Page | 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 13, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
SUBJECT: Council Meeting of August 13, 2025
Agenda Item 9.a – Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Appeal)
Staff is recommending this item be continued to the Council’s regular meeting of September 10, 2025.
The continuance is to provide a proper description of the project, including the environmental document proposed on the agenda.
This memorandum also transmits additional correspondence that was submitted subsequent to preparation of the Administrative Report for tonight’s meeting . On August 8, 2025, the Sierra Club submitted a letter. On August 13, 2025, Lozeau Drury LLP submitted correspondence. Both letters are attached.
Attachments
Letter from Sierra Club
Letter from Lozeau Drury LLP
1 P.O. Box 3357
Bakersfield, CA 93385
August 8, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
Attention: Courtney Camps
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471
Dear Planners:
As additional input for the August 13 Appeal hearing before the Bakersfield City Council, the Sierra Club offers comments about the above project intended to supplement earlier letters on this project.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
In the Cumulative Impact Section 5.2 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) Update EIR, it is stated, “MBHCP and implementing agreements and ordinances provide a method of collecting funds for the acquisition and enhancement of habitat lands for purposes of creating preserves. Development projects within the Planning area and County would pay mitigation fees that would be used to buy habitat lands.” Thus the 2002 MBGP depends upon the now-expired Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) for its biological resource cumulative insignificance conclusion. Now that the MBHCP is no longer in effect, the City can no longer rely on the MBGP and must therefore conduct its own analysis of project impacts on protected species and find alternatives or another way to effectively mitigate significant loss of protected species habitat.
2 From the August 2024 Biological Resource Evaluation for this Tract 7471:
• “The cumulative effects of ongoing urbanization and habitat loss of the Bakersfield area should be immediately evaluated for potential significant long- term effects that may consequently have substantial impacts to special status species.”
• “Habitat loss and fragmentation can have cumulatively negative effect on biodiversity and special status species (Johnson and Klemens 2005). As Bakersfield urban development continues to sprawl, and the surrounding habitat is permanently altered, species that once occurred in the area are increasingly becoming extirpated (CNDDB 2024).”
• “This report does not include a cumulative impact analysis from general successive urban Bakersfield development, habitat fragmentation, or corridor disruption. Cumulative impacts to biological resources from this Project and other projects in the vicinity would be potentially significant.” 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. 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 in a full EIR. Moreover, the EIR must evaluate potentially feasible alternative locations that could avoid or minimize the Project’s impacts on rare and protected species and their habitat.
AIR POLLUTION
Regarding the January 29, 2025, Trinity Consultants’ letter responding to Sierra Club comments on the cumulative air pollution impact of the Tract 7471 project:
• Trinity incorporates by reference the old (but currently in effect) 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) Update Program Environmental Impact Report. In the Cumulative Impact Section 5.2 of this MBGP EIR, it is stated, “However, even with mitigation, air quality impacts would remain cumulatively significant. Development under the General Plan Update would create unavoidable significant impacts related to construction, mobile sources and stationary sources, and inconsistency with the AQAP” (emphasis added).
The cumulative air quality insignificance conclusion for this project must be reevaluated in the light of the MBGP significance conclusion. 3 • The Trinity letter states, “To provide an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts, a list approach is used …”, and “A cumulative project list was incorporated by reference above from the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report.” Trinity is in error. No such cumulative project list appears in the old 2002 MBGP EIR. Even if there were such a list from 2002, it would be completely stale, inaccurate and unreliable because it would not take account of the incredible growth in NE Bakersfield since then, growth that must be factored into any cumulative impact analysis. To rely on any project list that may have been evaluated by the MBGP EIR for this MND, the City must make a finding that the MBGP EIR’s Project list is adequate for present purposes. (Pub. Res. Code § 21155.2.) The MND and Trinity letter completely ignore this requirement and instead merely assume the list of projects (which Sierra Club maintains does not exist) is reliable for the purpose of analyzing the Project’s cumulative air quality impacts. • The AQIA for this project relies heavily on Kern County’s Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports. If the City is serious about using a “list approach” as above, for the assessment of localized cumulative air quality impacts, Kern County’s Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports require that the assessment “shall include” a list of projects located within a one-mile and six-mile radius of the Project boundaries. There are many such projects, some of which were referenced in the December 30, 2024, Sierra Club letter on this project.
The MND is defective in that it has not included such a list as well as an assessment of the cumulative air pollution impacts of the projects on such a list. • The City continues to illogically assert that project-specific insignificance implies cumulative insignificance, violating the very meaning of cumulative impacts and counter to the SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts as noted in the December 30, 2024, Sierra Club letter on this project.
To help address the cumulative impact of Tract 7471 on air quality, the City should place a requirement that the developer reduce project emissions to zero by entering into a Developer Mitigation Contract with the SJVAPCD.
CLIMATE CHANGE
In spite of the scientific consensus, the MND seems to have a bias against accepting the reality and seriousness of the climate crisis.
• In an apparent attempt to declare that the State has overreached its authority, the AQIA considers SB 32 and SB 100 to be “drastic”. On page 4-10, the AQIA declares, “Senate Bill 32 (Lara, 2016) requires that GHG emissions be 40 4 percent less than 1990 levels by 2030. More drastic still, Senate Bill 100 (de Leon, 2018) which was signed by the Governor recently requires 100 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2045 (emphasis added).”
• On page 4-10, the AQIA states, “Clearly, the 2008 Guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today’s standards which propose a grand vision that, if achieved, would fundamentally change how business is conducted and citizens live in the State (emphasis added).” The “grand vision” seems to be State law which an objective MND would follow without being judgmental.
• On page 4-10, the AQIA mysteriously concludes that project GHG emissions should not be evaluated because of economic considerations: “Thus, as discussed in the most recent updates to the Scoping Plan, objectives of the Scoping Plan affect entire sectors of the economy and it no longer makes sense to evaluate GHG emissions on a project level.” The AQIA is deficient in that it does not present substantial evidence for this conclusion. • On page 4-11, the AQIA inappropriately jumps a huge logical gap and ignores scientific evidence to conclude that the project’s cumulative impact to climate change is insignificant. “In summary, this approach takes into account the cumulative nature of the energy industry and recognizes that consumers of electricity and diesel fuel are in effect regulated by higher level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.” The City must present substantial evidence that energy industry regulation implies that other projects like this one need not address climate change. Moreover, the MND must discuss the extent to which the proposed federal rules that relax the regulations that apply to gas and coalfired power plants may result in higher emission of GHGs which in turn could affect California’s ability to meet its GHG reduction targets. • Moreover, the MND must analyze the potential impacts of President Trump and Congress’s actions to block California’s mandates to phase out gas-powered cars and clean up diesel trucks. Although California has filed a lawsuit to challenge these actions, the federal action to block California’s ability to set emission standards could seriously undermine of the State’s main tools achieve significant GHG reductions. (See,
https://calmatters.org/environment/2025/06/california-sues-trump-blocking-clean- air-rules-cars/).
• On the next page, the AQIA contradicts itself and grudgingly admits that the project’s cumulative impact to climate change “may be considered” significant.
On page 4-12, the AQIA states, “Given the position of the legislature in AB32 which states that global warming poses serious detrimental effects, and the requirements of CEQA for the lead agency to determine that a project not have a cumulatively considerable contribution, the effect of the Project’s CO2 contribution may be considered cumulatively considerable. This determination is 5 “speculative,” given the lack of clear scientific evidence or other criteria for determining the significance of the Project’s contribution of GHG to the air quality in the SJVAB.” CEQA does not contain a “may be considered” option for a project’s impacts; this is an attempt to cast doubt on the urgency and importance of the climate crisis and to perhaps minimize mitigation for the impact. These statements must be revised to unequivocally declare that the Project’s cumulative climate impacts will be significant and then consider appropriate mitigation measures and alternatives. See the citations in the December 30, 2024, Sierra Club letter for clear scientific evidence that this project’s contribution to global climate change is cumulatively significant.
• Nevertheless, the MND is willing to speculatively conclude that the project’s cumulative GHG emissions are not cumulatively considerable. The City must clarify these contradictory statements.
Conclusions based on unacceptable bias must be approached with skepticism. The City must require a full EIR that reflects scientific objectivity and impartiality.
Regarding the January 29, 2025, Trinity Consultants’ letter responding to Sierra Club comments on the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions impact of the Tract 7471 project:
• The Trinity letter states, “the effect of the proposed Project’s GHG contribution may be determined to be cumulatively considerable. This determination is speculative, given the lack of clear scientific evidence or other criteria for determining the significance of the proposed Project’s contribution of GHG to the air quality in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.” Nevertheless, the MND is willing to speculatively conclude that the project’s cumulative GHG emissions are not cumulatively considerable. The City must clarify these contradictory statements. • In the December 30, 2024, Sierra Club letter, the Sierra Club presented overwhelming “clear scientific evidence” that this project’s release of GHG emissions to the atmosphere is inherently cumulatively significant. In spite of Trinity’s assertion, conclusions of the IPCC, for example, are based on solid science and are not speculative.
• The response did not address the lack of a cumulative projects list. There are many such projects, some of which were referenced in the December 30, 2024, Sierra Club letter on this project. The MND is deficient in not having considered a cumulative list of area projects as well as an assessment of the cumulative climate change impacts of the projects on such a list.
• 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. The response indicates that the project is aligned with “2022 AB 32 6 Climate Change Scoping Plan”. Since the City has not required any of the measures in the 2022 Scoping Plan, this “alignment” seems mysterious. We have listed four such 2022 Scoping Plan measures in the December 30, 2024, Sierra Club letter on this project. If the City is serious about aligning with the 2022 Scoping Plan, the environmental documents must evaluate these and other potential mitigation measures in order to require sufficient mitigation to substantially reduce the cumulative impact of the project on the climate crisis.
Moreover, the MND must include a serious analysis of whether California would be able to attain its long-term GHG reduction targets in light of federal action to block California’s ability to phase out gas-powered cars and require clean and more efficient diesel trucks.
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
August 12, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Manpreet Kaur, Vice Mayor
Eric Areas, Councilmember
Andrae Gonzales, Councilmember
Ken Weir, Councilmember
Bob Smith, Councilmember
Larry Koman, Councilmember
Zack Bashirtash, Councilmember
Bakersfield City Council
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]
Julie Drimakis, CMC, CPMC
Bakersfield City Clerk
First Floor
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 and Mitigated Negative Declaration; August 13, 2025 City Council Agenda Item 9.a
Dear Vice Mayor Kaur and Honorable City Council Members:
This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living and working in and around Bakersfield regarding Vesting Tentative Tract Map (“VTT”) 7471 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared for VTT 7471 (collectively, “Project”). On May 9, 2025 the Sierra Club appealed the May 1, 2025 Bakersfield Planning Commission’s approval of VTT 7471 and MND because the MND violated CEQA (the “Appeal”). SAFER fully supports the Sierra Club’s Appeal of the Project and MND. The Appeal is scheduled to be heard as Agenda Item 9.a at the City Council’s August 13, 2025 meeting.
SAFER has reviewed the MND, the Appeal, and the written comments submitted by others in opposition to the Project and inadequacies of the MND including comments by the Sierra Club and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“Opposition Comments”).
SAFER agrees with and joins in the analysis and conclusions of the Opposition Comments.
In particular, SAFER requests that the City ensure that climate change impacts and impacts to special status species and habitats are adequately disclose, analyzed, and mitigated.
SAFER respectfully requests the City Council grant the Sierra Club’s Appeal and refrain from approving the Project and MND at this time. Instead, SAFER requests the City Council direct staff to prepare a revised MND or an environmental impact report for the August 12, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 and MND
Project to ensure all impacts are fully disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Approval of the MND at the August 13, 2025 City Council Meeting Would Violate the Brown Act
The Brown Act requires the legislative body of any city, county, or other local agency to meet and conduct its business in public. (Gov. Code sec. 54953(a). The agency must post an agenda 72 hours before any regular meeting. (Gov. Code sec. 54954.2(a)(1).) The agenda must contain “a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting.” (Id.)
Agenda Item 9.a of the City Council’s August 13, 2025 agenda states:
Public Hearing to consider a resolution for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased)
San Joaquin Engineering, Inc., representing LGI Homes – California, LLC., is proposing to subdivide 83.97 acres into single-family 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. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, submitted an appeal to the Planning Commission’s approval of the request. (Ward 3)
City staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7471.
Agenda Item 9.a makes no mention of the City Council considering approval or an appeal regarding a mitigated negative declaration for the Project. Accordingly, acting to approve or adopt the MND would violate the Brown Act. Any action by the City Council regarding the MND must be taken at a future meeting, following legally adequate notice under the Brown Act.
Moreover, since CEQA review must occur prior to project approval, approval of the Project before adopting the MND would violate CEQA. (Pub. Res. Code §21091(f); CEQA Guidelines §15074(d); Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Albany (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1199.)
Sincerely,
Rebecca Davis
LOZEAU | DRURY LLP