S:\05_Land
Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\PC Memo 7.17.25\7450 PC Memo_07.17.25.docx
Page | 1
MEMORANDUM
D
ATE: July 17, 2025
T
O: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
F
ROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J. Eng
SU
BJECT: Agenda Item No. 5c. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased) F
ollowing the release of the staff report for the above-referenced project, Carol Bender submitted comments in an email dated July 11, 2025. In addition, Gordan Nipp on behalf of the Sierra Club submitted a letter through email on July 15 , 2025. Below is a summary of the comments submitted and Staff’s response.
Car
ol Bender’s Comments:
Car
ol Bender expressed concerns that her previous comments were not adequately addressed in the staff report. She noted that the report incorrectly identifies Austin Creek Park as an existing facility, clarifying that the park has been planned for over 30 years but is not yet developed or funded.
S
he reiterated her request for a traffic study, citing ongoing congestion issues in the Rosedale area, particularly along Allen Road and Santa Fe Way, and at two nearby railroad crossings where grade separations remain unfunded. Ms. Bender also raised concerns about the project’s inconsistency with the Western Rosedale Specific Plan, which she believes is being disregarded despite the project's reliance on its EIR. She emphasized that the current General Plan remains in effect and should be considered until a new plan is formally adopted.
S
taff’s Response:
A
ustin Creek Park is a planned recreational facility. As stated in the staff report previously prepared on July 11, 2025, the subdivider will be required to dedicate land based on a standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000 residents per Condition 14. Additionally, the subdivider must enter into an agreement with the North of the River Recreation and Park District to address park development needs.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project. Comments submitted by Carol Bender were addressed in the Recreation and Transportation and Traffic sections of the MND.
The Western Rosedale Specific Plan (WRSP), this is a County -adopted document that applies to land within the County’s jurisdiction . The WRSP was not adopted by the City, therefore, the WRSP does not apply to the proposed project.
Gordan Nipp, Sierra Club’s Comments:
Gordon Nipp on behalf of the Sierra Club submitted a comment letter asserting that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 is inadequate under CEQA and that a full Environmental Impact Report is required.
As with the Sierra Club’s previously submitted comments, t he letter contends that the MND does not sufficiently evaluate the project’s impacts related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, farmland conversion, and cumulative effects.
Specific points include the project’s proximity to sensitive receptors such as Frontier High School, high pollution burden in the project area, lack of discussion on Valley Fever risks, and reliance on generalized thresholds without accounting for cumulative regional impacts.
The letter further states that post- approval biological surveys are inadequate and that mitigation measures lack clearly defined performance standards. Concerns were also expressed regarding the conversion of farmland and the project’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, with the commenter urging adoption of more specific and enforceable mitigation strategies. The comment er requests that the City prepare a full Environmental Impact Report to address these issues and provide adequate CEQA analysis.
Staff’s Response:
Based on the professional qualifications of the preparers of the special studies, such as air quality and biological resources and other supporting sources, staff agrees that the City's CEQA review process duly considers a project's potential environmental impacts.
As stated in the staff report, c omments submitted by Gordon Nip p, Sierra Club, were evaluated and addressed within the Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions sections of the MND. To support the analysis, an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Memorandum and a Biological Clearance Survey Repor t were prepared.
Impacts on farmland and cumulative impacts were assessed in the Agriculture and Forestry Resources and Mandatory Findings of Significance sections. Staff has considered the comments submitted and has provided sufficient analysis and responses that support the proposed MND. Therefore, staff continues to recommend the Planning Commission approve the project subject to the recommended conditions.
Attachments:
C. Bender Comment Letter (7/11/25)
Sierra Club Comment Letter (7/15/25)
From: Noeli Topete
To: cmbdolls
Subject: RE: VTTM 7450 further comments for Public Hearing July 17,2025 Date: Friday, July 11, 2025 4:07:55 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Received, thank you.
Noeli Topete | Associate Planner
Development Services Department
City of Bakersfield
email: [email protected]
web: www.bakersfieldcity.us
phone:661-326-3165
From: cmbdolls <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 4:04 PM
To: Noeli Topete <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: VTTM 7450 further comments for Public Hearing July 17,2025
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Thank you for sending me this.
I am a bit confused as to your response " Responses to your comments are included in the staff report for the project which can be found in the following link." I read these sections in the link and they did not address many of my comments which was disappointing. Given limited time to prepare, I will attempt to send another comment for review.
Ex:. I would like to note that the report states there is an existing Austin Creek Park within .6 miles of the development. This park does not yet exist and does not have funding alotted at this time. It has been "planned for the entire 33 years I have lived here in Westdale North Estates.
The report does not address concerns that the existing General Plan specifically states that it is to take into consideration all existing Specific Plans, including in the areas of the Sphere of Influence.
It entirely disregards the Western Rosedale Specific Plan guidelines even though it relies on its EIR. There is no mention of any future preparation to replace the Western Rosedale Specific Plan. While an updated General Plan is in the works, it is not yet adopted, thus the current plan should be followed, or at minimum, considered and addressed. Many future infrastructure and community service improvements will be necessary to accommodate increased building/population that was not anticipated for the Western Rosedale area. Problems will include roads/traffic .Allen Rd and Santa Fe Way are major roadways that are frequently congested and there 2 unsafe railroad crossings near the development with no funds for grade separations.
Additionally, a request for a traffic study, given the large number of homes/residents that will be residing in this development was seemingly a reasonable request. This oversight is sadly way too common in this area of Rosedale and has led to excessive traffic during peak hours.
Thank you for allowing me this brief response. Please add it to comments for your staff and the Planning Commissioners to review.
Best regards,
Carol Bender
On Friday, July 11, 2025 at 12:31:09 PM PDT, Noeli Topete <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Carol,
Good afternoon! Responses to your comments are included in the staff report for the project which can be found in the following link. Please select “5:30 PM Planning Commission” for July 17, 2025.
https://pub-bakersfield.escribemeetings.com/
Thank you,
Noeli Topete | Associate Planner
Development Services Department
City of Bakersfield
email: [email protected]
web: www.bakersfieldcity.us
phone:661-326-3165
From: [email protected]
To: Noeli Topete; DEVPln
Subject: RE: VTTM 7450
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 4:38:12 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Tract 7450 MND comments.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hi Noeli,
I am attaching Sierra Club comments on Tract 7450, up before the Planning Commission this Thursday. I would appreciate your responding that you have received this letter and that it is distributed to the Planning Commission.
I will not be able to attend the meeting. I would ask that you remove this item from the consent agenda for Planning Commission discussion of our input.
Thanks, Gordon Nipp
From: Noeli Topete <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 12:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: VTTM 7450
Hi Gordan,
Good afternoon! Responses to your comment letter are included in the staff report for the project which can be found in the following link. Please select “5:30 PM Planning Commission” for July 17, 2025.
https://pub-bakersfield.escribemeetings.com/
Thank you,
Noeli Topete | Associate Planner
Development Services Department
City of Bakersfield
email: [email protected]
web: www.bakersfieldcity.us
phone:661-326-3165
1 P.O. Box 3357
Bakersfield, CA 93385
July 15, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
Attention: Noeli Topete
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450
Dear Planners:
The Sierra Club offers comments about the above project, a proposed vesting tentative tract map for 176 residential lots and 5 public landscape lots on 32.66 acres at the southwest corner of Olive Drive and Rosedale Ranch Parkway in northwest Bakersfield.
In the details below, we present evidence that the current Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) does not adequately address the many issues associated with this proposed project and that a full-fledged EIR must be written for this project.
AIR POLLUTION
Bakersfield has arguably the worst air in the nation. See the American Lung Association report at http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city- rankings/states/california/.
Specifically, according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0 | OEHHA, this project site area is in the 85th percentile for ozone exposure, in the 98th percentile for PM2.5 exposure, and in the 71st percentile for pollution burden. With no discussion whatsoever of PM2.5 and ozone exposure, the MND improperly concludes that “the Project would not result in a significant health risk impact under CEQA.” Since our extreme air pollution affects the
2 health of many residents, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is defective in not having thoroughly addressed the issue.
Frontier High School is located less than one mile east of the project site. Many children have asthma. With no discussion whatsoever of the project’s criteria pollutant impacts on the school, the MND improperly concludes that “the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.” The MND is defective in not having thoroughly addressed this project’s air pollution impact on these sensitive receptors.
Without presenting evidence regarding potential valley fever exposure, the MND concludes that “the Project would not result in a significant health risk impact under CEQA”. The project should be required to test the soil for Valley fever spores before drawing this conclusion, all the more important given the proximity to nearby residences and Frontier High School and given the recent increase in cases. Valley fever cases spike in California, already way up from recent years
California courts have ruled, “the greater the existing environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for treating a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts as significant.” In a region with arguably the dirtiest air in the nation and where large numbers of Kern County children have asthma, any air pollution additions must be considered significant and adequately mitigated. In the context of air quality in particular, our courts have cautioned that “The magnitude of the current air quality problems in the San Joaquin Valley cannot be used to trivialize the cumulative contributions of the shopping centers and the scope of the analysis cannot be artificially limited to a restricted portion of the air basin.” Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v.
City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1219
To this end, the MND should adopt a net zero threshold for air pollution impacts.
The City is only requiring this project to comply with weak San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District requirements that have not over the years addressed our local pollution problem. Rather than leaving it at the discretion of the Air District, the City should place a requirement that the developer reduce project emissions to zero by entering into a Developer Mitigation Contract with the SJVAPCD. (For that matter, reducing emissions from any new project to zero should be standard policy so that our dreadful air doesn’t get dirtier. Contract emissions reductions must be in the local region.)
On page 16 of the MND, in the section meant to address the cumulative impact of the project, the MND states, “the project would not exceed the SJVAPCD significance thresholds. Therefore, the project would not have substantial adverse effects related to criteria pollutants..” The City illogically asserts that project-specific insignificance implies cumulative insignificance, violating the very meaning of cumulative impacts.
3 According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3), ““Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”
From page 107 and 108 of SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf):
• “If a project is significant based on the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, then it is also cumulatively significant. This does not imply that if the project is below all such significance thresholds, it cannot be cumulatively significant.” (Underline added)
• “Lead Agencies should also consider the cumulative impact of multiple simultaneously proposed projects, located within the same area. If the combined impacts of such projects cause or worsen an exceedance of the concentration standards, the project would have a cumulatively significant impact under CEQA.”
The City’s approach is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement that the environmental documents include analysis of a project’s direct AND cumulative impact. Under the City’s proposed approach, the MND need not undertake any analysis of the project’s cumulative impact on air quality because the results would be identical to the direct impacts analysis. But the point of cumulative impact analysis is to understand the significance of the Project’s incremental impact in light of the magnitude of the environmental problem to which the project would contribute. The MND must “view” the effects of this project in connection with the effects of at least nearby projects.
The MND for this project is defective in that it has not computed or addressed the cumulative emissions from this and other planned projects, cumulative emissions which almost certainly would exceed air quality standards and should be considered significant. In the interest of public health, cumulative emissions computations must include emissions from other planned projects, not just from this project. We include a cumulative list of several of the additional current proposed new projects in the Bakersfield area:
• The DEIR for the IPG Industrial Park Project lists 51 projects in its list of cumulative projects.
• Expansion of the Wonderful Industrial Park on Seventh Standard Road • Tentative Parcel Map 12447
• General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471
• Conditional Use Permit Case No. 17, Map 121; Zone Variance No. 11, Map 121 (Kern County)
4 • GPA#6, Map #122; ZCC #15, Map #122; PD Plan#11, Map#122 (Kern County) • Rosedale Ranch projects
• Malibu Vineyards warehouse project adjacent to Highway 99 just north of Bakersfield
• Hageman Industrial Park
• IPG Industrial Project in unincorporated Kern County
• Veteran’s Administration Outpatient Clinic
• CUP 20-0379, a truck stop project on 16 acres on Taft Highway west of Highway 99 (City of Bakersfield)
There are likely other such projects of which we are not aware.
The cumulative impacts of this project, of those listed above, and of other area projects on air pollution, traffic, energy, climate change, biological resources, and other issues must be thoroughly addressed, including performance standards that are mandatory, specifically defined, and enforceable. Reducing project emissions to zero through an Air District contract would help address the potentially significant cumulative air quality impact of this project.
The City must require this project to adopt a sufficient number of effective air pollution reduction measures (e.g., a DMC with SJVAPCD) to offset cumulative impacts. Each such requirement must include performance standards that are mandatory, specifically defined, and enforceable.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
One of the basic purposes of CEQA is to “inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.” Post-approval biological surveys do not satisfy CEQA’s informational requirements; the decision-makers need to know the results of the biological surveys in order to assess the Project’s potential biological impacts BEFORE deciding whether to approve the Project. Post-approval surveys cannot inform the City’s decision whether to approve the Project. Deferred mitigation violates CEQA if it lacks performance standards to ensure the mitigation goal will be achieved. To address biological resource issues a biological survey and consultation with the USFWS and CDFW should be required before project approval.
The MND is defective and violates CEQA in that it has not described and assessed the significance of the cumulative effects of ongoing urbanization and habitat loss on 5 protected species. Loss of habitat is a major reason for species decline. Moreover, now that the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan is no longer in effect, the City must find another way to effectively address the Project’s contribution to cumulative habitat loss. Potentially significant cumulative impacts to biological resources and viable mitigation measures for these impacts (including purchase of replacement habitat) should be studied and addressed in a full EIR.
While many of these species may have been driven out of the project site by mowing and disking operations, an EIR should require reintroducing some of the native plant species by replanting them in project open space areas. The project’s landscaping should include drought-tolerant and/or native plants.
Mitigation measures should include requiring the project to plant trees that could serve as Swainson’s hawk nesting sites and requiring the project to purchase conservation easements on nearby Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.
To help scientifically determine whether kit fox use the site, a qualified biologist should extract DNA from onsite potential San Joaquin kit fox scat samples, following a procedure published in 2014 by De Barba et al. (
De Barba, M., Adams, J. R., Goldberg, C. S.,
Stansbury, C. R., Arias, D., Cisneros, R., & Waits, L. P. (2014). Molecular species identification for multiple carnivores. Conservation Genetics Resources, 6, 821-824). If the scat actually is kit fox scat, then clearly kit fox inhabit the site, and appropriate mitigation should be applied.
According to the publication Conservation Strategies for San Joaquin Kit Foxes in Urban Environments by Brian Cypher, Christine Van Horn Job, and Scott Phillips at http://esrp.csustan.edu/publications/pdf/cypher_etal_2012_urban_kitfox_conservation_e srp.pdf, “To the extent practical and possible, urban planners could design new developments in a manner that facilitates use by kit foxes.” While such design is “highly encouraged” by mitigation measure BIO-8, this measure is so vague that it unlikely to be implemented. The City should actually require this project to be designed with urban kit fox conservation measures in mind, perhaps including artificial kit fox dens and movement corridors as suggested in the above document. Such a requirement must include performance standards that are mandatory, specifically defined, and enforceable.
Loss of habitat is a major reason for species decline. Mitigation for habitat loss and potential species take should include Incidental Take Permit acquisition and purchase of replacement habitat.
FARMLAND LOSS
On page 14, the MND mistakenly states, “State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15206 does not regard the cancellation of less than 100 acres of land from the Williamson Act to be 6 of statewide, regional or areawide significance.” To the contrary, Section 15206 only applies to parcels of 100 acres or greater and says nothing about parcels like this one smaller than 100 acres. One only need note the massive area conversion of prime agricultural land to urban sprawl to recognize that the conversion of this project’s farmland to housing has a significant cumulative impact. The MND’s insignificance conclusion lacks substantial argument. The City must clearly describe its reasoning and identify substantial evidence that supports this conclusion. An agency's determination regarding a mitigation measure’s efficacy must be based on “evidence in the record showing it will be effective in remedying the identified environmental impact. (See Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1167-1170, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 154.
Environmental documents should address the potential for growth inducement from this project. This property is surrounded by prime farmland. Its conversion to housing will almost certainly result in growth inducement, the conversion of other nearby farmland to non-agricultural use. The MND’s insignificance conclusion lacks substantial argument.
The MND fails altogether to address the cumulative impact of this and other projects on farmland loss. This cumulative impact must be considered significant and mitigation via developer funding of agricultural conservation easements on other similar farmland should be required.
CLIMATE CRISIS
There is much important new information on climate change. For example:
• The IPCC AR6 synthesis report (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ ) includes warnings that the world is approaching “irreversible” levels of global heating, with catastrophic impacts rapidly becoming inevitable; and that it is “now or never” to take drastic action to avoid disaster.
• “A new study has revealed that the language used by the global climate change watchdog, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is overly conservative - and therefore the threats are much greater than the Panel's reports suggest.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190320102010.htm • Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI) - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory (https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/) is also substantial and critically important new information.
• Harmful tipping points in the natural world pose some of the gravest threats faced by humanity. Environmental stresses could become so severe that large parts of the natural world are unable to maintain their current state, leading to abrupt and/or irreversible changes. Global Tipping Points | Home (global- tipping-points.org)
7 • UN secretary general, António Guterres, said,” This is climate breakdown, in real time. We must exit this road to ruin, and we have no time to lose.” World endures 'decade of deadly heat' as 2024 caps hottest years on record | Climate crisis | The Guardian
California courts have ruled, “the greater the existing environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for treating a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts as significant.” The climate crisis is inherently a cumulatively significant issue.
The MND is imposing four ineffective greenhouse gas (GHG) measures:
• GHG-1 suggests “Using controls that reduce exhaust from construction equipment.” It seems to be left to the developer to determine which controls to choose and how much exhaust will be reduced. This measure is vague and not clearly enough defined to be enforceable, making it unlikely that it will actually be implemented. GHG-1 violates CEQA because it lacks performance standards that are mandatory, specifically defined, and enforceable to ensure the mitigation goal will be achieved.
• GHG-2 suggests “Using electricity for power instead of diesel, when possible.” It seems to be left to the developer to determine if and when this is “possible”. This measure is vague and not clearly enough defined to be enforceable, making it unlikely that it will actually be implemented. GHG-2 violates CEQA because it lacks performance standards that are mandatory, specifically defined, and enforceable to ensure the mitigation goal will be achieved. • GHG-3 suggests “No idling of construction equipment engines.” Enforcement and timing seem to be left up to the developer. This measure is vague and not clearly enough defined to be enforceable, making it unlikely that it will actually be implemented. GHG-3 violates CEQA because it lacks performance standards that are mandatory, specifically defined, and enforceable to ensure the mitigation goal will be achieved.
• GHG-4 suggests “Construct buildings with Uniform Building Code standards to minimize total consumption of energy.” This measure is meaningless in that it only requires the developer to comply with the minimum standards of the law. In order to “minimize total consumption of energy”, the City should require specific exceedances of Uniform Building Code standards.
For each of these measures, the City should require specific performance standards that are mandatory, specifically defined, and enforceable. As written, these measures are useless and ineffective.
On page 24, the MND states, “Measures GHG-1 through GHG-4 would be incorporated as design features to reduce GHG emissions by at least 16%.” • The MND contains no quantification of GHG emissions and thus could contain no argument as to how these emissions could be reduced by 16%. • None of GHG-1 through GHG-4 contain “design features”. The GHG-1, GHG-2, and GHG-3 refer only to construction equipment, and GHG-4 is general and vague with no “design features” required. Without “design features”, the argument is mysterious at best.
8 The MND is defective in not having presented a substantial argument for these GHG reductions. An agency's determination regarding a mitigation measure’s efficacy must be based on “evidence in the record showing it will be effective in remedying the identified environmental impact. (See Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1167-1170, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 154.)
In VIII(a) on page 24, to determine project significance, the MND is relying on the 2008 SJVAPCD Climate Change Action Plan to attain the 2020 goals of outdated AB 32. • The emission reduction targets set forth in AB 32 mark only a first and interim step toward avoiding dangerous climate change. By myopically focusing on AB 32, the project ignores the long-term emission reductions necessary to stabilize the climate.
• On the same page in paragraph VIII(b), the MND contradicts itself by stating, “While the SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Action Plan, it does not contain measures applicable to individual development projects and therefore cannot be applied to this project.”
Nonetheless, the MND relies on an unquantifiable 16% GHG reduction from ineffective measures and an inapplicable Plan to improperly conclude that “the proposed project would have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact on global climate.” The MND is defective in that this unfounded conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence.
The City must present an analysis of the project’s cumulative impact on climate change. The State CEQA Guidelines state,
“15355(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” There has been no attempt to quantify the cumulative impact and that there is thus no data upon which to base a conclusion of insignificance. There are many closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects (for example, projects in the cumulative list above), and the cumulative impact of all these projects on climate change must be quantified and addressed. The MND is deficient in not having considered the cumulative impact of a list of area projects on climate change. It is deficient in concluding without these considerations that the project’s climate change impact is cumulatively insignificant.
Without presenting evidence, on page 24 the MND states that the project is consistent with outdated 2008 and 2017 CARB Scoping Plans and is aligned with statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions. This unfounded declaration is not supported by substantial evidence. The MND presents no arguments for consistency with any strategies whatsoever. Conclusions of project climate change insignificance based on these unfounded declarations must be withdrawn. In order to be serious about consistency with CARB Scoping Plans, the City should adopt some of the 2022 Scoping Plan measures listed below.
9 Since the City has shelved adopting a Climate Action Plan, it must be extra diligent in assuring that individual projects like this one satisfy state goals and regulations and legal requirements through adoption of feasible mitigation.
SB 32 requires that statewide greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. The MND is deficient in not having addressed this requirement.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets extend beyond 2020 and are much larger than the 2020 target; Executive Order B-30-15 targets a GHG reduction of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, codified in SB 32. Executive Order S-3-05 sets an 80% reduction of GHG from 1990 levels in 2050 as a goal. In order to achieve GHG emission reduction goals beyond 2020, the City should require feasible mitigation measures that would reduce GHG emissions beyond the AB 32 goals.
If we care to not leave an overheated planet for future generations, the City must thoroughly address the climate crisis. Feasible potential mitigation measures include:
• A requirement that all buildings contain enough solar photovoltaics (PV) and solar water heating to offset energy usage to the maximum extent feasible, with a capacity that matches the maximum allowed for distributed solar connections to the grid.
• Green building measures should be required for all structures, including passive solar design and a requirement that buildings be at least 25% more energy efficient than Title 24 standards current when permits are pulled. • Adopt appropriate Tier 2 requirements in CALGreen for new residential buildings.
APPENDIX A4 RESIDENTIAL VOLUNTARY MEASURES - 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, TITLE 24, PART 11 (CALGREEN)
WITH JULY
• Provide EV charging infrastructure at least in accordance with CALGreen Tier 2 standards. (from CARB 2022 scoping plan)
• Use all electric appliances, without any natural gas connections, and not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking. (from CARB 2022 scoping plan)
• Relax parking requirements by (1) Eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios. (2) Providing residential parking supply at a ratio of <1 parking space per unit; (3) Unbundling residential parking costs from costs to rent or lease. (from CARB 2022 scoping plan)
• To help address the housing crisis, encourage public transit, and lower VMT, at least 20% of the project should consist of higher density housing affordable to lower-income residents. (from CARB 2022 scoping plan)
• A project design requirement that buildings be situated to maximize rooftop solar production.
• Use cool pavement material on new streets.
10 • A requirement that the developer contribute to tree planting and urban forestry projects. Tree planting plays an essential role in achieving the goal of reaching net zero GHG emissions. One recent study found that California’s working and urban lands have the potential to absorb up to 103 MMT CO2e additional per year by 2030. https://theclimatecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/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.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
On page 39, in the section meant to address the cumulative impacts of the project, the MND states, “there is no substantial evidence that there are cumulative effects associated with this project. In addition, any future development projects not identified above would be required to undergo a separate environmental analysis and mitigate any project- or site-specific potential impacts, as necessary. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.” Several points:
• The MND is wrong about no substantial evidence for cumulative effects. We have presented evidence above. For example, the IPCC report is substantial evidence that the climate crisis is inherently a cumulative impact. The American Lung Association report about our dreadful air and the CalEnviroScreen results are clear evidence of the cumulative air quality effects of hundreds of past and future projects. The cumulative effects of the many past and future sprawling west Bakersfield projects on farmland loss, habitat loss, and traffic are obvious and easily documented.
• There are many future development projects in the pipeline. As noted above, the IPG EIR lists 51 such projects. While all of these projects must undergo environmental analysis, it is unlikely that all of them will reduce every impact to insignificance, and when an impact is significant, then its cumulative impact is 11 significant. The MND is deficient in seeming to assert with no evidence whatsoever that all future projects have insignificant project-specific impacts. • The MND is asserting that potential project-specific impact insignificance for each of these future or current projects implies that the cumulative effect is insignificant, a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of cumulative impacts. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15355(b), “Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” The conclusion of cumulative insignificance must be withdrawn, or substantial evidence based on firm legal and rational ground must be presented.
Please place the Sierra Club on the distribution list for this project to receive any noticing of meetings, hearings, availability of documents, and to receive the environmental documents. We prefer email communications and electronic formatting of documents. Thank you for your consideration and for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Gordon L. Nipp, Ph.D.
Vice-Chair
[email protected]
661-872-2432