the recommended conditions.
ATTACHMENTS:
Map Set
VTTM 7450
• Aerial
• Zone Classification
• General Plan Designation
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased)
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Correspondence
Planning Commission Draft Resolution
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\PC Memo 7.17.25\7450 PC Memo_07.17.25.docx
Page | 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 17, 2025
TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J. Eng
SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 5c. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased) Following the release of the staff report for the above-referenced project, Carol Bender submitted comments in an email dated July 11, 2025. In addition, Gordan Nipp on behalf of the Sierra Club submitted a letter through email on July 15, 2025. Below is a summary of the comments submitted and Staff’s response.
Carol Bender’s Comments:
Carol Bender expressed concerns that her previous comments were not adequately addressed in the staff report. She noted that the report incorrectly identifies Austin Creek Park as an existing facility, clarifying that the park has been planned for over 30 years but is not yet developed or funded.
She reiterated her request for a traffic study, citing ongoing congestion issues in the Rosedale area, particularly along Allen Road and Santa Fe Way, and at two nearby railroad crossings where grade separations remain unfunded. Ms. Bender also raised concerns about the project’s inconsistency with the Western Rosedale Specific Plan, which she believes is being disregarded despite the project's reliance on its EIR. She emphasized that the current General Plan remains in effect and should be considered until a new plan is formally adopted.
Staff’s Response:
Austin Creek Park is a planned recreational facility. As stated in the staff report previously prepared on July 11, 2025, the subdivider will be required to dedicate land based on a standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000 residents per Condition 14. Additionally, the subdivider must enter into an agreement with the North of the River Recreation and Park District to address park development needs.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project. Comments submitted by Carol Bender were addressed in the Recreation and Transportation and Traffic sections of the MND.
The Western Rosedale Specific Plan (WRSP), this is a County-adopted document that applies to land within the County’s jurisdiction. The WRSP was not adopted by the City, therefore, the WRSP does not apply to the proposed project.
Gordan Nipp, Sierra Club’s Comments:
Gordon Nipp on behalf of the Sierra Club submitted a comment letter asserting that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 is inadequate under CEQA and that a full Environmental Impact Report is required.
As with the Sierra Club’s previously submitted comments, the letter contends that the MND does not sufficiently evaluate the project’s impacts related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, farmland conversion, and cumulative effects.
Specific points include the project’s proximity to sensitive receptors such as Frontier High School, high pollution burden in the project area, lack of discussion on Valley Fever risks, and reliance on generalized thresholds without accounting for cumulative regional impacts.
The letter further states that post-approval biological surveys are inadequate and that mitigation measures lack clearly defined performance standards. Concerns were also expressed regarding the conversion of farmland and the project’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, with the commenter urging adoption of more specific and enforceable mitigation strategies. The commenter requests that the City prepare a full Environmental Impact Report to address these issues and provide adequate CEQA analysis.
Staff’s Response:
Based on the professional qualifications of the preparers of the special studies, such as air quality and biological resources and other supporting sources, staff agrees that the City's CEQA review process duly considers a project's potential environmental impacts.
As stated in the staff report, comments submitted by Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club, were evaluated and addressed within the Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions sections of the MND. To support the analysis, an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Memorandum and a Biological Clearance Survey Report were prepared.
Impacts on farmland and cumulative impacts were assessed in the Agriculture and Forestry Resources and Mandatory Findings of Significance sections. Staff has considered the comments submitted and has provided sufficient analysis and responses that support the proposed MND. Therefore, staff continues to recommend the Planning Commission approve the project subject to the recommended conditions.
Attachments:
C. Bender Comment Letter (7/11/25)
Sierra Club Comment Letter (7/15/25)
From: Noeli Topete
To: cmbdolls
Subject: RE: VTTM 7450 further comments for Public Hearing July 17,2025 Date: Friday, July 11, 2025 4:07:55 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Received, thank you.
Noeli Topete | Associate Planner
Development Services Department
City of Bakersfield
email: [email protected]
web: www.bakersfieldcity.us
phone:661-326-3165
From: cmbdolls <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 4:04 PM
To: Noeli Topete <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: VTTM 7450 further comments for Public Hearing July 17,2025 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Thank you for sending me this.
I am a bit confused as to your response " Responses to your comments are included in the staff report for the project which can be found in the following link." I read these sections in the link and they did not address many of my comments which was disappointing. Given limited time to prepare, I will attempt to send another comment for review.
Ex:. I would like to note that the report states there is an existing Austin Creek Park within .6 miles of the development. This park does not yet exist and does not have funding alotted at this time. It has been "planned for the entire 33 years I have lived here in Westdale North Estates.
The report does not address concerns that the existing General Plan specifically states that it is to take into consideration all existing Specific Plans, including in the areas of the Sphere of Influence.
It entirely disregards the Western Rosedale Specific Plan guidelines even though it relies on its EIR. There is no mention of any future preparation to replace the Western Rosedale Specific Plan. While an updated General Plan is in the works, it is not yet adopted, thus the current plan should be followed, or at minimum, considered and addressed. Many future infrastructure and community service improvements will be necessary to accommodate increased building/population that was not anticipated for the Western Rosedale area. Problems will include roads/traffic .Allen Rd and Santa Fe Way are major roadways that are frequently congested and there 2 unsafe railroad crossings near the development with no funds for grade separations.
Additionally, a request for a traffic study, given the large number of homes/residents that will be residing in this development was seemingly a reasonable request. This oversight is sadly way too common in this area of Rosedale and has led to excessive traffic during peak hours.
Thank you for allowing me this brief response. Please add it to comments for your staff and the Planning Commissioners to review.
Best regards,
Carol Bender
On Friday, July 11, 2025 at 12:31:09 PM PDT, Noeli Topete <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Carol,
Good afternoon! Responses to your comments are included in the staff report for the project which can be found in the following link. Please select “5:30 PM Planning Commission” for July 17, 2025. https://pub-bakersfield.escribemeetings.com/
Thank you,
Noeli Topete | Associate Planner
Development Services Department
City of Bakersfield
email: [email protected]
web: www.bakersfieldcity.us
phone:661-326-3165
From: [email protected]
To: Noeli Topete; DEVPln
Subject: RE: VTTM 7450
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 4:38:12 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Tract 7450 MND comments.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hi Noeli,
I am attaching Sierra Club comments on Tract 7450, up before the Planning Commission this Thursday. I would appreciate your responding that you have received this letter and that it is distributed to the Planning Commission.
I will not be able to attend the meeting. I would ask that you remove this item from the consent agenda for Planning Commission discussion of our input.
Thanks, Gordon Nipp
From: Noeli Topete <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 12:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: VTTM 7450
Hi Gordan,
Good afternoon! Responses to your comment letter are included in the staff report for the project which can be found in the following link. Please select “5:30 PM Planning Commission” for July 17, 2025.
https://pub-bakersfield.escribemeetings.com/
Thank you,
Noeli Topete | Associate Planner
Development Services Department
City of Bakersfield
email: [email protected]
web: www.bakersfieldcity.us
phone:661-326-3165
1 P.O. Box 3357
Bakersfield, CA 93385
July 15, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
Attention: Noeli Topete
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450
Dear Planners:
The Sierra Club offers comments about the above project, a proposed vesting tentative tract map for 176 residential lots and 5 public landscape lots on 32.66 acres at the southwest corner of Olive Drive and Rosedale Ranch Parkway in northwest Bakersfield.
In the details below, we present evidence that the current Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) does not adequately address the many issues associated with this proposed project and that a full-fledged EIR must be written for this project.
AIR POLLUTION
Bakersfield has arguably the worst air in the nation. See the American Lung Association report at http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/cityrankings/states/california/.
Specifically, according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0 | OEHHA, this project site area is in the 85th percentile for ozone exposure, in the 98th percentile for PM2.5 exposure, and in the 71st percentile for pollution burden. With no discussion whatsoever of PM2.5 and ozone exposure, the MND improperly concludes that “the Project would not result in a significant health risk impact under CEQA.” Since our extreme air pollution affects the 2 health of many residents, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is defective in not having thoroughly addressed the issue.
Frontier High School is located less than one mile east of the project site. Many children have asthma. With no discussion whatsoever of the project’s criteria pollutant impacts on the school, the MND improperly concludes that “the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.” The MND is defective in not having thoroughly addressed this project’s air pollution impact on these sensitive receptors.
Without presenting evidence regarding potential valley fever exposure, the MND concludes that “the Project would not result in a significant health risk impact under CEQA”. The project should be required to test the soil for Valley fever spores before drawing this conclusion, all the more important given the proximity to nearby residences and Frontier High School and given the recent increase in cases. Valley fever cases spike in California, already way up from recent years
California courts have ruled, “the greater the existing environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for treating a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts as significant.” In a region with arguably the dirtiest air in the nation and where large numbers of Kern County children have asthma, any air pollution additions must be considered significant and adequately mitigated. In the context of air quality in particular, our courts have cautioned that “The magnitude of the current air quality problems in the San Joaquin Valley cannot be used to trivialize the cumulative contributions of the shopping centers and the scope of the analysis cannot be artificially limited to a restricted portion of the air basin.” Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v.
City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1219
To this end, the MND should adopt a net zero threshold for air pollution impacts.
The City is only requiring this project to comply with weak San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District requirements that have not over the years addressed our local pollution problem. Rather than leaving it at the discretion of the Air District, the City should place a requirement that the developer reduce project emissions to zero by entering into a Developer Mitigation Contract with the SJVAPCD. (For that matter, reducing emissions from any new project to zero should be standard policy so that our dreadful air doesn’t get dirtier. Contract emissions reductions must be in the local region.)
On page 16 of the MND, in the section meant to address the cumulative impact of the project, the MND states, “the project would not exceed the SJVAPCD significance thresholds. Therefore, the project would not have substantial adverse effects related to criteria pollutants..” The City illogically asserts that project-specific insignificance implies cumulative insignificance, violating the very meaning of cumulative impacts. 3 According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3), ““Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”
From page 107 and 108 of SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf):
• “If a project is significant based on the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, then it is also cumulatively significant. This does not imply that if the project is below all such significance thresholds, it cannot be cumulatively significant.” (Underline added)
• “Lead Agencies should also consider the cumulative impact of multiple simultaneously proposed projects, located within the same area. If the combined impacts of such projects cause or worsen an exceedance of the concentration standards, the project would have a cumulatively significant impact under CEQA.”
The City’s approach is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement that the environmental documents include analysis of a project’s direct AND cumulative impact. Under the City’s proposed approach, the MND need not undertake any analysis of the project’s cumulative impact on air quality because the results would be identical to the direct impacts analysis. But the point of cumulative impact analysis is to understand the significance of the Project’s incremental impact in light of the magnitude of the environmental problem to which the project would contribute. The MND must “view” the effects of this project in connection with the effects of at least nearby projects.
The MND for this project is defective in that it has not computed or addressed the cumulative emissions from this and other planned projects, cumulative emissions which almost certainly would exceed air quality standards and should be considered significant. In the interest of public health, cumulative emissions computations must include emissions from other planned projects, not just from this project. We include a cumulative list of several of the additional current proposed new projects in the Bakersfield area:
• The DEIR for the IPG Industrial Park Project lists 51 projects in its list of cumulative projects.
• Expansion of the Wonderful Industrial Park on Seventh Standard Road • Tentative Parcel Map 12447
• General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471
• Conditional Use Permit Case No. 17, Map 121; Zone Variance No. 11, Map 121 (Kern County)
4 • GPA#6, Map #122; ZCC #15, Map #122; PD Plan#11, Map#122 (Kern County) • Rosedale Ranch projects
• Malibu Vineyards warehouse project adjacent to Highway 99 just north of Bakersfield
• Hageman Industrial Park
• IPG Industrial Project in unincorporated Kern County
• Veteran’s Administration Outpatient Clinic
• CUP 20-0379, a truck stop project on 16 acres on Taft Highway west of Highway 99 (City of Bakersfield)
There are likely other such projects of which we are not aware.
The cumulative impacts of this project, of those listed above, and of other area projects on air pollution, traffic, energy, climate change, biological resources, and other issues must be thoroughly addressed, including performance standards that are mandatory, specifically defined, and enforceable. Reducing project emissions to zero through an Air District contract would help address the potentially significant cumulative air quality impact of this project.
The City must require this project to adopt a sufficient number of effective air pollution reduction measures (e.g., a DMC with SJVAPCD) to offset cumulative impacts. Each such requirement must include performance standards that are mandatory, specifically defined, and enforceable.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
One of the basic purposes of CEQA is to “inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.” Post-approval biological surveys do not satisfy CEQA’s informational requirements; the decision-makers need to know the results of the biological surveys in order to assess the Project’s potential biological impacts BEFORE deciding whether to approve the Project. Post-approval surveys cannot inform the City’s decision whether to approve the Project. Deferred mitigation violates CEQA if it lacks performance standards to ensure the mitigation goal will be achieved. To address biological resource issues a biological survey and consultation with the USFWS and CDFW should be required before project approval.
The MND is defective and violates CEQA in that it has not described and assessed the significance of the cumulative effects of ongoing urbanization and habitat loss on 5 protected species. Loss of habitat is a major reason for species decline. Moreover, now that the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan is no longer in effect, the City must find another way to effectively address the Project’s contribution to cumulative habitat loss. Potentially significant cumulative impacts to biological resources and viable mitigation measures for these impacts (including purchase of replacement habitat) should be studied and addressed in a full EIR.
While many of these species may have been driven out of the project site by mowing and disking operations, an EIR should require reintroducing some of the native plant species by replanting them in project open space areas. The project’s landscaping should include drought-tolerant and/or native plants.
Mitigation measures should include requiring the project to plant trees that could serve as Swainson’s hawk nesting sites and requiring the project to purchase conservation easements on nearby Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.
To help scientifically determine whether kit fox use the site, a qualified biologist should extract DNA from onsite potential San Joaquin kit fox scat samples, following a procedure published in 2014 by De Barba et al. (De Barba, M., Adams, J. R., Goldberg, C. S., Stansbury, C. R., Arias, D., Cisneros, R., & Waits, L. P. (2014). Molecular species identification for multiple carnivores. Conservation Genetics Resources, 6, 821-824). If the scat actually is kit fox scat, then clearly kit fox inhabit the site, and appropriate mitigation should be applied.
According to the publication Conservation Strategies for San Joaquin Kit Foxes in Urban Environments by Brian Cypher, Christine Van Horn Job, and Scott Phillips at http://esrp.csustan.edu/publications/pdf/cypher_etal_2012_urban_kitfox_conservation_e srp.pdf, “To the extent practical and possible, urban planners could design new developments in a manner that facilitates use by kit foxes.” While such design is “highly encouraged” by mitigation measure BIO-8, this measure is so vague that it unlikely to be implemented. The City should actually require this project to be designed with urban kit fox conservation measures in mind, perhaps including artificial kit fox dens and movement corridors as suggested in the above document. Such a requirement must include performance standards that are mandatory, specifically defined, and enforceable.
Loss of habitat is a major reason for species decline. Mitigation for habitat loss and potential species take should include Incidental Take Permit acquisition and purchase of replacement habitat.
FARMLAND LOSS
On page 14, the MND mistakenly states, “State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15206 does not regard the cancellation of less than 100 acres of land from the Williamson Act to be 6 of statewide, regional or areawide significance.” To the contrary, Section 15206 only applies to parcels of 100 acres or greater and says nothing about parcels like this one smaller than 100 acres. One only need note the massive area conversion of prime agricultural land to urban sprawl to recognize that the conversion of this project’s farmland to housing has a significant cumulative impact. The MND’s insignificance conclusion lacks substantial argument. The City must clearly describe its reasoning and identify substantial evidence that supports this conclusion. An agency's determination regarding a mitigation measure’s efficacy must be based on “evidence in the record showing it will be effective in remedying the identified environmental impact. (See Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1167-1170, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 154.
Environmental documents should address the potential for growth inducement from this project. This property is surrounded by prime farmland. Its conversion to housing will almost certainly result in growth inducement, the conversion of other nearby farmland to non-agricultural use. The MND’s insignificance conclusion lacks substantial argument.
The MND fails altogether to address the cumulative impact of this and other projects on farmland loss. This cumulative impact must be considered significant and mitigation via developer funding of agricultural conservation easements on other similar farmland should be required.
CLIMATE CRISIS
There is much important new information on climate change. For example:
• The IPCC AR6 synthesis report (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ ) includes warnings that the world is approaching “irreversible” levels of global heating, with catastrophic impacts rapidly becoming inevitable; and that it is “now or never” to take drastic action to avoid disaster.
• “A new study has revealed that the language used by the global climate change watchdog, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is overly conservative - and therefore the threats are much greater than the Panel's reports suggest.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190320102010.htm • Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI) - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory (https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/) is also substantial and critically important new information.
• Harmful tipping points in the natural world pose some of the gravest threats faced by humanity. Environmental stresses could become so severe that large parts of the natural world are unable to maintain their current state, leading to abrupt and/or irreversible changes. Global Tipping Points | Home (globaltipping-points.org) 7 • UN secretary general, António Guterres, said,” This is climate breakdown, in real time. We must exit this road to ruin, and we have no time to lose.” World endures 'decade of deadly heat' as 2024 caps hottest years on record | Climate crisis | The Guardian
California courts have ruled, “the greater the existing environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for treating a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts as significant.” The climate crisis is inherently a cumulatively significant issue.
The MND is imposing four ineffective greenhouse gas (GHG) measures:
• GHG-1 suggests “Using controls that reduce exhaust from construction equipment.” It seems to be left to the developer to determine which controls to choose and how much exhaust will be reduced. This measure is vague and not clearly enough defined to be enforceable, making it unlikely that it will actually be implemented. GHG-1 violates CEQA because it lacks performance standards that are mandatory, specifically defined, and enforceable to ensure the mitigation goal will be achieved.
• GHG-2 suggests “Using electricity for power instead of diesel, when possible.” It seems to be left to the developer to determine if and when this is “possible”. This measure is vague and not clearly enough defined to be enforceable, making it unlikely that it will actually be implemented. GHG-2 violates CEQA because it lacks performance standards that are mandatory, specifically defined, and enforceable to ensure the mitigation goal will be achieved. • GHG-3 suggests “No idling of construction equipment engines.” Enforcement and timing seem to be left up to the developer. This measure is vague and not clearly enough defined to be enforceable, making it unlikely that it will actually be implemented. GHG-3 violates CEQA because it lacks performance standards that are mandatory, specifically defined, and enforceable to ensure the mitigation goal will be achieved.
• GHG-4 suggests “Construct buildings with Uniform Building Code standards to minimize total consumption of energy.” This measure is meaningless in that it only requires the developer to comply with the minimum standards of the law. In order to “minimize total consumption of energy”, the City should require specific exceedances of Uniform Building Code standards.
For each of these measures, the City should require specific performance standards that are mandatory, specifically defined, and enforceable. As written, these measures are useless and ineffective.
On page 24, the MND states, “Measures GHG-1 through GHG-4 would be incorporated as design features to reduce GHG emissions by at least 16%.” • The MND contains no quantification of GHG emissions and thus could contain no argument as to how these emissions could be reduced by 16%. • None of GHG-1 through GHG-4 contain “design features”. The GHG-1, GHG-2, and GHG-3 refer only to construction equipment, and GHG-4 is general and vague with no “design features” required. Without “design features”, the argument is mysterious at best.
8 The MND is defective in not having presented a substantial argument for these GHG reductions. An agency's determination regarding a mitigation measure’s efficacy must be based on “evidence in the record showing it will be effective in remedying the identified environmental impact. (See Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1167-1170, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 154.)
In VIII(a) on page 24, to determine project significance, the MND is relying on the 2008 SJVAPCD Climate Change Action Plan to attain the 2020 goals of outdated AB 32. • The emission reduction targets set forth in AB 32 mark only a first and interim step toward avoiding dangerous climate change. By myopically focusing on AB 32, the project ignores the long-term emission reductions necessary to stabilize the climate.
• On the same page in paragraph VIII(b), the MND contradicts itself by stating, “While the SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Action Plan, it does not contain measures applicable to individual development projects and therefore cannot be applied to this project.”
Nonetheless, the MND relies on an unquantifiable 16% GHG reduction from ineffective measures and an inapplicable Plan to improperly conclude that “the proposed project would have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact on global climate.” The MND is defective in that this unfounded conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence.
The City must present an analysis of the project’s cumulative impact on climate change. The State CEQA Guidelines state,
“15355(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” There has been no attempt to quantify the cumulative impact and that there is thus no data upon which to base a conclusion of insignificance. There are many closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects (for example, projects in the cumulative list above), and the cumulative impact of all these projects on climate change must be quantified and addressed. The MND is deficient in not having considered the cumulative impact of a list of area projects on climate change. It is deficient in concluding without these considerations that the project’s climate change impact is cumulatively insignificant.
Without presenting evidence, on page 24 the MND states that the project is consistent with outdated 2008 and 2017 CARB Scoping Plans and is aligned with statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions. This unfounded declaration is not supported by substantial evidence. The MND presents no arguments for consistency with any strategies whatsoever. Conclusions of project climate change insignificance based on these unfounded declarations must be withdrawn. In order to be serious about consistency with CARB Scoping Plans, the City should adopt some of the 2022 Scoping Plan measures listed below.
9 Since the City has shelved adopting a Climate Action Plan, it must be extra diligent in assuring that individual projects like this one satisfy state goals and regulations and legal requirements through adoption of feasible mitigation.
SB 32 requires that statewide greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. The MND is deficient in not having addressed this requirement.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets extend beyond 2020 and are much larger than the 2020 target; Executive Order B-30-15 targets a GHG reduction of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, codified in SB 32. Executive Order S-3-05 sets an 80% reduction of GHG from 1990 levels in 2050 as a goal. In order to achieve GHG emission reduction goals beyond 2020, the City should require feasible mitigation measures that would reduce GHG emissions beyond the AB 32 goals.
If we care to not leave an overheated planet for future generations, the City must thoroughly address the climate crisis. Feasible potential mitigation measures include:
• A requirement that all buildings contain enough solar photovoltaics (PV) and solar water heating to offset energy usage to the maximum extent feasible, with a capacity that matches the maximum allowed for distributed solar connections to the grid.
• Green building measures should be required for all structures, including passive solar design and a requirement that buildings be at least 25% more energy efficient than Title 24 standards current when permits are pulled. • Adopt appropriate Tier 2 requirements in CALGreen for new residential buildings.
APPENDIX A4 RESIDENTIAL VOLUNTARY MEASURES - 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, TITLE 24, PART 11 (CALGREEN)
WITH JULY
• Provide EV charging infrastructure at least in accordance with CALGreen Tier 2 standards. (from CARB 2022 scoping plan)
• Use all electric appliances, without any natural gas connections, and not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking. (from CARB 2022 scoping plan)
• Relax parking requirements by (1) Eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios. (2) Providing residential parking supply at a ratio of <1 parking space per unit; (3) Unbundling residential parking costs from costs to rent or lease. (from CARB 2022 scoping plan)
• To help address the housing crisis, encourage public transit, and lower VMT, at least 20% of the project should consist of higher density housing affordable to lower-income residents. (from CARB 2022 scoping plan)
• A project design requirement that buildings be situated to maximize rooftop solar production.
• Use cool pavement material on new streets.
10 • A requirement that the developer contribute to tree planting and urban forestry projects. Tree planting plays an essential role in achieving the goal of reaching net zero GHG emissions. One recent study found that California’s working and urban lands have the potential to absorb up to 103 MMT CO2e additional per year by 2030. https://theclimatecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/TheClimate-Center-Setting-an-Ambitious-Sequestration-Goal-for-CA-WL-Jan-22.pdf • Facilitate and promote public transit by providing amenities such as contributing to public transit, facilitating ride-share programs, create incentives for ride-share and/or use of public transit. Homeowners’ Association fees should include public transit funding.
• A requirement that the developer contribute a GHG fee to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to be used to fund projects that would reduce GHG emissions elsewhere. This could be built into a criteria pollutant Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement as the Air District has suggested in the past.
The environmental documents must evaluate these and other potential mitigation measures in order to require sufficient mitigation to substantially reduce the impact of the project on the climate crisis. Many of these measures serve as well for air pollution mitigation.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
On page 39, in the section meant to address the cumulative impacts of the project, the MND states, “there is no substantial evidence that there are cumulative effects associated with this project. In addition, any future development projects not identified above would be required to undergo a separate environmental analysis and mitigate any project- or site-specific potential impacts, as necessary. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.” Several points:
• The MND is wrong about no substantial evidence for cumulative effects. We have presented evidence above. For example, the IPCC report is substantial evidence that the climate crisis is inherently a cumulative impact. The American Lung Association report about our dreadful air and the CalEnviroScreen results are clear evidence of the cumulative air quality effects of hundreds of past and future projects. The cumulative effects of the many past and future sprawling west Bakersfield projects on farmland loss, habitat loss, and traffic are obvious and easily documented.
• There are many future development projects in the pipeline. As noted above, the IPG EIR lists 51 such projects. While all of these projects must undergo environmental analysis, it is unlikely that all of them will reduce every impact to insignificance, and when an impact is significant, then its cumulative impact is 11 significant. The MND is deficient in seeming to assert with no evidence whatsoever that all future projects have insignificant project-specific impacts. • The MND is asserting that potential project-specific impact insignificance for each of these future or current projects implies that the cumulative effect is insignificant, a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of cumulative impacts. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15355(b), “Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” The conclusion of cumulative insignificance must be withdrawn, or substantial evidence based on firm legal and rational ground must be presented.
Please place the Sierra Club on the distribution list for this project to receive any noticing of meetings, hearings, availability of documents, and to receive the environmental documents. We prefer email communications and electronic formatting of documents. Thank you for your consideration and for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Gordon L. Nipp, Ph.D.
Vice-Chair
[email protected]
661-872-2432
P.O. Box 3357
Bakersfield, CA 93385
July 25, 2025
JiiTie Drimakis, Bakersfield City Clerk
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Ms. Drimakis,
The Sierra Club hereby appeals the July 17 Bakersfield Planning Commission approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450.
The Sierra Club is an international environmental non-profit organization dedicated to addressing environmental and environmental justice issues. The local Sierra Club chapter, the Kem-Kaweah Chapter, has approximately 1150 local members who would be affected by impacts that would result from construction of Tract 7450 including air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and habitat loss.
The Sierra Club has submitted both written and oral comments that have not been appropriately addressed by the Bakersfield Planning Commission. Issues include lack of appropriate mitigation for cumulative climate change, cumulative air pollution, and habitat loss impacts.
Details as to why we think the Planning Commission decision should not be upheld are included in the Sierra Club July 15 letter that is in the record for this project.
Sincerely,
~c4v,j71AH
Gordon L. Nipp, Ph.D.
Vice-Chair
[email protected]
661-872-2432
Bryan W. Wenter
925.708.9055
[email protected]
3800 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 200, Lafayette, CA 94549 | Phone: 925.226.8247 |www.hsw-legal.com August 22, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Mayor Karen K. Goh
Council Chambers, City Hall
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA
Email: [email protected]
Re: Magnolia Ranch
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 APNs 529-011-33 and 529-011-34
Dear Mayor Goh and Honorable Councilmembers:
This firm represents D.R. Horton and McIntosh & Associates in connection with their development of the Magnolia Ranch housing development project, consisting of 176 single-family homes and 5 public landscape lots located on the 32.66-acre property at the southwest corner of Olive Drive and Rosedale Parkways in northwest Bakersfield.
The Planning Commission approved the project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration by unanimous vote on July 15, 2025. The Sierra Club Kern – Kaweah Chapter appealed the project on July 25, 2025 on the grounds that the MND on the grounds that the project would allegedly have certain impacts to air quality and biological resources that were inadequately analyzed in the MND. The appeal lacks merit and is insufficient for the City to either recirculate the MND or require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
By way of brief review, the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LR), which allows single-family developments at less than or equal to
7.26 dwelling units per net acre, and the zoning of Small Lot Single-unit Dwelling (R-2). The project will be developed at 5.86 units per acre. As a result, the primary discretionary entitlement for the project is a tentative map. The City previously approved the development of 124 units on the project site in 2014 through Tentative Tract Map 7217.
Contrary to the assertions in Sierra Club’s appeal, the City prepared a comprehensive and adequate MND for the project. We note, for example, that Sierra Club makes certain assertions that are demonstrably false. For example, Sierra Club claims the MND failed to provide any discussion whatsoever regarding PM2.5 (i.e., fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller). But this is simply false. PM2.5 is specifically discussed and analyzed in the MND in the Air Quality section beginning on page 15 thereof. Sierra Club may not have noticed that analysis or may disagree with it, but the MND contains substantial evidence with respect to this issue.
Sierra Club also argues that the City and or the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District should adopt new thresholds of significance. In particular, Sierra Club claims the MND should have a net zero threshold for air pollution impacts. But this is simply not the law. The City, as lead agency, and Valley Air District, as responsible agency, have the authority to adopt and apply thresholds of significance, and nothing in CEQA mandates that any such agency ever adopt August 22, 2025 – Page 2
Re: Magnolia Ranch
3800 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 200, Lafayette, CA 94549 | Phone: 925.226.8247 |www.hswlegal.com a net zero threshold. The MND validly relied on the applicable thresholds for this issue and it remains supported by substantial evidence.
The project’s technical consultants, Pruett Biological Resources Consulting, Inc. and Trinity Consultants, have reviewed and provided detailed responses to the Sierra Club’s appeal (see attachments), based on those organization’s extensive knowledge in their fields and their detailed knowledge of the project. Their responses to Sierra Club’s appeal set forth the reasons the MND is supported by substantial evidence, why Sierra Club’s claims about the MND do not amount to a “fair argument, and why the City should reject the appeal and uphold the approval of the project.
In short, Sierra Club has not demonstrated that the MND for the project is substantively or procedurally inadequate in any way. There is no substantial evidence of a fair argument to support Sierra Club’s claims. Therefore, we respectfully request that the City Council reject the appeal and support the approval of the project.
Sincerely,
BRYAN W. WENTER
ATTACHMENTS: AUGUST 20, 2025 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY PRUETT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONSULTING, INC.
AUGUST 21, 2025 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY TRINITY CONSULTANTS CC: JULIE DRIMAKIS, CITY CLERK
JENNIE ENG, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc.
8819 Latera Court, Bakersfield, California 93314
Phone: 661.421.0006. Email: [email protected] [email protected] 20 August 2025
Mr. Blaine Neptune
President | RCE
McIntosh & Associates
10800 Stockdale Highway, Suite 103
Bakersfield, California 93311
Subj: Response to Comments VTTM 7450
Mr. Neptune,
Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc. (PruettBio) has prepared this response to comments submitted by the Sierra Club Kern – Kaweah Chapter (Chapter) regarding Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450. Specifically, this response has condensed the Chapter’s concerns to three points:
• Post-approval biological surveys do not satisfy CEQA informational requirements. • The MND is defective and violates CEQA in that it has not described and assessed the significance of the cumulative effects of ongoing urbanization and habitat loss on protected species.
• With the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan is no longer in effect, the City must find another way to effectively address the Project’s contribution to cumulative habitat loss.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15065 provide criteria for determining when a project would have a significant impact on biological resources. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Appendix G thresholds provide the matrix to evaluate potential impacts to the biological resources from proposed project development. If CEQA threshold determinations warrant, further consultation may be required with CDFW and USFWS. If additional consultation with the agencies results in the need for Application for a California Incidental Take Permit, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 outlines requirements for detailed species-specific take analysis, proposed measures to minimize and fully mitigate impacts, compliance monitoring, and funding. A detailed description satisfying Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 is not required to meet the CEQA Appendix G thresholds.
In practice, significant impacts are determined through a combination of field surveys, the preparation of biological evaluations, and consultation with wildlife agencies.
Addressing Chapter’s comments:
• Post-approval biological surveys do not satisfy CEQA informational requirements.
Biological field studies for the Project date to June 2014. The most recent field study of the Project was conducted 30 April 2025. CEQA Appendix G thresholds were used to evaluate potential impacts to listed or otherwise special-status species. Avoidance and minimization measures for implementation prior to and during project activities were recommended as appropriate.
• The MND is defective and violates CEQA in that it has not described and assessed the significance of the cumulative effects of ongoing urbanization and habitat loss on protected species.
VTTM 7450 – Response to Comments
20 August 2025
CEQA Guidelines §15355A define a cumulative impact as: “Two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Cumulative impacts occur when the individual effect of a project is incremental, but when combined with other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, the impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the project’s contribution is significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects (§15065(a)(3)).
Typical cumulative biological impacts include:
o Habitat loss and fragmentation (e.g., incremental loss of grasslands, riparian corridors, wetlands).
o Wildlife movement disruption across a region (not just within the project boundary). o Species population declines when combined with other development pressures. o Loss of sensitive natural communities (oak woodlands, vernal pools, etc.). o Invasive species or edge effects spreading with multiple projects.
Potential impacts of the Project on biological resources do not meet the Appendix G thresholds for significant cumulative effects.
• With the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan is no longer in effect, the City must find another way to effectively address the Project’s contribution to cumulative habitat loss.
Pursuant to CDFW Correspondance (Notification), letter dated 06 June 2023, Subject: Notice of Expiration of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Urban Development Incidental Take Permit (2081- 2013-058-04), “…if an entity, person or public agency cannot avoid impact to State-listed species and, therefore, needs take coverage for a State-listed or Candidate species that acquisition of a project-specific Incidental Take Permit (ITP) would be required.” The Notification also recommends that project proponents consult with CDFW regarding any measures that should be implemented to fully avoid the taking of a State-listed or Candidate species pursuant to CESA.
Project proponents are encouraged to obtain take authority for State-listed species such as San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica, SJKF) given known occupation throughout Metropolitan Bakersfield. No legal requirement exists for applicants to pursue an ITP when field studies yield negative results for occupation.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions of require additional information.
Respectfully,
Steven P. Pruett, Principal Biologist
4900 California Ave, Ste 420A, Bakersfield, CA 93309 / P 661.282.2200 / F 661.427.0703 / trinityconsultants.com
HEADQUARTERS
12700 Park Central Dr, Ste 600, Dallas, TX 75251 / P +1 800.229.6655 / P +1 972.661.8100 8/22/2025
City of Bakersfield Development Services Department
Current Planning Division
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301-5210
RE: Response to Air Quality and GHG Comments in Sierra Club Letter Dated July 15, 2025 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Current Planning Division Staff:
Trinity Consultants (Trinity) is pleased to provide this response to specific appeal comments submitted by the Sierra Club regarding the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 7450 Project (Project). These responses specifically address comments related to the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum (Memo) prepared by Trinity on behalf of the Project.
PM2.5 and Ozone Exposure
Comment
The MND does not discuss PM2.5 and ozone exposure.
Response
Ozone (O3) is primarily formed through photochemical reactions between precursor pollutants, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx); O3 is not directly produced from any of the Project activities.
Because O3 is not directly emitting by most emission-producing activities, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) regulates its precursors, VOC and NOx. SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigation Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), dated March 19, 2015, identifies thresholds for VOCs (also commonly referred to as Reactive Organic Gases [ROG]) and NOx. Table 1 and Table 2 of the MND provide the estimated VOC and NOx emissions, as well as the PM2.5 emissions, from the Project’s construction and operational activities, respectively. As identified in the tables, the Project is not anticipated to exceed any of the VOC and NOx emissions thresholds during both construction and operational activities.
Sensitive Receptors
Comment
The MND does not properly discuss the Project’s criteria pollutant impacts on the school.
Response
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) states that “ambient air quality standards (AAQS) define clean air and are established to protect the health of the most sensitive groups in our communities.” California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) were first established in 1962, followed by the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in 1971. The development of CAAQS relies on the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which reviews health literature to develop recommendations for the standards.
City of Bakersfield, Planning Division - Page 2
8/22/2025
Similarly, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts an Integrated Science Assessment (ISA), a Risk/Exposure Assessment (REA), and a Policy Assessment (PA) to determine the NAAQS.
The assessment addressed in the Memo followed the SJVAPCD GAMAQI, specifically the screening thresholds outlined in Section 8.4.4. According to this guidance, if a project's construction emissions, permitted operational emissions (not applicable to this Project), or non-permitted operational emissions exceed 100 pounds per day, an ambient air quality analysis is required.
For this Project, the maximum estimated construction emissions and operational emissions are each below 100 pounds per day. As discussed above, since the proposed Project’s emissions are all below the SJVAPCD’s screening thresholds, the proposed Project’s potential air quality emissions would not have a significant impact in generating adverse health impacts to any of the nearby sensitive receptors, including local schools.
Valley Fever Exposure
Comment
The MND does not provide evidence regarding potential Valley Fever exposure, and the Project should be required to test the soil for Valley Fever spores.
Response
Site preparation and construction activities may potentially disturb soil and release Valley Fever (Coccidioides fungus) spores if they are present in the on-site soil. As the Project is within SJVAPCD’s jurisdiction, construction activities are subject to Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions, which include requirements for control fugitive dust emissions, such as watering the Project site and limiting on-site vehicle speeds.
Additionally, construction activities shall be conducted in accordance with all applicable building, health, and safety requirements, including Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) requirements, which include awareness training, respiratory protection, best management practices, etc., to minimize exposure to hazards, including Valley Fever spores.
Additionally, in accordance with the City of Bakersfield municipal code (§16.44.030 and 16.44.040), an approved grading plan and preliminary soils report and compaction tests conducted by a registered or licensed civil engineer must be submitted to the building director prior to recordation of the final map and issuance of any building permits. Additionally, if the preliminary soils report indicates any soil problems, the civil engineer will recommend corrective actions, and a final soils report conducted by the civil engineer must certify that all corrective action has been taken and completed to satisfaction.
Air Pollution Threshold
Comment
The MND should adopt a net zero threshold for air pollution impacts.
Response
SJVAPCD is a Responsible Agency for this Project and is responsible for assisting the City of Bakersfield (the Lead Agency) by providing technical expertise in characterizing air quality project-related impacts. As the Responsible Agency with the technical expertise for air quality related impacts, SJVAPCD has developed the GAMAQI and the embedded thresholds to be used to determine the significance of environmental effects.
City of Bakersfield, Planning Division - Page 3
8/22/2025
The City of Bakersfield, as the Lead Agency, has elected to adopt SJVAPCD’s air quality significance thresholds for this Project.
Comment
Only requiring the Project to comply with SJVAPCD’s weak requirements does not address the local pollution problem.
Response
SJVAPCD is the regional agency responsible for air quality in eight counties, including the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) portion of Kern County. SJVAPCD regulates stationary sources and is responsible for meeting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CARB mandates to improve public health. Air pollution issues are location specific and often impacted by geography, topography, and meteorology; hence, a local agency with specific expertise and goals to address SJVAB specific air pollution issues is necessary. SJVAPCD’s efforts over the years have reduced emissions and ambient air quality standards exceedances, and SJVAPCD continues to strive to meet all of the state and federal ambient air quality standards through constant review and development of strategies. SJVAPCD has developed the GAMAQI and associated thresholds based on their expertise of SJVAB specific air pollution challenges. The City of Bakersfield, as the Lead Agency, has elected to rely on SJVAPCD’s air quality expertise for this Project.
Cumulative Impacts
Comment
The MND does not address cumulative impacts from this and other planned projects.
Response
Project Consistency with Local and Regional Land Use Plans The proposed Project is located on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 529-011-33 and 529-011-34. The site has a current zone classification of R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling), with a General Plan land use designation of LR (Low-Density Residential). The Project includes construction of 176 single-family homes, which is consistent with the LR designation. Because the Project conforms to existing zoning and land use regulations, its contributions to cumulative environmental impacts are within the scope of those previously analyzed in the Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). The PEIR evaluated cumulative air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of all transportation and land development projects anticipated under the 2022 RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), including those related to climate change. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to result in any additional cumulative air quality GHG impacts beyond those previously evaluated in the RTP PEIR.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15183, “projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” As previously discussed, the Project is consistent with the City of Bakersfield’s Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, the City’s current Municipal Code (including zoning ordinance), and the regional land use pattern established in the Kern COG 2022 RTP/SCS.
City of Bakersfield, Planning Division - Page 4
8/22/2025
Although the Project individually would not have a significant impact on air quality, global warming, or climate change, the Project would contribute to cumulative air pollutant and GHG emissions in California, as well as related health effects. As presented in the MND, the Project emissions would only be a very small fraction of the air basin wide criteria pollutant emissions and statewide GHG emissions. CEQA acknowledges that the more severe the environmental problem, the lower the threshold for determining whether a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts is significant. At the same time, CEQA Guidelines §§15065(a)(3) and 15130 require agencies to evaluate whether a project’s incremental contribution is cumulatively considerable, while allowing lead agencies discretion in the choice of methodology. In light of these uncertainties, CEQA directs lead agencies to base their determinations on the best available information and substantial evidence. Given the Project’s individual emissions are less than significant and the Project is consistent with local land use and zoning designations and regional planning datasets, as well as the discretion of the Lead Agency, there is substantial evidence to support that the Project’s contribution to cumulative air quality and GHG impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Additionally, CEQA Guidelines §15130, which governs cumulative impacts analysis, allows agencies to rely on previously approved plans and certified EIRs when evaluating cumulative effects, provided the project’s contribution is not cumulatively considerable. The proposed Project's consistency with these adopted plans and their associated program-level environmental analyses supports the conclusion that cumulative impacts have been adequately addressed under CEQA, and that the Project’s incremental contribution to such impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measure Enforcement
Comment
The four GHG mitigation measures are vague and are not enforceable.
Response
Mitigation measures GHG-1 through GHG-3 all relate to construction equipment exhaust. Construction equipment emissions are regulated by CARB and SJVAPCD. CARB regulates all off-road diesel equipment through the In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation (Off-Road Regulation), and SJVAPCD regulates construction emissions through Rule 9501, Indirect Source Review (ISR).
Additionally, the Project is subject to both the City’s building code, California Building Standards Code (Title 24), as well as California’s Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen), which requires the Project to install photovoltaic systems, which will offset the Project’s overall operational energy consumption.
If you have any questions or comments about the information presented in this letter, please do not hesitate to call 661.282.2200.
Sincerely,
TRINITY CONSULTANTS
cc: McIntosh & Associates
D.R. Horton
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 10, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Hearings TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: August 13, 2025
SUBJECT: Continued Public Appeal Hearing of Planning Commission’s Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7471
(Phased) and its proposed mitigated negative declaration.
San Joaquin Engineering, Inc., representing LGI Homes – California, LLC., is proposing Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 (Phased) to subdivide 83.97 acres into 363 singlefamily residential lots and various private and public lots for streets, landscaping, and other ancillary uses in the R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) zone located at the southwest corner of Morning Drive and Paladino Drive. (Ward 3)
1. Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 (Phased).
Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, submitted an appeal to the Planning Commission’s approval of the request.
RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 and its proposed mitigated negative declaration.
BACKGROUND:
This public hearing was continued from the August 25, 2025 City Council meeting for agendizing issues.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 7471 consists of 363 single-family residential lots, 5 landscape lots, 5 private landscape lots, 1 retention basin, 1 private retention basin and 1 private park on 83.97 acres. Residential lots range in size from 4,836 square feet to 15, 552 square feet with the typical lot size 50 feet wide x 100 feet deep (5,000 square feet). The density is 4.32 units per net acre which is consistent with the LR designation of the project of less than or equal to 7.26 dwelling units per net acre.
Access to this subdivision would be from Paladino Drive (arterial street) on the subdivision’s north boundary and from Morning Drive (arterial street) to the east. All private streets and private landscaping will be maintained by the Homeowner’s Association (HOA). As such, the applicant has requested 7 deviations from City standards to allow double frontage lots, reverse corner lots, non-radial lot lines, block length to exceed 1,000 feet, maximum landscape wall height to exceed 9 feet, use of storm drain easements and 300’ centerline radius. City Public Works Department has reviewed deviation requests and recommends approval.
The project proposes utilizing previous actions taken prior to the expiration of VTTM 6191. Before VTTM 6191 expired, the subdivider prepared the property by rough grading and preparation of improvement plans. The developer encountered delays stemming from issues concerning the Mojave Pipeline.
Additionally, complications related to the design of the landscaped paseo necessitated attention to uphold the project's aesthetic and functional objectives. Considering the expiration of VTTM 6191 and these related challenges, the subdivider has introduced design modifications under VTTM 7471 to effectively address outstanding issues and facilitate the continued advancement of the project.
Planning Commission Decision. On May 1, 2025, the Planning Commission considered VTTM No. 7471.
Comments were submitted from Mr. Jeremy Bowman, neighboring property owner, The Sierra Club and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments and concerns were addressed in the staff report and a memorandum was prepared summarizing the comments, followed by staff’s response, for the Commission’s consideration. At the meeting, Brandon Martin representing LGI Homes and Hunter Troxel from San Joaquin Engineering were present in support of the project. Lori Pesante, the Director of the Sierra Club, and Jeremy Bowman, was present in opposition to the project. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the request with Commissioner Neal absent. The Planning Commission’s findings are contained in Resolution No. 22-25 (attached).
Appeal to Planning Commission’s Decision. On May 9, 2025, Sierra Club filed an appeal to the Planning Commission’s decision to approve VTTM No. 7471. The basis for the appeal was set forth in the letter from the Law Offices of Babak Naficy to the Planning Commission on April 30, 2025 which includes:
Require that the developer achieve zero project emissions by entering into a Developer Mitigation Contract with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this project is inadequate, as it has failed to calculate or address cumulative emissions from both this and other proposed projects. Mandate that the project adopt a sufficient number of effective air pollution reduction measures to counteract cumulative impacts.
Prior to project approval, conduct comprehensive biological survey and consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Mitigation strategies for habitat loss and potential species take should include obtaining an Incidental Take Permit and securing replacement habitat. Provide a detailed analysis of the project's cumulative impact.
The property owner’s biological and air quality consultants provided a detailed response to each of the concerns raised. A copy of the appeal letter and the applicant’s consultant’s response are attached.
City Council Meeting. On August 13, 2025 staff requested the public hearing for this item to be open and continued to the September 10, 2025 meeting in order to address agendizing issues.
Environmental Review. Based upon an initial study, Staff determined the proposed project, with mitigation, would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The MND was circulated for public and agency reviews from November 21, 2024 to December 23, 2024. The following special studies were submitted: biological resources, cultural resources and air quality analysis.
Public Notification. All required public notices have been given for both the Planning Commission public hearing held May 1, 2025, and the City Council public hearing of August 13, 2025. Correspondence received for the Planning Commission is attached to the Planning Commission staff report. Additional correspondence was submitted and provided to the Council on August 13, 2025. All comments submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council are included in the background material.
CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS:
The City Council may sustain, modify, reject, or overrule any ruling of the Planning Commission for this subdivision of land. Two Resolutions have been provided for Council’s consideration regarding the appeal:
1. Deny the Appeal and Approve VTTM No. 7471. If the City Council were to deny the appeal and uphold Planning Commission's approval, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map would be conditionally approved and would facilitate construction of 363 single-family residential lots, 5 landscape lots, 5 private landscape lots, 1 retention basin, 1 private retention basin and 1 private park on 83.97 acres, including its accompanied mitigated negative declaration.
2. Approve the Appeal and Deny VTTM No. 7471. If the City Council were to approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's approval, the project site could not be developed as proposed and would retain its current condition.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes the proposed subdivision of land is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; the site is physically suitable for the type of development; the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; the design of the subdivision will not likely cause serious public health problems; and the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
Overall Recommendation. Staff makes the determination that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area, land use designation, and zoning ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends to City Council to consider the whole of the record, to include the appellant’s concerns and consultant’s responses, and deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7471.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact with the proposed subdivision of land. Development which will occur as a result of Vesting Tentative Trac Map No. 7471 will be subject to the appropriate application processing fees that have been determined to be sufficient to cover all operational expenses related to processing projects.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Community Character & Quality of Life
Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Council Resolution to Deny Appeal and Approve VTTM 7471
2. City Council Resolution to Approve Appeal and Deny VTTM 7471
3. Map Set
4. Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments
5. Planning Commission Staff Report
6. Planning Commission Memorandum
7. Planning Commission Resolution
8. Appeal Letter of Planning Commission Decision
9. Memorandum Summarizing Responses to Appeal Letter
RESOLUTION NO. _____________