Bakersfield City Council
September 10, 2025

MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 25, 2025

TO: Chair Cater and Members of the Planning Commission

FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J.Eng

SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased) – Initial Study Comments and Responses

An Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were circulated for public and agency review from November 21, 2024, to December 23, 2024. Throughout this circulation period, comments were received from a neighboring property owner, A. Mr. Jeremy Bowman, as well as from B. The Sierra Club and C. The Department of Fish and Wildlife. This memorandum serves to summarize those comments, accompanied by the relevant letters and responses for your examination.

A. Mr. Bowman's concerns are related to aesthetics, particularly the obstruction of scenic views and the visual environment, as well as concerns about the reduction in lot sizes, which he anticipates will result in higher density. The response from the City is that the views within this neighborhood are not within protected viewsheds. Although the builder of T5929 (where Mr. Bowman resides) may have represented the lots as view lots, the City does not enforce this designation. The proposed lot sizes conform to the zoning ordinance for R -1 (Single-Unit Dwelling), which stipulates a minimum square footage of 4,500 square feet.

B. The Sierra Club concentrated on matters related to air pollution and biological resources, which have been addressed by Trinity Consultants and McCormick Biological, Inc. in the attached letters. The Sierra Club submitted the following requests:

1. The City should 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).

2. 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.

3. The City must mandate that the project adopt a sufficient number of effective air pollution reduction measures to counteract cumulative impacts.

4. A comprehensive biological survey and consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) should be obligatory prior to project approval.

5. Mitigation strategies for habitat loss and potential species take should include obtaining an Incidental Take Permit and securing replacement habitat.

6. The City must provide a detailed analysis of the project's cumulative impact report.

McCormick Biological, Inc. has addressed the Sierra Club’s comments in their letter dated February 24, 2025. In addition, staff has provided responses to the Sierra Club’s comments which are summarized below:

City Response to Comment 2: Compliance with the Migratory Bird Act regarding nesting birds, as well as federal and state endangered species acts, is obligatory for all development, irrespective of specific conditions.

City Response to Comments 3 and 4: Mitigation measures pertaining to endangered species, including the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, San Joaquin kit fox, and native plant species, have been designed to reduce impacts to levels that are less than significant, including cumulative impacts.

No Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is proposed at this time.

City Response to Comment 7: The sections Bio 8 and 9 have been updated to reflect Sierra Club’s comments, which include consultations with Fish and Wildlife.

C. The Department of Fish and Wildlife submitted comments regarding the project, indicating that it is situated within the geographical range of several special- status animal species. Although various mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels, the CDFW has expressed concerns regarding the effectiveness of some of these measures. Specific concerns include the potential for unauthorized take of several special-status species, including:

1. The state-endangered, fully protected, and federally endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizard.

2. The state-threatened and federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox.

3. The state candidate western burrowing owl.

4. Crotch’s bumblebee.

5. The state species of special concern, the American badger.

The department emphasized the necessity of adequately addressing impacts on these species. The comments were duly noted and responded to by McCormick Biological, Inc., and the mitigation measures have been revised accordingly to incorporate CDFW recommendations.

December 23, 2024

Courtney Camps, Associate Planner
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301

(Sent via email)

Dear Ms. Camps,
I would like to discuss the aesthetics and overall character impacts of Vesting Tentative Tract 7471 as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the comment period beginning November 21, 2024.

The declaration that this project would have no impact to the visual environment in the surrounding area is not accurate. The neighborhood immediately to the south (tract 5929) was built with “view lots” that were initially sold at a premium because of the views to the mountains to the northeast.

In fact, the original, and still standing fences of these residences are not solid to promote the scenic views from backyards. Some of the proposed Tract 74171 lots, due to their higher pad elevation (in particular Lot 17,) will obstruct the scenic views from several houses, particularly on Bald Eagle St.

The overall character of this area is rural with views of the mountains and hills; this development as currently planned/configured with high density residential will change this. The project should consider the negative impact it will have on residences that currently have unobstructed views from their backyards and mitigate the issue by adjusting the lot elevations and/or configuration accordingly. It should also be noted that high density 5,000 SF standard lot size is considerably smaller than the lot sizes of the adjacent and surrounding tracts. This further disrupts the rural and scenic nature of this area and warrants further study.

Sincerely,

Jeremy Bowman

1 P.O. Box 3357
Bakersfield, CA 93385
December 30, 2024

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:

The Sierra Club offers comments about the above project, a residential development proposing to subdivide 83.97 acres at the southwest corner of Paladino Drive and Morning Drive into 363 single-family residential lots, 5 landscape, 5 private landscape, 1 retention basin, 1 private retention basin, and 1 private park.

This seems to be the rebirth of an earlier proposed housing project on the same site, Tract 6191, with 281 lots. The Sierra Club has a private agreement with the developer of Tract 6191 which applies as well to this current proposal. The agreement requires the developer to address cumulative air pollution impacts, blunt-nosed leopard lizard habitat loss, and other issues.

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/city-rankings/states/california/.

Specifically, according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0 | OEHHA, this project site area is in the 95th

2 percentile for ozone exposure, in the 99th percentile for PM2.5 exposure, and in the 76th percentile for asthma cases. Since our extreme air pollution affects the health of many residents, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) must thoroughly address the issue.

Juliet Thorner Elementary School is located less than 0.5 miles south 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 have a substantial adverse effect on exposing 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, the MND concludes that there is a “relatively low probability of the presence of C. immitis spores”. 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 the Thorner 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.” (citation omitted.) 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.

Table 4-4 of the MND is entitled “Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions”. Are there emissions which are actually “permitted” and not accounted for in Table 4-4? Environmental documents must list all emissions, including the “permitted” ones. The earlier MND for the smaller tract 6191 housing project on the same site listed operational emissions for the smaller project at 6.09 tons/year for ROG, 5.32 tons/year for NOx and10.29 tons/year for PM, much larger values than those in the current Table 4-4. The City must account for the comparatively smaller values in Table 4-4.

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.)

3 On page 24, in the section meant to address the cumulative impact of the project, the MND states, “The SJVAPCD through its GAMAQI has determined that projects that exceed regional thresholds would have a cumulatively considerable health 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.” The City illogically asserts that project-specific insignificance implies cumulative insignificance, violating the very meaning of cumulative impacts.

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. For example, unbuilt Tract 6148 alone is projected to emit 9.99 tons/year of ROG and 8.97 tons/year of NOx. Tract 6137, currently building, is projected to emit 9.97 tons/year of ROG and 7.49 tons/year of NOx. There are many other area projects such as Tract 7427, GPA/ZC 22-0128, and others whose emissions should be included in a Cumulative Emissions table of the Initial Study. Reducing project emissions to zero through an Air District contract would help address the potentially significant cumulative air quality impact of this project.

4 The City must require this project to adopt a sufficient number of effective air pollution reduction measures 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 County’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.

On page 25, the MND states, “Nesting birds and evidence of San Joaquin kit fox were observed during the surveys. Potential impacts to several other special-status species that were not observed were identified (McCormick Biological Inc. 2024).” The City must specifically require the project to consult with USFWS and CDFW before project approval.

Consultation with state and federal wildlife agencies must not be left to the developer’s or the biologist’s option.

The project property seems to be on and adjacent to potential habitat for a number of species which could forage or exist on the project property. The biological study for the Tract 6191 project on this site noted that blunt-nosed leopard lizards have been sighted in the past in the vicinity of this project, and the Tract 6191 developer agreed to help purchase BNLL replacement habitat. According to the June 1993 Biological Assessment for the Northeast Bakersfield Sewer Trunkline, the general area at that time contained endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizards (BNLLs) and San Joaquin kit foxes (a current score of 90 out of 100 for kit fox habitat suitability on Maps | Data Basin) as well as many other native species, perhaps burrowing owls and Kern brodiaea. Cumulative impacts to biological resources and viable mitigation measures for these impacts should be studied 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.
5 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_esrp.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.

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 (global-tipping-points.org) 6  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.

On page 29, the MND inappropriately jumps a huge logical gap and ignores scientific evidence to conclude that the project’s cumulative impact to climate change is insignificant. “Total GHG emissions generated during operations are presented in Table 4-7. The project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect related to greenhouse gas emissions (Trinity Consultants 2024).” Table 4-7 only contains values for annual project GHG emissions, no arguments whatsoever. The MND is deficient in that it has not filled in the logical gap between issue and conclusion. The City must present an analysis of the project’s cumulative impact.

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.”
As best we can tell from the available documentation, 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, the nearby Tract 6137, Tract 6193, Tract 7427, GPA/ZC 22-0128, the Rio Bravo Ranch project, the City in the Hills project, Tentative Tract 6148, etc.), 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.

On page 30, the MND states, “The AB 32 Scoping Plan contains a variety of strategies to reduce the State’s emissions. As shown in Table 4-7, the project is consistent with strategies that are applicable to the project.” This unfounded conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence. Table 4-7 only contains values for annual project GHG emissions, no arguments for consistency with any strategies whatsoever. 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.

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. 7 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 in a full EIR.

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.
8  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/The-Climate-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.

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

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, CA 93710
(559) 243 - 4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov

Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
December 23, 2024

Courtney Camps, Associate Planner
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
(661) 326-3070
[email protected]

Subject: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 (Project) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
State Clearinghouse No.: 2024110806

Dear Courtney Camps:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a MND from the City of Bakersfield, as Lead Agency, for the above-referenced Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802.). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code will be required.

Fully Protected Species: CDFW has jurisdiction over fully protected species of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, and fish, pursuant to Fish and Game Code sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except as follows:
 Take is for necessary scientific research,
 Efforts to recover a fully protected, endangered, or threatened species, live capture, and relocation of a bird species for the protection of livestock, or  They are a covered species whose conservation and management is provided for in a Natural Community Conservation Plan (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, & 5515).

Additionally, specified types of infrastructure projects may be eligible for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for unavoidable impacts to fully protected species if certain conditions are met (see Fish & G. Code §2081.15). Project proponents should consult with CDFW early in the Project planning process if an ITP may be pursued for the Project.

Nesting Birds: CDFW has jurisdiction over actions with potential to result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections that protect birds, their eggs and nests include, sections 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird).

Unlisted Species: Species of plants and animals need not be officially listed as Endangered, Rare, or Threatened (E, R, or T) on any State or Federal list to be considered E, R, or T under CEQA. If a species can be shown to meet the criteria for E, R, or T under CEQA Guidelines section 15380, CDFW recommends it should be fully considered in the environmental analysis for the Project.

Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: LGI Homes – California, LLC
Objective: The Project proposes to subdivide 83.97 acres into 393 single-family residential lots. The Project also includes the subdivision of five landscape and five private landscape areas, and one retention basin, one private retention basin, and one private park.

Location: The Project site is located within the City of Bakersfield on the southwest corner of Paladino Drive and Morning Drive in northeast Bakersfield. Adjacent properties to the north, west, and east are vacant land. To the south of the Project site is an elementary school and existing single-family residential development. The specific parcel number affected by this Project is Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 437-010- 043.

Timeframe: Unspecified.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of Bakersfield in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct, and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the CEQA document prepared for this Project.

The MND and aerial imagery of the parcel show that the Project site is comprised of disturbed annual grassland. Historic imagery demonstrates that initial grading for residential development occurred around the year 2006 and the land has since remained fallow and occupied by non-native grasses. The surrounding habitats to the west, north, and east are largely composed of vacant, undisturbed annual grasslands.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records show the Project is within the geographic range of several special-status animal species, and several mitigation measures are proposed to reduce impacts to less than significant. CDFW has concerns about the ability of some the proposed mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant and avoid unauthorized take for several special-status animal species, including the State endangered and fully protected and federally endangered blunt- nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila); the State threatened and federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica); the State candidate western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) and Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii); and the State species of special concern American badger (Taxidea taxus).

Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

Comment 1: Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (BNLL) is a State endangered and fully protected and federally endangered species. The Project site is within the known geographic range of BNLL, and the species is known to occur less than 3 miles away from the Project site (CNDDB 2024).

Suitable BNLL habitat includes all areas of grassland and shrub habitat that contain required habitat elements, such as small mammal burrows and open areas for basking.

BNLL are also known to utilize open space patches between suitable habitat features including disturbed sites, and unpaved access roadways. Based on aerial imagery and the information provided in the MND, the Project site may contain suitable habitat for BNLL.

CDFW concurs with the use of the methodologies outlined in mitigation measures BIO- 8, through BIO-10 to minimize and avoid impacts to BNLL. BIO-8 states that a qualified biologist(s) will conduct protocol surveys in accordance with the “Approved Survey Methodology for the Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard” (CDFW 2019) to detect any BNLL that may occur on the Project site. In addition to these measures, CDFW also recommends that any BNLL detection, known burrows, or egg clutch sites have a minimum 395-acre buffer. This buffer is based on unpublished data from Dr. David Germano documenting that “male BNLL have home ranges up to 52 acres and that female BNLL have home ranges exceeding 98 acres, the known maximum home range sizes observed for the species, the unknown specific footprint of the individual BNLL’s home range relative to where the lizard was observed on the surface, and the unknown location of the lizard underground when construction commences.” CDFW would like to additionally refer to a 2018 study from Tennant, Germano, and others titled “Investigating blunt-nosed leopard lizard population size, demographics, space use, and future population trends on Department Ecological Reserves”. Among other findings, this study recorded female BNLL in competitive areas dispersing over a kilometer before returning back to their home range. One surveyed female was identified 1,344 meters from her original detection point (Tennant 2018). CDFW also recommends that an appropriate number of qualified biologists be present during all ground-disturbing Project activities to monitor for BNLL, not just the initial surface disturbance activities, and that any individual that may enter the Project activity area be allowed to leave unobstructed of its own accord.

Comment 2: San Joaquin Kit Fox
The MND notes that during the biological resource evaluation, evidence of San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) was observed on the proposed Project site. This detection is further supported by multiple historical and recent observations on CNDDB near the Project site (CNDDB 2024). Mitigation measures BIO-7 through BIO-9 are provided to mitigate for impacts to SJKF. CDFW concurs with the mitigation measures outlined in the MND; Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

however, if take cannot be avoided, acquisition of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) prior to any ground disturbing activities, pursuant Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b), would be required to comply with the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

Comment 3: Western Burrowing Owl
The California Fish and Game Commission named western burrowing owl (BUOW) as a candidate for potential listing as a protected species under CESA on October 10, 2024.

This action advanced the species to candidacy under CESA and as such BUOW now receives the same legal protection afforded to an endangered or threatened species (Fish & G. Code, §§ 2074.2 & 2085). It is illegal to import, export, take (hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt engage in any of these activities), possess, purchase, or sell BUOW or any part or product thereof (Fish & G. Code, §§§ 86, 2080, 2085).

The Project site is within the known geographic range of BUOW and there are multiple historic and recent occurrences located within five miles of the Project site (CDFW 2024). BUOW inhabit open grasslands and desert scrublands containing small mammal burrows, a requisite habitat feature used by BUOW for nesting and cover. Based on aerial imagery and the information provided in the MND, the Project site and adjacent lands contain suitable habitat for BUOW nesting and foraging.

Mitigation measure BIO-11 is provided to mitigate for potential impacts to BUOW.

However, CDFW does not concur that BIO-11 is sufficient to mitigate for potential impacts to BUOW and recommends the MND include the following:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 1: BUOW Surveys Prior to Construction CDFW recommends that surveys following the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) be conducted the survey season immediately prior to construction.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 2: BUOW Avoidance Buffer Should a BUOW or known BUOW den (active or inactive) be detected, either during preconstruction surveys or construction activities, CDFW recommends that no-disturbance buffers, as outlined in the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012), be implemented prior to and during any ground- disturbing activities. CDFW also recommends that these buffers be implemented for both wintering and breeding BUOW.

Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

Recommended Mitigation Measure 3: BUOW Take Authorization If a BUOW or known BUOW den (active or inactive) is detected, and the no- disturbance buffers outlined in the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Mitigation are not feasible, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the Project and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to comply with CESA.

Comment 4: Crotch’s Bumble Bee
The Project site is within the known geographic range of Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB) and there are at least two historical observations within ten (10) miles of the Project site (CNDDB 2024). CBB are known to inhabit areas of grasslands and scrub that contain requisite habitat elements for nesting, such as small mammal burrows and bunch/thatched grasses, and these habitat elements appear to be present within the vacant lands in the vicinity of the Project site. Mitigation measure BIO-8 is provided to mitigate for potential impacts to CBB. However, CDFW does not concur that BIO-8 is sufficient to mitigate for potential impacts to CBB and recommends the following:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 4: CBB Habitat Assessment CDFW recommends a qualified biologist conduct a habitat assessment to determine if the Project site and the immediate surrounding vicinity contain habitat suitable to support CBB. Potential nesting sites, which include all small mammal burrows, perennial bunch grasses, thatched annual grasses, brush piles, old bird nests, dead trees, and hollow logs would need to be documented as part of the assessment.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 5: CBB Surveys
If potentially suitable habitat is identified, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct focused surveys for CBB, and their requisite habitat features following the methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023).

Recommended Mitigation Measure 6: CBB Avoidance
If CBB is detected, then CDFW recommends that all small mammal burrows and thatched/bunch grasses be avoided by a minimum of 50 feet to avoid take and potentially significant impacts. If ground-disturbing activities will occur during the overwintering period (October through February), consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement Project activities and avoid take. Any Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

detection of CBB prior to or during Project implementation warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 7: CBB Take Authorization If take cannot be avoided, CDFW recommends acquiring an ITP pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2081(b), prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities.

Comment 5: American Badger
The Project site is within the known geographic range of American badger (AMBA) and suitable habitat is present (CDFW 2024) within the Project site and its vicinity. AMBA occupy sparsely vegetated land cover with dry, friable soils to excavate dens, which they use for cover, and that support fossorial rodent prey populations (i.e., ground squirrels, pocket gophers, etc.) (Zeiner et. al 1990). Mitigation Measure BIO-11 is provided to mitigate for potential impacts to AMBA. CDFW concurs with BIO-11 and also recommends the following:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 8: Surveys
CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct focused surveys for AMBA, as well as their requisite habitat features, to evaluate potential impacts resulting from ground disturbance.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 9: Avoidance
Avoidance whenever possible is encouraged via delineation and a 50-foot no disturbance buffer around burrows. CDFW also advises that any individuals observed be allowed to leave the Project site of their own volition.

Editorial Comments and/or Suggestions
Federally Listed Species: CDFW recommends consulting with USFWS regarding potential impacts to federally listed species including, but not limited to BNLL and SJKF.

Take under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) is more broadly defined than CESA; take under FESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting. Consultation with the USFWS in order to comply with FESA is advised well in advance of any Project activities.

Nesting birds: CDFW encourages that Project ground-disturbing activities occur during the bird non-nesting season; however, if ground-disturbing or vegetation-disturbing activities must occur during the nesting season (February 1st through September 15th), the Project applicant is responsible for ensuring that implementation of the Project does Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

not result in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or relevant Fish and Game Code sections as referenced above.

CDFW further recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction survey for active nests no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected. CDFW also recommends that surveys cover a sufficient area around the Project site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially affected, either directly or indirectly, by the Project. In addition to direct impacts (i.e., nest destruction), noise, vibration, and movement of workers or equipment could also affect nests. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests. Once Project activities begin, CDFW recommends having a qualified biologist continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from the Project. If behavioral changes occur, CDFW recommends halting the work causing that change and consulting with CDFW for additional avoidance and minimization measures.

If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified biologist is not feasible, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non- listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non- listed raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or on-site parental care for survival. Variance from these no-disturbance buffers is possible when there is a compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the Project site would be concealed from a nest site by topography. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist advise and support any variance from these buffers and notify CDFW in advance of implementing a variance.

CNDDB: Please note that the CNDDB is populated by records through voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be present in locations not depicted in the CNDDB but where there is suitable habitat and features capable of supporting species. A lack of an occurrence record in the CNDDB does not mean a species is not present. In order to adequately assess any potential Project related impacts to biological resources, surveys conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology are warranted in order to determine whether or not any special-status species are present at or near the Project site.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database, which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

communities detected during Project surveys to the CNDDB. The CNDDB field survey form can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be mailed electronically to the CNDDB at the following email address:

[email protected]. The types of information reported to the CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, could have an impact on biological resources, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G.

Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City of Bakersfield in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 1) is included below to assist the City of Bakersfield with incorporating the recommended mitigation measures provided above.

More information on survey and monitoring protocols for sensitive species can be found at CDFW’s website (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols). If you have any questions regarding this letter or further coordination, please contact Marile Colindres, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead, by telephone at (559) 974-3452, or by electronic mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager

ec: State Clearinghouse
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
[email protected]
Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 For
Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

REFERENCES
California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation guidelines. Pages 171-177 in Lincer, J. and K. Steenhof (editors). 1993. The burrowing owl, its biology and management. Raptor Research Report Number 9.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation.

California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. Approved survey methodology for the blunt-nosed leopard lizard. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, USA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey considerations for California endangered species act candidate bumble bee species. Sacramento, California, USA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. Biogeographic information and observation system (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Accessed 12 December 2024.

Tennant, E., D. Germano, J. Stewart, H. Butterfield, and M. Westphal. 2018.

Investigating blunt-nosed leopard lizard population size, demographics, space use, and future population trends on Department Ecological Reserves. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, USA.

Zeiner, D., W. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California’s Wildlife.

Volumes I-III in California Department of Fish and Game, editor. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, USA.

Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Attachment 1

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) PROJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 (Project) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
SCH No.: 2024110806

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURE STATUS/DATE/INITIALS
Before Disturbing Soil or Vegetation
Western Burrowing Owl (BUOW)
Recommended Mitigation Measure 1:

BUOW Surveys Prior to Construction

Recommended Mitigation Measure 3:

BUOW Take Authorization

Crotch’s Bumble Bee (CBB)
Recommended Mitigation Measure 4:

CBB Habitat Assessment

Recommended Mitigation Measure 5:

CBB Surveys

State Species of Special Concern
Recommended Mitigation Measure 8:

Surveys

During Construction
Western Burrowing Owl (BUOW)
Recommended Mitigation Measure 2:

BUOW Avoidance Buffer

Crotch’s Bumble Bee (CBB)
Recommended Mitigation Measure 6:

CBB Avoidance

Recommended Mitigation Measure 7:

CBB Take Authorization

American Badger
Recommended Mitigation Measure 9:

Avoidance

Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229

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 January 29, 2025

City of Bakersfield Development Services Department
Planning Division
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301-5210

RE: Response to Comments on Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased) Mitigated Negative Declaration

Planning Division:

Trinity Consultants (Trinity) is pleased to provide this response to specific comments received from The Sierra Club on the Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) for the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased) Project. These responses pertain to specific comments therein that referred to the AQIA prepared by Trinity on behalf of the subject project. The comments are addressed in the order in which they were made.

AIR QUALITY
Sensitive Receptor Analysis
Comment
The MND is defective in not having thoroughly addressed this project’s air pollution impact on these sensitive receptors.

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. 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.

This assessment followed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), dated March 19, 2015, 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, maximum estimated construction emissions and non-permitted operational emissions are each below 100 pounds per day. Based on the discussion above, because the proposed Project’s emissions are all below SJVAPCD’s screening thresholds, the proposed Project’s potential air quality emissions would not have the potential to generate adverse health impacts to nearby receptors.

Planning Division - Page 2
January 29, 2025

Table 4-4. Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions Comment
Table 4-4 of the MND is entitled “Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions”. Are there emissions which are actually “permitted” and not accounted for in Table 4-4? Response
The SJVAPCD categorizes criteria pollutant emissions into three groups: construction emissions, operational non-permitted equipment and activities, and operational permitted equipment and activities (GAMAQI Section 8.3). Long-term emissions resulting from operational mobile, area, and energy sources for a housing development fall under non-permitted operational emissions. Therefore, Table 4-4 was titled “Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions” to reflect this categorization. No permitted equipment or activities (i.e., stationary source equipment) have been proposed by the Applicant.

Comment
The earlier MND for the smaller tract 6191 housing project on the same site listed operational emissions for the smaller project at 6.09 tons/year for ROG, 5.32 tons/year for NOx and 10.29 tons/year for PM, much larger values than those in the current Table 4-4. The City must account for the comparatively smaller values in Table 4-4.

Response
Trinity has not reviewed the MND for Tract 6191; however, based on the available information on CEQAnet the project was received 7/1/2003 (State Clearing House Number 2003071006). In early 2003, the emissions estimator available was the Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS) 2002 Version 8.7. Since then, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was introduced in 2011, with the most recent 2022 version being utilized for this project.

Emission modeling tools have significantly advanced over the years, improving the accuracy and comprehensiveness of emissions estimates. URBEMIS 2002 relied on older emissions factors and methodologies, while CalEEMod incorporates updated emissions factors, land use data, and calculation methodologies aligned with current regulatory standards. These improvements can result in notable differences in estimated emissions between older and newer models. The values in Table 4-4 reflect the best available data and methods provided by CalEEMod 2022, providing the most updated anticipated project emissions.

Cumulative Impact – Criteria Pollutants
Comment
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.

Response
CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 permits the incorporation by reference of portions or all of other documents that provide information relevant to the Proposed Project and the environmental analysis. Documents incorporated by reference must be available for public review at an office of the Lead Agency or other public Planning Division - Page 3
January 29, 2025

building. The documents identified below are incorporated by reference, and where relevant, the information therein has been summarized in this Response to Comments.

The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report (Bakersfield 2002), provides relevant cumulative analysis in the proposed Project area, is a comprehensive document, and are hereby incorporated by references pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150. The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report can be reviewed at the City of Bakersfield’s Planning Division office:
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301-5210
Monday through Friday
8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The Proposed Project area is designated as an extreme nonattainment area for ozone and a nonattainment area for PM
10 and PM2.5.

To provide an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts, a list approach is used, in accordance with Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. The list approach may utilize either (1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.

The potential cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project and other projects are discussed below. A cumulative project list was incorporated by reference above from the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Bakersfield, 2002). Because the Basin is currently designated as “nonattainment” for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, these projects could contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance, which would be a cumulative impact.

With regard to determining the significance of the contribution from the Proposed Project, the City of Bakersfield recommends that any given project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed using the same significance criteria as for project-specific impacts. Therefore, individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SJVAPCD’s recommended daily or annual thresholds for project-specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant adverse air quality impact. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s cumulative contribution is considered less-than-significant.

GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS
Cumulative Impact - GHG Emissions
Comment 1
The City must present an analysis of the project’s cumulative impact.

Comment 2
The MND is deficient in not having considered the cumulative impact of a list of area projects on climate change.

Planning Division - Page 4
January 29, 2025

Response (Comments 1 & 2)
CEQA does not require “perfection” but instead “adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure” (Section 15003 (i)); therefore, the analysis of the proposed Project’s anticipated GHG emissions and climate change impacts is based on methodologies and information available at the time that the technical report was prepared. Estimation of anticipated GHG emissions that would occur in the future does not account for changes in technology that may reduce such emissions; therefore, the estimates are based on past performance and represent a scenario that may be worse than that which may actually occur. Many uncertainties exist regarding the precise relationship between specific levels of GHG emissions and the ultimate impact on global climate; significant uncertainties also exist regarding the GHG reduction potential of mitigation strategies. Thus, while the information below is being presented to assist the public and the City’s decision makers in understanding the proposed Project’s potential contribution to global climate change impacts, the information available to the City is not sufficiently detailed to allow a direct comparison between particular characteristics of the proposed Project and particular climate change impacts, nor between any particular proposed mitigation measure and any reduction in climate change impacts.

While it is not possible to determine whether the proposed Project individually would have a significant impact on global warming or climate change, the proposed Project would potentially contribute to cumulative GHG emissions in California as well as related health effects. The proposed Project emissions would only be a very small fraction of the statewide GHG emissions. However, without the necessary science and analytical tools, it is not possible to assess, with certainty, whether the proposed Project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15065(a)(3) and 15130. CEQA, however, does note that the more severe environmental problems, the lower the thresholds for treating a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts as significant. Given the position of the legislature in AB 32, which states that global warming poses serious detrimental effects, and the requirements of CEQA for the lead agency to determine that a project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution, 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.

Comment
On page 30, the MND states, “The AB 32 Scoping Plan contains a variety of strategies to reduce the State’s emissions. As shown in Table 4-7, the project is consistent with strategies that are applicable to the project.” This unfounded conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence. Table 4-7 only contains values for annual project GHG emissions, no arguments for consistency with any strategies whatsoever. The City must clearly describe its reasoning and identify substantial evidence that supports this conclusion.

Response
The purpose of Table 4-7 is to disclose the project’s quantified annual GHG emissions, which were calculated using industry-standard tools such as CalEEMod. These emissions estimates form the foundation for evaluating the project’s consistency with California’s regulatory programs and sectoral GHG reduction strategies under the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Specifically, the project’s GHG emissions are primarily attributed to electricity consumption and fuel combustion, both of which are regulated by statewide programs designed to achieve the state’s GHG reduction targets. These programs include:

► Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS): Ensures an increasing share of electricity is generated from renewable sources, directly addressing emissions from electricity use. ► Cap-and-Trade Program: Regulates fuel suppliers and other sectors to cap and reduce overall GHG emissions.

Planning Division - Page 5
January 29, 2025

► Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS): Reduces the carbon intensity of transportation fuels.

The project’s compliance with these upstream regulatory programs ensures that its GHG emissions are accounted for in the state’s GHG reduction strategy. For example, electricity for the project will be sourced from a utility that is subject to the RPS, which mandates a transition to renewable energy sources. Similarly, the carbon intensity of fuels consumed during project operations will be regulated under the Cap-and-Trade Program and LCFS. This approach aligns with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4, which allows GHG emissions to be evaluated in the context of compliance with statewide regulatory programs.

Comment
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.

Response
The 2022 AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality) includes the GHG reduction goals of SB 32, which requires reducing emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

The Scoping Plan provides a comprehensive framework for achieving both AB 32 and SB 32 targets through sector-specific strategies. By aligning with the Scoping Plan’s measures, the project supports the state's long-term GHG reduction goals outlined in SB 32.

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: San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.

LGI Homes – California, LLC

McCORMICK
B I O L O G I C A L, I N C.

Biological Sciences – Inventory, Permitting, and Planning

P.O. Box 80983, Bakersfield, California 933803600 Pegasus Drive, Suite 12, Bakersfield, California 93308 Office: (661) 589-4065E-mail: [email protected]

February 24, 2025

Mr. Hunter Troxel
Project Manager - Staff Civil Engineer
San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.
200 New Stine Road, Suite 175
Bakersfield, CA 93309

Subject: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased) Response to Comments Regarding Biological Resources

Mr. Troxel,

Please review the comment responses provided herein by McCormick Biological, Inc. (MBI) in reference to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Formally Tract 6191), a parcel measuring 83.96 acres (APNs: 437-010-41), located on the southwest corner of Morning Drive and Paladino Drive, Bakersfield, California. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared according to the California Environmental Quality Act with the City of Bakersfield as the Lead Agency. Two comment letters were received addressing the Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures proposed by MBI in a Biological Resource Evaluation dated August 2024 (BRE) and provided to LGI Homes – California, LLC: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), dated December 23, 2024 (Comment Letter 1) and Sierra Club Kern Kaweah Chapter (Sierra Club), undated (Comment Letter 2). We have provided comment responses to these two letters in the following paragraphs.

Comment Letter 1 (CDFW)

Response to Comment 1: Measure BIO-10 requires that if a blunt-nosed leopard lizard is found during protocol surveys, an avoidance plan must be submitted to CDFW that requires take avoidance in compliance with this species’ fully protected status. In effect, the 300-foot buffer could not be implemented if the blunt- nosed leopard lizard avoidance plan allows for encroachment on the occupied area that could result in “take”.

Given that the recommended avoidance buffers would effectively have the same result, we recommend revising Table 4.1. However, the Project only measures approximately 84 acres, and the proponent would not have authority to exercise control beyond the Project boundaries. Therefore, we recommend revising the table as shown at the end of these response.

Response to Comment 2: Implementation of BIO-8 and BIO-9 will result in application for appropriate incidental take authorization should SJKF be found to occupy the Project.

Response to Comment 3: We acknowledge that the upgraded status of burrowing owl warrants Mr. Hunter Troxel
February 24, 2025

inclusion in BIO-8, which details species-specific surveys to be implemented prior to surface disturbance or site alteration. BIO-8 addresses notification and permitting should recommended buffers not be feasible. The following bullet should be added regarding burrowing owl:

Burrowing owl (agency protocol): In the survey season prior to commencement of construction, surveys described in Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) (Staff Report) should be implemented.

Should a burrowing owl or known burrowing owl den (active or inactive) be detected, either during preconstruction surveys or construction activities, no -disturbance buffers outlined in the Staff Report and included in Table 4.1 shall be implemented prior to and during any ground-disturbing activities. The table has been updated to include reference to active and inactive burrows. The portion of BIO -11 that refers to burrowing owl can be deleted.

Response to Comment 4: Implementation of BIO -8 captures the elements of CDFW’s Measures 4, 5, and 6 by incorporating the methods in CDFW Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species (June 6, 2023). All survey elements of the CDFW methodology should be implemented by following the publicly available survey methods referenced in BIO-8.

Federally Listed Species: the differences between federal and state take definitions were included in the BRE In addition, coordination with USFWS to determine whether take authorization under the Federal Endangered Species Act is required by that agency is included in BIO-8 and BIO-9.

Nesting Birds : The dates of nesting bird season in BIO -4 should be adjusted to reflect the CDFW recommendation (February 1 through September 15). Additionally, Measure B IO-4 should be adjusted to reflect conducting a survey 10 -days prior to initial project activities (vegetation clearance, grading, heavy equipment mobilization, etc.) and further define the actions to be taken if active nests are found.

Recommended Revision to BIO-4: Nesting Bird Season. If initial ground disturbance occurs during nesting season (February 1 to September 15) a qualified avian biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey to identify any active nests present within the proposed work area. If active nests are found, initial ground disturbance shall be postponed or halted within no disturbance buffers, as shown in Table 4.1. If the no disturbance buffers in Table 4.1 are not feasible, nests will be monitored by a qualified avian biologist who will establish a behavior baseline prior to activities. The qualified avian biologist will establish an avoidance buffer and continuously monitor during project activities, watching for behavioral changes. If any indication of nesting disturbance is observed, the avoidance buffer will be increased until the avian biologist determines that nesting behavior has returned to baseline. Nest monitoring will continue until juveniles have fledged or the nest has been abandoned, as determined by the biologist. The construction avoidance area shall be clearly demarcated in the field with highly visible construction fencing or flagging, and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. Monitoring will be documented on standardized field forms and provided to the City of Bakersfield for verification of compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and applicable section of Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5 and 3513). CDFW may be contacted for guidance regarding alternative avoidance strategies.

Mr. Hunter Troxel
February 24, 2025

Table 4.1. Protected Biological Resources – Recommended Avoidance Buffers Special-status Resource Avoidance Buffer*
Crotch’s bumble bee nest 50 feet or implement CDFW
recommended buffer
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard observation Work may not proceed until BIO-9 and BIO-10 have been completed
Swainson’s hawk active nest (March 15-September 15)
Swainson’s hawk documented nest tree (outside of nesting season)
¼-mile
50 feet
San Joaquin kit fox potential den or suitable pipe
San Joaquin kit fox known den
San Joaquin kit fox atypical den
San Joaquin kit fox natal den
San Joaquin kit fox natal den (unoccupied/outside of natal season) 50 feet
100 feet
50 feet
500 feet
100 feet
Burrowing owl active or inactive burrow (high impact level) April 1-August 15: 1,640 feet August 16-October 15: 1,640 feet
October 16-March 31: 1,640 feet
Non-listed nesting birds (non-raptors) 250 feet
Non-listed raptors 500 feet
Listed/protected raptors ½-mile
American badger occupied natal den
American badger occupied den
200 feet
50 feet
*Unless incidental take authority authorizes encroachment or appropriate agency concurrence for a reduced buffer is received.

Comment Letter 2 (Sierra Club)

See Attachment 1 for the portion of the Sierra Club comment letter (pages 4 and 5) showing biological resources comments annotated that are addressed here.

Response to Comment 1: Overall, this is a CEQA procedural question that should be addressed by the Lead Agency. Some context information is provided here regarding the surveys and impact analysis provided by MBI.

The reconnaissance surveys were conducted to provide context and explanation for the potential to occur and subsequent impact analysis for the potentially occurring species. Actionable mitigation measures in regard to those special-status resources are provided in the BRE and MND which demonstrate how the identified impacts will be reduced to a level of “less than significant” when implemented. Results of surveys required within the mitigation measures will result in implementation of procedures in the event of positive detections as described in the MND . This method allows for consideration of presence of multiple species that may not be observable via one or even series of surveys and provides a plan if addressed biological resources are detected prior to commencement of the Project or during construction activities. The measures account for changes in species composition between surveys conducted to support the MND and project commencement, not just those observed on the site at a given point in time.

Mr. Hunter Troxel
February 24, 2025

Response to Comment 2: We defer to the Lead Agency regarding the question of whether consultation must occur before Project approval.

Response to Comment 3: We defer to the Lead Agency regarding whether the impacts identified in the BRE and MND warrant preparation of a full EIR.

Response to Comment 4: We defer to the Lead Agency regarding landscaping policies applied to the Project and whether an EIR is required. No native vegetation communities or potential for rare plant occurrence were found during the surveys and the analysis found that no potential impacts were identified.

The BRE did not identify removal of any native vegetation that would justify mitigation via landscaping with native plants.

Response to Comment 5: The findings of the BRE were that the Project is unlikely to support Swainson’s hawk nesting and provides marginal foraging habitat, resulting in no significant impacts to this species with the implementation of the presented mitigation measures. Absent presentation of additional evidence or data demonstrating that the Project would have potentially significant impacts on this species, no further mitigation would be necessary.

Response to Comment 6: DNA testing of scat is not warranted to determine presence of this species.

The most applicable methods for determining San Joaquin kit fox use of habitat in the region are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011), which were implemented during the surveys conducted to support the BRE. These are the standard accepted methods for identifying San Joaquin kit fox presence.

Based on observations during the surveys, the BRE assumed that San Joaquin kit fox forage on the Project and may use potential dens, although no evidence of use of these dens was documented at the time of the survey. The conclusion of the BRE was that San Joaquin kit fox were present and appropriate mitigation measures were proposed to reduce potential impacts to this species to less than significant.

Response to Comment 7: We defer to the Lead Agency regarding the planning issues and design standards that would result in implementation of this mitigation measure. It should be noted that the design provided in the MND includes a stormwater retention basin and the Mojave Pipeline easement through the northern portion of the parcel, which will be retained as a walking path landscaped with grass and plants.

Both of the se feature types are identified in Cypher (2012) as supporting San Joaquin kit fox in the urban setting.

Response to Comment 8: Mitigation measures BIO -8 and BIO -9 require that the applicant seek incidental take authority from the appropriate agency prior to commencement of activities should any federal or state listed species be present on the Project. Given the marginal condition s and previously disturbed nature of the Project when the BRE was prepared and the findings at that time, habitat compensation was not deemed a necessary component of mitigation unless listed species are subsequently found to be occupying the Project. Mitigation measures BIO-8 and BIO-9 address that conclusion.

Mr. Hunter Troxel
February 24, 2025

Should you have any questions regarding these responses , please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or by cellular phone at 661.343.1078.

Respectfully,

Randi McCormick
Principal Biologist

References cited:

Cypher, B. L., and C.L. Van Horn Job. (2012). Management and conservation of San Joaquin kit foxes in urban environments. In ‘Proceedings of the vertebrate pest conference’. pp. 347–352. (University of California: Davis, CA, USA).

USFWS. (2011). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service standardized recommendations for protection of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance. Sacramento, CA: Author. 9 pp. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-Protocols- Guidelines/Documents/kitfox_standard_rec_2011.pdf

Attachment 1
Sierra Club comment letter (Pages 4 and 5)

S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\PC memo - correspondence_VTTM 7471 final.docx Page | 1

MEMORANDUM

DATE: May 1, 2025

TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission

FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J.Eng

SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 6.a. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased)

Staff received the attached letter from the Sierra Club. Sierra Club disagrees with the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for this project. They ask for revision of the MND to address issues raised in their letter, such as cumulative impacts of greenhouse gases and biological resources.

Staff recommends adopting the MND and approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471.

Attachment: Sierra Club letter (April 30, 2025)

1 890 Monterey St
Suite H
San Luis Obisp o
Califo rnia 93401
ph: 805-593- 0926
fax: 805- 593- 0946
babaknaficy@ naficylaw.com
Law Offices of Babak Naficy

April 30, 2025

Via Email

Bakersfield Planning Commission,
[email protected]
Courtney Camps: [email protected]

Re: Vesting Ten t ative Tract Map 7471
Planning Commission May 1, 2025 Agenda
Item No. 6
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing on behalf of the Kern Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club. As explained in the Sierra Club’s December 30, 2024, letter to the Development Services Department, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this Vesting Tentative Map fails to adequately analyze the Project’s potential impacts on biological resources, particularly the impacts on the diverse group of protected species that have either been detected on the site or are expected to occur. The MND also fails to adequately assess the significance of the Project’s contribution to climate change, or to propose any mitigation to address those impacts.

1. Contrary to what is stated in the MND, the Project’s cumulative contribution to climate change is considerable and significant.

The MND claims “[t]he project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect related to greenhouse gas emissions (Trinity Consultants 2024).” These claims, however, are neither explained nor supported by substantial evidence.

Typically, under CEQA, the lead agency applies a threshold of significance to assess the significance of a project’s potential impacts. “A threshold is an ‘identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant.’ [(CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7, subd (a).)]” Upland Cmty. First v. City of Upland, (20240 105 Cal. App. 5th 1, 16.

2 Here, the agency baldly asserts that the Project’s potential climate impacts are not significant without relying on any threshold of significance or even an explanation of its methodology or any other basis for reaching this conclusion.

Moreover, the MND’s conclusion in this regard is at odds with the report of its own expert, Trinity Consultant, who in their January 29, 2025, response to Sierra Club’s comments, admitted that “[g]iven the position of the legislature in AB 32, which states that global warming poses serious detrimental effects, and the requirements of CEQA for the lead agency to determine that a project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution,
the effect of the proposed
Project’s GHG contribution may be determined to be cumulatively considerable.” Ironically, the MND cites Trinity for the proposition that the Project’s contribution to climate change is NOT considerable or significant.

The MND also claims that “the project is consistent with [AB 32] strategies that are applicable to the project.” The MND then cites the 2017 Scoping Plan Update and explains that these strategies

primarily rely on increasing the stringency of existing regulations with which the project would continue to comply, support through the project’s design, and implementation of the General Plan goals and policies (Trinity Consultants 2024). Accordingly, taking into account the proposed project’s emissions, project design features, and the progress being made by the State towards reducing emissions in key sectors such as transportation, industry, and electricity, the project would be consistent with State GHG Plans and would further the State’s goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and does not obstruct their attainment. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse effects related to an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.”

This analysis, however, is inadequate and does not amount to substantial evidence supporting a conclusion the Project would not result in a significant impact associated with its greenhouse gas emissions. The fact that the State has in the past and will continue to adopt more stringent regulations does not support the conclusion that the Project’s emissions are consistent with or promote the State’s GHG reduction strategies. That argument makes no sense, because by that logic, every project is consistent with State climate goals because all projects rely on the same more efficient fuels, are subject to the same 3 increasingly more stringent regulations, and benefit from the state-sponsored GHG reductions in all sectors.

Moreover, the MND claims that Project “design features” are consistent with State GHG Plans and would further the State’s goals of reducing GHG emissions. The MND does not, however, identify or describe any such design features, leaving the public and the Planning Commissioners to guess what design features are intended to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions.

2. The MND improperly defers important protocol surveys and formulation mitigation measures.

The MND relies on a Biological Resource Evaluation based on a reconnaissance field study. The MND recognizes that the Project likely supports and/or is habitat for a number of protected species, including the blunt-nosed leopard lizard (BNLL), the San Joaquin kit fox, burrowing owl, nesting birds, American badger, Crotch’s bumble bee and Swainson’s hawk. Project consultant, McCormik explained that the “reconnaissance surveys were conducted to provide context and explanation for the potential to occur and subsequent impact analysis for the potentially occurring species.” McCormik, February 24, 2025, at 3.

It appears that because the applicant was not required to conduct protocol level surveys, in most instances the formulation of mitigation measures was deferred. With respect to the San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF), for example, the Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) explained that “if take cannot be avoided, acquisition of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) prior to any ground disturbing activities, pursuant Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b), would be required to comply with the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).” The MND concluded that even if take cannot be avoided, the acquisition of and ITP would necessarily reduce the Project impacts on SKKF to a less than significant level. This conclusion, however, is not explained or substantiated. There is no explanation to support this claim.

CDFW also pointed out that appropriate burrowing owl surveys had not been conducted. In its response to comments, McCormik admits that due to the upgraded status of the burrowing owl, “species-specific surveys” should be conducted, but defers these to after project approval. Again, it is assumed without any explanation that a feasible and effective mitigation strategy would simply present itself. In its comments, CDFW pointed out that the recommended buffers may not be feasible, in which case “consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the Project and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization …. Is necessary to comply with CESA.” This demonstrates that a discussion of potential mitigation strategies were 4 impermissibly deferred without any discussion of the feasibility and/or efficacy of potential mitigation measures, or any performance standards to ensure the mitigation measures will be effective in the long run.

Generally, “ ‘[i]t is improper to defer the formulation of mitigation measures until after project approval; instead, the determination of whether a project will have significant environmental impacts, and the formulation of measures to mitigate those impacts, must occur before the project is approved.’ [Citation.]” (Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906, 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 755; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B).) “[A]n exception to this general rule applies when the agency has committed itself to specific performance criteria for evaluating the efficacy of the measures to be implemented in the future, and the future mitigation measures are formulated and operational before the project activity that they regulate begins. [Citation.]

Save Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills (2020) 46 Cal. App. 5th 665, 686

Likewise, with respect to the Crotch’s Bumble Bee (CBB), a habitat assessment necessary to determine the likely presence of the CBB is deferred.

Focused surveys may be necessary if the requisite habitat features are present.

However, without this basic information, the public and the Planning Commissioners are not able to determine if the Project could potentially impact this protected species. Nor is there any discussion of whether mitigation of the impacts to the CBB is feasible.

For all of these reasons, the MND violates CEQA and must be revised as explained herein.
.

Sincerely,

Babak Naficy
Babak Naficy,
Counsel for the Kern Kaweah chapter of the Sierra Club