Bakersfield City Council
November 19, 2025

Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program
City of Bakersfield – Water Department
Bakersfield, California

August 19, 2025

Consultants wishing to be considered for this project should thoroughly read this Request for Qualifications (RFQ). Information required to be provided in a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) is detailed in Section V . Consultants submitting a SOQ must do so in accordance with the requirements of Section VI . As required by section IX, a signed copy of the enclosed sample agreement must be submitted with a SOQ.

I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REQUIREMENTS

In April 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) finalized the PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR), establishing enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for six PFAS compounds, including a limit of 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for both PFOA and PFOS. Under this regulation, the City of Bakersfield (City) is required to achieve full regulatory compliance by April 26, 2029.

The City owns approximately 65 active domestic water wells , which are operated by California Water Service, that supply potable water to the City’s drinking water distribution system. The City is issuing this Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to solicit qualifications from experienced engineering firms to provide design services for PFAS treatment at 9 well sites. These sites selected were identified through preliminary sampling that indicated concentrations of PFAS exceeding the MCL established by the EPA.

The primary objective of this RFQ is to select one or more qualified engineering consultants to support the City in planning and implementing a PFAS Treatment Program. The selected consultant(s) will be responsible for evaluating each well site for suitable treatment media and designing PFAS treatment systems that comply with current EPA MCL limits.

The PFAS Treatment Program is divided into two phases, with Phase 1 covering four well sites and Phase 2 covering five. Each site will require a separate treatment design. This RFQ pertains solely to Phase 1. The City reserves the right to award Phase 2 work to the selected Phase 1 Consultant, contingent upon satisfactory performance.

Existing treatment systems are present at some sites for constituents such as arsenic , hydrogen sulfide ( H2S), and 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP) . The type, configuration, and capacity of these systems vary by location and should be considered in the proposed PFAS treatment design.

A non- mandatory project site visit for the Phase 1 wells is scheduled for September 2, 2025, at 10:00 A .M., starting at the Water Resources Office, 1000 Buena Vista Rd, Bakersfield, CA 93311. While attendance is not required, the City strongly recommends that all interested consultants participate.

The selected consultant will be expected to provide comprehensive design services in accordance with City standards, including the preparation of plans, specifications, and bid documents. In addition to design development, the consultant will be required to provide technical support during bidding and construction phases of the project.

RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

The City’s intent in developing this RFQ is to encourage qualified firms to describe their approach, work experience, and submit examples of similar projects.

For the purpose of this agreement, the following definitions shall apply:

• Proposer is a firm which submits a Statement of Qualifications in response to this RFQ.
• Consultant is a firm hired by the City to provide the services described in this RFQ. • For the purpose of this RFQ, the term “Consultant” and “Firm” are interchangeable and refer to the qualified firm hired to provide the services. The Consultant shall execute his work in a timely manner and in accordance with a schedule approved by the City. Failure to respond by completing scheduled work in a timely manner may result in termination of the agreement.

II. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CONSULTANT (SCOPE OF WORK)

The Consultant shall have professional staff to provide all the services necessary for the project as defined in Section I of this RFQ. At a minimum, the Consultant’s team shall include a California registered civil engineer experienced in municipal groundwater supply well design, permitting, and construction, as well as familiarity with PFAS treatment technologies, California Division of Drinking Water permitting protocols and NPDWR.

Overall, the CONSULANT shall be responsible for creating a bid package, including plans and specifications

DESIGN PHASE

1. Attend a project review meeting with City staff to review the project and City procedures and standards.

2. Submit preliminary plans and specifications at 30% and 60% completion. City staff will review and provide comments.

3. Submit plans, specifications, and bid documents at 90% completion. City staff will review and provide comments. CONSULTANT shall also submit a preliminary engineer’s estimate for construction costs.

4. Submit plans, specifications, and bid documents at 100% completions with a preliminary schedule for bidding phase and construction phase. CONSULTANT shall also submit a final engineer’s estimate for construction costs.

5. The plans, specifications and bid documents shall be adequate for obtaining construction bids in accordance with all applicable regulations and requirements of the State of California and the City of Bakersfield. Specifications for each project must be based on the most current version of the City’s boiler plate at the time the project is issued for bids.

6. Attend a project status meeting with City staff to discuss the plans and the construction of the project.

7. Furnish to the City the originals of the approved Construction Plans, Specifications and Bid Documents and Engineer's Estimate. All drawings must be provided in hard copy and electronic format which can be integrated directly with existing information in the City’s CAD System.

RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

BIDDING PHASE

1. Respond to contractors' questions regarding the plans and specifications.

2. Prepare modifications to the Plans and/or Specifications as necessary to support City in preparing and issuing addenda.

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

1. Review and approve Contractor's submission of product data and shop drawings as required.

2. Furnish general observation of construction work and on- site consulting service as required by the City.

3. Investigate proposed contract change orders and submit background information to the City for a decision, if justified, and prepare necessary drawings and documents for approval.

4. Assist in performing a final inspection service of the completed construction and prepare a list for the City, if necessary, of items to be corrected prior to accepting the project as constructed.

5. Prepare and submit to the City one set of reproducible record drawings reflecting changes made during construction.

When the contracted work is accepted by the City, all completed reports, documents, studies, CAD drawings, and technical data used in the research and completion of the project shall become the property of the City, including their copyrights and any inherited interests.

III. ITEMS AND SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

1. The C ity will provide a general description of the project site, its location and boundaries.

2. The City will provide copies of C ity’s available record drawings of existing facilities .

The C ity makes no warranty that record drawings for additional existing improvements are available.

3. The City will provide copies of any relevant studies previously completed.

4. The City will provide access to Water Department personnel to support field understanding of well site operations.

RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

IV. ESTIMATED PROJECT AGREEMENT TIME SCHEDULE

The Consultant shall submit a project schedule with a number of hours estimated to complete the project work. The project schedule shall assume a “Notice to Proceed” will be issued in late November 2025, and shall identify estimated dates for 30%, 60%, 90%, and final (100%) deliverables.

Event Date
RFQ Released August 19, 2025
Non-Mandatory Project Site Visit September 02, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.

SOQs Due September 26, 2025 by 3:00 p.m.

Notification Letters Sent Out October 03, 2025
Firms on Shortlist Interviewed and Submit Sealed Proposal October 17, 2025 Final Results Sent Out / Selected Firm Notified October 24, 2025 Anticipated City Council Meeting November 19, 2025

V. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS

All interested consultants (Proposers) shall submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) which shall contain at a minimum the following information:

A. The completed General Information Sheet (refer to Attachment # 1). An officer of the Proposer must sign this document.

B. Description of the Proposer’s management principles, policies and procedures in regards to:

1. Responding in a timely manner;

2. Availability of Proposer’s staff to start work on a project;

3. Development of a project design schedule and adhering to that schedule;

4. Complete and successful performance of all tasks assigned to the Consultant.

C. Name and relevant experience of Proposer’s principals who will be responsible for the project.

D. Name and relevant experience of the Proposer’s key personnel who will work on the project.

E. A list of comparable municipal water quality treatment projects the Proposer has been involved in over the past ten years, including but not limited to projects involving PFAS or other emerging contaminants. The list should include at least three different clients and should provide the following information for each project:

1. Project title, location and description including size of the project;

2. Nature of Proposer’s responsibility;

3. Start and end dates of Proposer’s involvement in the contract;

4. Names of Proposer’s key personnel involved in the contract;

5. Total dollar amount of Proposer’s contract;

6. Name, address and phone number of the contract owner;

7. Name and address of Proposer’s client if different from the contract owner; and

8. Name and phone number of contact person at Proposer’s client’s office.

RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

The City will use this information to conduct a reference check . If the Proposer submits more than three comparable projects on their list, Proposer shall note their preference for which three projects they wish to be referenced.

F. A statement of why you believe your firm should be selected for this project.

G. A list of Proposer’s claims history since January 1, 2020.

1. List all claims, demands for arbitration and/or lawsuits filed by PROPOSER, predecessor companies or company officers against contract owners or their agents. This list shall include the following information for each claim:
a. Name of project owner;
b. Project completion date;
c. Basis for claim;
d. Claim or suit amount;
e. Current status; and
f. Award or Settlement amount.

2. List all claims, demands for arbitration and/or lawsuits filed by contract owners, their agents or subconsultants against PROPOSER, predecessor companies, its agents or bonding company in connection with PROPOSER, its officers, its agents or bonding company. This list shall include the following information for each claim:
a. Name of contract owner;
b. Contract completion date;
c. Basis for claim;
d. Claim or suit amount;
e. Current status; and
f. Award or Settlement amount.

H. A statement of Proposer's current insurance coverage signed by a company official.

The City requires a minimum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) Professional Liability Insurance, Automobile Liability Insurance, General Liability Insurance, and Workers’ Compensation Insurance. If the current coverage does not meet the City’s minimum requirements, a statement of Proposer’s ability and intent to obtain the required coverage must be included. Do not submit a certificate of insurance in lieu of this statement.

VI. SUBMITTAL OF STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS

Consultants responding to this RFQ must include the following items in their submittal package:

A. Three (3) copies of Proposer’s SOQ;
B. One (1) copy of the completed “General Information Sheet” (Att achment #1) signed by a company official; and
C. One (1) signed copy of the Draft Design Consultant’s Agreement for this project (refer to Section X, “CONTRACT DOCUMENTS”, of this RFQ);

RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

The submittal items must be placed into a sealed envelope bearing PROPOSER’s name and the words

Statement of Qualifications for
Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program
Water Department
Bakersfield, California

Before 3:00 p.m. on Friday, September 26, 2025, the submittal package must be delivered to:

Henry Kouyoumdjian, Engineer II
Water Resources Division
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, California, 93311

The City assumes no responsibility for non-receipt of submittal packages due to any delay, including, but not limited to, carrier delay. It is the proposer’s responsibility to meet the deadline stated above.

Submittals which do not contain the required number of copies and all the information requested in this RFQ may be considered non-responsive and rejected without evaluation.

Submittals received after the deadline or at the wrong location will be considered non - responsive. Fax copies will not be accepted.

VII. SELECTION OF CONSULTANT

The Consultant shall have qualified professional staff and the necessary experience and expertise to complete the project and satisfy all the requirements as described throughout this RFQ.

Consultants submitting an SOQ must provide verifiable evidence in their submittal demonstrating that they have extensive current and past experience providing the services described in Section I, “General Project Description and Requirements,” and Section II, “Services to Be Provided by the Consultant (Scope of Work),” of this RFQ..

The City will evaluate the Proposer based on the following items:

A. The information contained in the firm’s SOQ submitted in response to this request. The City’s evaluation of this information will be based, at least in part, on the requirements for the SOQ set forth in this RFQ including:
a. The Proposer's experience and past performance on comparable projects for the City and other agencies;
b. The Proposer's available resources and capability to perform the required services within the required time frames;
c. Personnel’s qualifications and experience that the Proposer anticipates assigning to City projects;
B. Proposer’s ability to understand the project requirements as it may be revealed in their proposed methods and procedures, and approach to the project.

C. Related experience of the Proposer.

D. Comments received from the City's reference checks.

RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

E. Proposer's submittal and subjective statements.

After reviewing the SOQ’s submitted by interested firms, the C ity will develop a “short list” of firms to be invited to an interview and to prepare a fee proposal (City will issue a Request for Fee Proposal to each firm with further instructions regarding the fee proposal) .

Upon completion of the interviews, the “short listed” firms will be ranked by qualifications.

Then an evaluation of the fee proposals submitted at the interviews will be used as secondary consideration in selecting a Consultant for the project.

The submission of a fee proposal shall be conclusive evidence that the Proposer and its subconsultants have investigated and satisfied themselves as to the conditions to be encountered, the character, quality and scope of work to be performed, and any municipal and ordinance requirements of the City of Bakersfield.

VIII. SOLICITATION CAVEAT

The Proposer and its subconsultants understand and agree that the City of Bakersfield shall have no financial responsibility for any costs incurred by the P roposer and its subconsultants in responding to this Request for Qualifications and shall not be liable for any Proposer or its subconsultant costs attributed to their own study and investigation of project until the Proposer has executed a contract with the City of Bakersfield and has been authorized in writing to proceed. The City of Bakersfield reserves the right to terminate this Request for Qualifications after three (3) days notice to all prospective Proposers.

IX. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

A sample copy of the City's DESIGN CONSULTANT AGREEMEN T is included as Attachment #2. Please review the agreement carefully. This is the contract the C onsultant will be expected to execute without alteration. If any changes are desired to be considered, the Proposer must submit a copy of the requested modifications to the City for approval at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the date that Statements of Qualifications are due. If approved, the City will then issue the changes to all prospective consultants prior to the due date.

An officer of Proposer must sign and return this sample contract with his submittal. The signature indicates that Proposer accepts the clauses of the contract, including the indemnity clause, as stated on the enclosed sample copy of the City’s agreement and any modifications thereto issued by the City during this solicitation of SOQ’s. That indemnity clause reads as follows:

“DESIGN CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents and employees against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, arising from DESIGN CONSULTANT’s negligence, fraud, willful misconduct, criminal conduct, errors and omissions, or breaches of contract, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, arising out of, connected with, or caused by DESIGN CONSULTANT, DESIGN CONSULTANT’s employees, agents, independent contractors, companies, or subcontractors in the performance of, or in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this Agreement whether or not caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct.”

RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

An Acknowledgment Line, which reads as follows, will be found on the last page of the sample agreement. Proposer must review the sample agreement carefully prior to signing it.
“I have received and reviewed the sample DESIGN CONSULTA NT’S AGREEMENT including the INDEMNITY clause which was sent to me with the City’s RFQ. My signature below shall signify our firm’s acceptance of said contract if our firm is selected for awarding a contract for the project as described in said RFQ . This acceptance is made with the understanding that the Compensation and Time for Completion clauses will be modified to contain the amounts and dates established for this contract.”

The Consultant shall not be allowed to alter or negotiate contract language after the submittal of Consultant ’s Statement of Qualifications. Failure to execute the contract without alteration may result in the rejection of the Consultant ’s proposal and the ret aining of a different consultant by the City.

At the time of contract execution, the Consultant will be required to provide evidence of insurance coverage (Certificates of Insurance) as specified in the agreement.

X. CONTACTS AT THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

All questions concerning the project, the submittal of a Statement of Qualifications, the City’s review and evaluation of the SOQ’s, and the City’s selection of a Consultant for this project should be directed to:

Henry Kouyoumdjian, Engineer II
Water Resources Division
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Voice Phone: 661-326-3622
Email: [email protected]

Attachment #3 “Request for Information Form” should be used when submitting questions.

XI. ATTACHMENTS TO THIS RFQ

The following documents are attachments to this RFQ:

Attachment #1 – General Information Sheet
Attachment #2 – Sample Agreement
Attachment #3 – Request for Information Form
Attachment #1

General Information Sheet
Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program
City of Bakersfield – Water Department
Bakersfield, California

Date: ______________________________
Legal Name of Firm: ___________________________________________________________ Type of Organization: __________________________________________________________ Individual, Partnership or Corporation
For corporations, the state in which the firm is incorporated: ____________________________ Federal Employer I.D. Number: __________________________________________________

Street Address: __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Mailing Address: __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________

Telephone Number: __________________________________________________________ Facsimile Number: __________________________________________________________

Contact Person: __________________________________________________________ Name

__________________________________________________________ Phone Number

__________________________________________________________ E-Mail

____________________________________________________________________________ Name of Principal-in-charge Title License Number
____________________________________________________________________________ Signature of an officer of the firm Title Date

Attachment #2

AGREEMENT NO._________________

DESIGN CONSULTANT AGREEMENT

This DESIGN CONSULTANT AGREEMENT is made and entered into on ______________________ (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation ( referred to herein as “CITY”), and ____________________, a [business type: Sole Proprietorship; Partnership; Corporation; LLC; etc.] authorized to do business in California (referred to herein as “DESIGN CONSULTANT”).

R E C I T A L S

WHEREAS, CITY is currently developing the _________________________ (the “Project”); and

WHEREAS, since CITY does not have expertise currently on staff to design and engineer the Project, CITY has issued a Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposal (“Request”) for those services; and

WHEREAS, after reviewing the Request, including the Technical Provisions dated __________________, and being satisfied that it understands the Project’s requirements, DESIGN CONSULTANT has submitted a response to the Request, which includes a scope of work and cost proposal; and

WHEREAS, DESIGN CONSULTANT represents that it is experienced in the fields of design and engineering as required for the Project and that all of its officers, partners, and/or principals are licensed professionals in engineering, design, or similar professional areas with the appropriate professional degrees; and

WHEREAS, DESIGN CONSULTANT also represents that it has an adequate number of properly licensed and experienced employees on its staff to accomplish the Scope of Work, as defined below, and that it is competent to undertake the Scope of Work; and

WHEREAS, based on these representations and all other representations made by DESIGN CONSULTANT to CITY, CITY desires to retain DESIGN CONSULTANT to perform the Scope of Work.

NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and DESIGN CONSULTANT mutually agree as follows:

1. SCOPE OF WORK. In exchange for the Compensation (defined below), DESIGN CONSULTANT must competently and thoroughly design and RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

engineer the Project as more specifically described in the Request, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, and in DESIGN CONSULTANT’s scope of work, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference (collectively, the project description in the Request and DESIGN CONSULTANT’s scope of work are referred to as “Scope of Work”). DESIGN CONSULTANT’s services shall include all the procedures necessary to properly complete the Scope of Work, whether specifically included in the Scope of Work or not.

2. COMPENSATION/PAYMENT PROCEDURE. In exchange for performing the Scope of Work and subject to the terms of this section, CITY will pay DESIGN CONSULTANT as follows (“Compensation”):

2.1 Actual Costs. CITY will reimburse DESIGN CONSULTANT’s actual costs (including labor costs, employee benefits, overhead, and other direct costs) in an amount not to exceed
$_____________________ exclusive of any fixed fee. Actual costs shall not exceed the estimated wage rates and other costs set forth in DESIGN CONSULTANT’s cost proposal.

2.2 Fixed Fee. CITY will pay DESIGN CONSULTANT a fixed fee of $_______________ on a monthly basis based upon the percentage of the Scope of Work completed. This fixed fee will not be altered unless there is a significant alteration in the scope, complexity, or character of the Scope of Work.

CITY will pay DESIGN CONSULTANT within 30 days after DESIGN CONSULTANT submits an itemized invoice for the portions of the Scope of Work completed and that invoice is approved by CITY. The Compensation will be the total amount paid to DESIGN CONSULTANT for performing the Scope of Work and includes, but is not limited to, all out-of- pocket costs and taxes. CITY will pay no other compensation to DESIGN CONSULTANT. In no case will CITY compensate DESIGN CONSULTANT more than $_____________ for performing the Scope of Work.

3. TERM. Unless terminated sooner as set forth herein, this Agreement shall terminate on .

4. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE. If at any time CITY becomes dissatisfied with the DESIGN CONSULTANT’s performance under this Agreement, CITY may terminate this Agreement after providing DESIGN CONSULTANT with ten- days written notice.

5. STARTING WORK. DESIGN CONSULTANT shall not begin work until authorized to do so in writing by CITY. No work will be authorized before the Effective Date.

RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

6. TIME FOR COMPLETION. DESIGN CONSULTANT must complete all assigned tasks set forth in the Scope of Work no later than .

7. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR.

CITY’s Contract Administrator is:

Name:

City of Bakersfield
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Telephone: (661) 326-_______

DESIGN CONSULTANT’s Project Manager shall be designated as:

Telephone: ( )

The Contract Administrator and the Project Manager shall be the primary contact persons for CITY and DESIGN CONSULTANT, respectively.

8. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS. DESIGN CONSULTANT shall, at DESIGN CONSULTANT’s sole cost, comply with all applicable requirements of Municipal, State, and Federal authorities now in force, or which may hereafter be in force, pertaining to this Agreement, and shall faithfully observe in all activities relating to or growing out of this Agreement all Municipal ordinances and State and Federal statutes, rules or regulations, and permitting requirements now in force or which may hereafter be in force including, without limitation, obtaining a City of Bakersfield business tax certificate (Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 5.02) where required.

9. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. This Agreement calls for DESIGN CONSULTANT’s performance of the Scope of Work as an independent contractor. DESIGN CONSULTANT is not an agent or employee of CITY for any purpose and is not entitled to any of the benefits provided by CITY to its employees. This Agreement shall not be construed as forming a partnership or any other association with DESIGN CONSULTANT other than that of an independent contractor.

10. DIRECTION. DESIGN CONSULTANT retains the right to control or direct the manner in which the services described herein are performed.

11. EQUIPMENT. DESIGN CONSULTANT will supply all equipment, tools, materials and supplies necessary to perform the services under this Agreement.

RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

12. KEY PERSONNEL. DESIGN CONSULTANT shall name all key personnel to be assigned to perform the Scope of Work. All key personnel shall be properly licensed and experienced for the work to be performed under this Agreement. DESIGN CONSULTANT shall provide background for each of the key personnel including, without limitation, resumes and work experience performing work similar to the Scope of Work. CITY reserves the right to approve key personnel. Once the key personnel are approved, DESIGN CONSULTANT shall not change such personnel without CITY’s written approval.

13. LICENSES. DESIGN CONSULTANT shall, at DESIGN CONSULTANT’s sole cost and expense, have at the time of bidding or proposal submission and shall keep in full force and effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required for DESIGN CONSULTANT to practice its profession in the State of California and perform the Scope of Work. DESIGN CONSULTANT must also ensure that all employees or subcontractors assigned to perform any portion of the Scope of Work are properly licensed. If DESIGN CONSULTANT is a corporation, at least one officer or key employee shall hold the required licenses or professional degrees. If DESIGN CONSULTANT is a partnership, at least one partner shall hold the required licensees or professional degrees. DESIGN CONSULTANT must provide proof that the requirements of this section are met when requested by CITY.

14. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. DESIGN CONSULTANT hereby represents that both corporately and individually the firm and its employees and subconsultants:

14.1 Do not have, and will not have, financial interest in either the success or failure of any project which is dependent upon DESIGN CONSULTANT’s performance of the Scope of Work; and

14.2 Are not currently, and will not be, employed by or under contract to any contractor who may be awarded the contract to construct the Project.

15. SB 854 COMPLIANCE. To the extent Labor Code Section 1771.1 applies to this Agreement, a contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, be subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of Labor Code Section 1771.1 for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded. The prime contractor is required to post job site notices in compliance with Title 8 California Code of Regulations Section 16451. This project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.

16. ACCEPTANCE OF WORK. CITY’s acceptance of work or payment for work shall not constitute a waiver of any portion or any provision of this Agreement.

17. NO WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The failure of any party to enforce against another party any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that party’s right to enforce such a provision at a later time, and shall not serve to vary the terms of this Agreement.

18. INSURANCE.

18.1 Types and Limits of Insurance. In addition to any other insurance or security required under this Agreement, DESIGN CONSULTANT must procure and maintain, for the duration of this Agreement, the types and limits of insurance below (“Basic Insurance Requirements”).

18.1.1 Professional liability insurance, providing coverage on claims made basis for errors and omissions with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.

18.1.2 Automobile liability insurance, providing coverage for owned, non -owned, and hired autos on an occurrence
basis for bodily injury, including death, of one or more persons, property damage, and personal injury, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.

18.1.3 Commercial general liability insurance, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Risk Manager, providing coverage on
an occurrence basis for bodily injury, including death, of one or more persons, property damage, and personal
injury, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per
occurrence. The policy must:

18.1.3.1 Provide contractual liability coverage for the terms of this Agreement;

18.1.3.2 Provide products and completed operations
coverage;

RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

18.1.3.3 Provide premises, operations, and mobile
equipment coverage; and

18.1.3.4 Contain an additional insured endorsement in
favor of CITY and its mayor, council, officers,
agents, employees, and designated volunteers.

18.1.4 Workers' compensation insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. In accordance with the
provisions of Labor Code Section 3700, every contractor will be required to secure the payment of compensation
to his employees. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, DESIGN CONSULTANT must submit to CITY the following
certification before beginning any work on the
Improvements:

I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the
Labor Code which require every employer to be
insured against liability for worker’s compensation or
to undertake self -insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that code, and I will comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of
the work of this contract.

By executing this Agreement, DESIGN CONSULTANT is
submitting the certification required above.

The policy must contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of CITY and its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees, and designated volunteers.

18.2 General Provisions Applying to All Insurance Types.

18.2.1 All policies required of DESIGN CONSULTANT must be written on a first -dollar coverage basis, or contain a deductible provision. Subject to CITY’s advance approval, DESIGN
CONSULTANT may utilize a self -insured retention in any or all of the policies provided, but the policy or policies may not contain language, whether added by endorsement or
contained in the policy conditions, that prohibits
satisfaction of any self -insured provision or requirement by anyone other than the named insured or by any means
including other insurance or which is intended to defeat the intent or protection of an additional insured.

RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

18.2.2 Except for professional liability insurance, a ll policies required of DESIGN CONSULTANT must be primary insurance as to
CITY and its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees, or designated volunteers and any insurance or self -insurance maintained by CITY and its mayor, council, officers,
agents, employees, and designated volunteers must be
excess of DESIGN CONSULTANT’s insurance and must not
contribute with it.

18.2.3 The insurance required above, except for workers’ compensation insurance, must be placed with insurers
with a Best’s rating as approved by CITY’s Risk Manager, but in no event less than A- :VII. Any deductibles, self - insured retentions, or insurance in lesser amounts, or lack of certain types of insurance otherwise required by this
Agreement, or insurance rated below Best’s A-:VII, must be declared prior to execution of this Agreement and
approved by CITY in writing.

18.2.4 The insurance required in this section must be maintained until the Scope of Work is satisfactorily completed as
evidenced by CITY’s written acceptance. All policies must provide that there will be continuing liability thereon, notwithstanding any recovery on any policy.

18.2.5 Full compensation for all premiums which the DESIGN CONSULTANT is required to pay to satisfy the Basic
Insurance Requirements shall be considered as included in the prices paid for the performance of the Scope of Work, and no additional allowance will be made therefor or for additional premiums which may be required by extensions of the policies of insurance.

18.2.6 It is further understood and agreed by DESIGN CONSULTANT that its liability to CITY will not in any way be limited to or affected by the amount of insurance obtained and
carried by DESIGN CONSULTANT in connection with this
Agreement.

18.2.7 Unless otherwise approved by CITY, if any part of the Scope of Work is subcontracted, the Basic Insurance
Requirements must be provided by, or on behalf of, all
subcontractors even if CITY has approved lesser insurance requirements for DESIGN CONSULTANT, and all
subcontractors must agree in writing to be bound by the provisions of this section.

RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

19. THIRD PARTY CLAIMS. In the case of public works contracts CITY will timely notify DESIGN CONSULTANT of third party claims relating to this contract.

CITY shall be allowed to recover from DESIGN CONSULTANT, and DESIGN CONSULTANT shall pay on demand, all costs of notification.

20. INDEMNITY.

20.1 DESIGN CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY and CITY’s officers, agents and employees against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, arising from DESIGN CONSULTANT’s negligence, fraud, willful misconduct, criminal conduct, errors and omissions, or breaches of contract, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, arising out of, connected with, or caused by DESIGN CONSULTANT or DESIGN CONSULTANT’s employees, agents, independent contractors, companies, or subcontractors in the performance of, or in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this Agreement whether or not caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct.

20.2 To the extent Civil Code Section 2782.8 is applicable to this Agreement, the DESIGN CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY and CITY’s officers, agents and employees against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands, against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, that only arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of DESIGN CONSULTANT. In no event shall the cost to defend charged to the design professional exceed the design professional's proportionate percentage of fault. However, notwithstanding the previous sentence, in the event one or more defendants is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, the design professional shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid defense costs. The duty to indemnify, including the duty and the cost to defend, is limited as provided in this section. This section shall not be waived or modified by contractual agreement, act, or omission of the parties.

21. ASSIGNMENT. Neither this Agreement nor any rights, interests, duties, liabilities, obligations or responsibilities arising out of, concerning or related in any way to this Agreement (including, but not limited to, accounts, actions, causes of action, claims, damages, demands, liabilities, losses, obligations, or reckonings of any kind or nature whatsoever, for compensatory or exemplary and punitive damages, or declaratory, RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

equitable or injunctive relief, whether based on contract, equity, tort or other theories of recovery provided for by the common or statutory law) may be assigned or transferred by any party. Any such assignment is prohibited, and shall be unenforceable and otherwise null and void without the need for further action by the non-assigning party or parties.

22. CONFIDENTIALITY. During the term of this Agreement, DESIGN CONSULTANT may have disclosed to it information of a legal and confidential nature, and such information could severely damage CITY if disclosed to outside parties. Except as otherwise required by law, when informed that information is confidential, DESIGN CONSULTANT will not disclose to any person, directly or indirectly, either during the term of this Agreement or at any time thereafter, any such information or use such information other than as necessary in the course of this Agreement. All documents DESIGN CONSULTANT prepares and confidential information given to DESIGN CONSULTANT under this Agreement are the exclusive property of CITY. Under no circumstances shall any such information or documents be removed from CITY without CITY’s prior written consent.

23. ACCOUNTING RECORDS. DESIGN CONSULTANT shall maintain accurate accounting records and other written documentation pertaining to all costs incurred in performance of this Agreement. Such records and documentation shall be kept at DESIGN CONSULTANT’s office during the term of this Agreement, and for a period of three years from the date of the final payment hereunder, and made available to CITY representatives upon request at any time during regular business hours.

24. BINDING EFFECT. The rights and obligations of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties to the Agreement and their heirs, administrators, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns.

25. CORPORATE AUTHORITY. Each individual signing this Agreement on behalf of entities represents and warrants that they are, respectively, duly authorized to sign on behalf of the entities and to bind the entities fully to each and all of the obligations set forth in this Agreement.

26. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered as an original and be effective as such.

27. EXECUTION. This Agreement is effective upon execution. It is the product of negotiation and all parties are equally responsible for authorship of this Agreement. Section 1654 of the California Civil Code shall not apply to the interpretation of this Agreement.

RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

28. EXHIBITS. In the event of a conflict between the terms, conditions or specifications set forth in this Agreement and those in exhibits attached hereto, the terms, conditions, or specifications set forth in this Agreement shall prevail. All exhibits to which reference is made in this Agreement are deemed incorporated in this Agreement, whether or not actually attached.

29. FURTHER ASSURANCES. Each party shall execute and deliver such papers, documents, and instruments, and perform such acts as are necessary or appropriate, to implement the terms of this Agreement and the intent of the parties to this Agreement.

30. GOVERNING LAW. The laws of the State of California will govern the validity of this Agreement and its interpretation and performance. Any litigation arising in any way from this Agreement shall be brought in Kern County, California.

31. INTERPRETATION. Whenever the context so requires, the masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter, and the singular number includes the plural.

32. MERGER AND MODIFICATION. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all other oral or written representations. This Agreement may be modified only in a writing approved by the City Council and signed by all the parties.

33. NEWS RELEASES/INTERVIEWS. All news releases, media interviews, testimony at hearings and public comments relating to this Agreement by DESIGN CONSULTANT shall be prohibited unless authorized by CITY.

34. NON-INTEREST. No CITY officer or employee shall hold any interest in this Agreement (California Government Code section 1090).

35. NOTICES. All notices relative to this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be personally served or sent by certified or registered mail and be effective upon actual personal service or depositing in the United States mail. The parties shall be addressed as follows, or at any other address designated by notice:

CITY: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

CITY HALL
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301

RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

DESIGN CONSULTANT: ____________________________

36. RESOURCE ALLOCATION. All CITY obligations under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation and allocation of resources by the City Council.

37. TITLE TO DOCUMENTS. All documents, plans, and drawings, maps, photographs, and other papers, or copies thereof prepared by DESIGN CONSULTANT pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, shall, upon preparation, become CITY property.

38. TAX NUMBERS.

DESIGN CONSULTANT’s Federal Tax ID Number
DESIGN CONSULTANT is a corporation? Yes No (Please check one.)

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the Effective Date.

“CITY” “DESIGN CONSULTANT”

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD (COMPANY NAME)

By: By:_________________________________
KAREN GOH, Mayor
Type or Print Name:

Title:

APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

WATER DEPARTMENT

By:

KRISTINA BUDAK
Water Director
[Signatures on Following Page]
RFQ – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney

By:

MATTHEW COLLOM
Deputy City Attorney I

Insurance: __________

COUNTERSIGNED:

By:

RANDY MCKEEGAN
Finance Director

Attachments: Exhibits A, B, and C

“I have received and reviewed the sample DESIGN CONSULTANT’S AGREEMENT including the INDEMNITY clause which was sent to me with the City’s RFQ. My signature below shall signify our firm’s acceptance of said contract if our firm is selected for awarding a contract for the project as described in said RFQ . This acceptance is made with the understanding that the Compensation and Time for Completion clauses will be modified to contain the amounts and dates established for this contract.”

Signature: _____________________________________ Date: ____________________

Request for Information Form
Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program
Water Department

BIDDING QUESTION TO: City of Bakersfield, Water Department 1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311
Attention: Henry Kouyoumdjian, Engineer II
E-Mail: [email protected]
NOTE: All questions must be received by the CITY in written form on the form provided no later than 10:00 A.M. ten calendar days prior to the scheduled RFQ due date . This will allow time to respond to the question and/or to issue an addendum to all consultants addressing the question.

Questions received after the above set due date will not be acknowledged. The form may be sent via facsimile, postal service, hand delivery or email. The City encourages sending the written request via email to expedite the process.

Date Submitted: Submitted by: Consultant:

Contact Person:

Address:

Telephone Number:

E-Mail:

QUESTION:__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________________________________________________ ___ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ ____________________________________________________________________________________ RESPONSE: Date:_________ Answered by: Name Company ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ City of Bakersfield Approval of Response by: Date:

Addendum Required: YES___________ NO ______________

RFQ (NON-MANDATORY) PRE-BID JOB WALK
Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program – Phase 1 (26WDWR03) September 2, 2025 at 10:00 am

1. Sign in sheet

2. Project Overview and Expectations
This project involves the design of PFAS treatment facilities for (9) total wells. The 1 st phase consists of at (6) sites within the City’s domestic water system.

a. We will plan to visit 6 sites for phase 1: CBK-26, -31, -9, -8, -33, -43 (On separate sheet)

b. Some sites have existing vessels for treatment of either (H2S, AS, and TCP).

c. On a previous PFAS project, where the system already had TCP treatment in place, the City upgraded the treatment by replacing the coconut -based GAC with coal -based GAC.

This change improved the system’s performance against PFAS.

To stay within the required contact time, the flow capacity had to be reduced. To offset that, the existing vessels were refabricated with greater height to maintain capacity. In addition, Variable Frequency Drives were implemented to allow more flexibility for future operations.

d. In general, looking for consultants to assist in:

i. Design Phase – Bid Package (Plans + Specs) at 30%, 60%, 90%, and 100%

1. Including assisting CalWater with DDW permitting items at early stages.

ii. Bidding Phase – Respond to contractors RFIs / prepare addendums as needed

iii. Construction Phase – Review of Submittals, CCOs, lingering RFIs

3. Highlights of the Contract Documents
a. SOQs Due September 26, 2025, at Water Resources office by 3:00 pm. (Friday)

b. There is a sample agreement attached which the consultant will be expected to execute without alterations. If any changes are desired, must be submitted to City for approval prior to bid opening.

c. Question can be submitted through an RFI – Request for Information (Page 22 of RFQ) at least Ten days prior to bid opening… approximate last day for RFI is Tuesday 9/16. i. Any verbally proposed changes are not final until an addendum is issued by the City – which can be accessed through the PlanetBids website. ii. Issued as Addendum No. ______.

4. Any Questions? Although strongly encourage you to submit formal RFI.

5. Job walk
a. Existing facilities.

October 17, 2025
Henry Kouyoumdjian, Engineer II
Water Resources Division
City of Bakersfield – Water Department
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, CA 93311
RE: Request for Qualifications – Consulting Services for PFAS Treatment Program (26WDWR03) Mr . Kouyoumdjian:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Provost & Pritchard) appreciates the opportunity to interview and submit a fee proposal for this important project. In accordance with the instructions contained in the Request for Fee Proposal and Interview, we have enclosed:
• a proposed fee and summary of estimated hours to complete the project work broken out by task and labor category, • a detailed scope of work,
• a schedule of hourly billing rates, and
• a project schedule.

Provost & Pritchard is committed to providing the City with outstanding professional services at a reasonable fee. We are happy to work with the City to refine the assumptions made in our scope of work and corresponding fee proposal. Should you have any questions, please contact Jeane Hill, PE at (661) 616-5900 and [email protected].

Respectfully,
Jeane Hill, PE Kevin Berryhill, PE
Project Manager Principal-in-Charge
Engineering • Surveying • Structural • Geostructural • Planning • Environmental • GIS • Construction Services • Hydrogeology • Consulting Clovis • Bakersfield • Visalia • Modesto • Los Banos • Chico • Sacramento • Sonora • San Luis Obispo • Riverside • Camarillo • Boise, Idaho 1518 Mill Rock Way, Suite 100 • Bakersfield, CA 93311 • (661) 616-5900 www.provostandpritchard.com

1518 Mill Rock Way, Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93311  (661) 616-5900 www.provostandpritchard.com
Scope of Services
Our proposed scope of work for this proposal is segregated into several phases, described below.

Design Phase
A. Project Management and Administration

1. Project management and administration (8 months)

2. Internal meetings

3. City monthly meetings (8 months)

4. Prepare and maintain project schedule

5. Prepare and submit monthly billing

6. City kickoff meeting

7. Site Visits

8. Conduct topographic survey and prepare base map (2 sites)

9. On-site underground utility exhibits for City/Cal Water (CWS) confirmation B. Permitting and Land Acquisitions Assistance

1. Coordinate with the State Water Resources Control Board – Division of Drinking Water (DDW) regarding the project.

2. Assist Cal Water by providing treatment process data needed to complete the DDW permitting process.

3. Land Acquisition Support
C. Pre-Design Technical Memorandum

1. Water Quality Assessment
o Review all available raw water quality data including PFAS, TCP, nitrate, TOC, H 2S, iron, and manganese
o Review GAC treatment records for wells with existing GAC treatment (change-out- dates, carbon type, throughput volumes, etc.) and recommend additional PFAS testing at GAC treatment plants as necessary to characterize existing PFAS removal performance.
o Define the City’s treatment objectives (non-detect vs. MCL compliance) taking into consideration evolving regulations.

2. Assessment of Existing GAC Treatment
o Review PFAS and TCP levels at various points in the treatment process o Provide subjective assessment of the cost effectiveness and reliability of the existing GAC systems compared to what can be expected from expanded GAC systems.

3. Identify the preferred treatment vessel sizing, configuration and location for each site.

4. Identify the proposed discharge location for fluidization water and determine whether further coordination with internal City departments or outside agencies is required.

5. Assessment of Well Production Impacts
o Perform hydraulic calculations of head loss through the proposed treatment systems o Estimate the change in well flow rate resulting from the new head losses

6. Establish Basis of Design
o Meet with City and CWS to discuss the desired treatment plant features and any ancillary improvements that may be desired at the sites (e.g. access platforms, sacrificial bed nozzles, process instrumentation, VFDs, water lubrication conversions, etc).

7. Prepare and submit pre-design technical memorandum
D. Draft Schematic (30%) Design

1. Pre-design technical memorandum review meeting with City and CWS

2. Prepare (30%) plans for wellhead treatment construction project, including the following sheets:
o Design Criteria (6 sheets)
o Process Flow Diagram (6 sheets)
o Hydraulic Profile (6 sheets)
o Site Plan (6 sheets)

3. Prepare list of technical specifications and complete draft GAC system specification in CSI format

4. Submit draft (30%) plans and specifications

5. 30% submittal review meeting with City and CWS
E. Preliminary (60%) Design

1. Address 30% review comments

2. Geotechnical investigations and reports for CBK-09 and CBK-31; geotechnical report updates for CBK-08, CBK-26, CBK-33, and CBK-43

3. Prepare draft final plans, including the same sheets listed in the previous phase o Cover and Sheet Index (1 sheet)
o General notes (2 sheets)
o Legend and abbreviations (1 sheet)
o Design Criteria and Process Flow Diagram (6 sheets)
o Horizontal Control plan (6 sheets)
o Demolition plan (6 sheets)
o Coordinate Plan (6 sheets)
o Site plan (6 sheets)
o Grading plan (6 sheets)
o Piping plan (6 sheets)
o Backwash Disposal Piping Plan and Profile (2 sheets)
o Piping sections (6 sheets)
o Details (6 sheets)
o Electrical sheets prepared by electrical engineering subconsultant

4. Prepare preliminary technical specifications

5. Submit preliminary plans and specifications

6. 60% submittal review meeting with City and CWS
F. Draft Final (90%) Design

1. Address 60% review comments

2. Prepare draft final plans, including the same sheets listed in the previous phase

3. Prepare draft final technical specifications

4. Incorporate City boilerplate bid and contract documents

5. Prepare draft final cost opinions

6. Submit draft final plans, specifications and estimate

7. 90% submittal review meeting with City and CWS
G. Final Bid Set (100%) Plans, Specifications, and Estimates

1. Address draft (90%) review comments

2. Prepare final plans

3. Prepare final technical specifications with final City boilerplate

4. Prepare final opinion of probable construction costs

5. Prepare preliminary bidding and construction phase schedule

6. Submit final plans, specifications, estimate, and preliminary schedule

7. Submit 1 bid-ready documents package
Deliverables:

1. Pre-Design Technical Memorandum (electronic pdf format)

2. 30% Draft Design Submittal: plans and specifications (electronic pdf) and DDW amendment documents (as required)

3. 60% Draft Design Submittal: plans, specifications, and City boilerplate (electronic pdf) and DDW amendment documents (as required)

4. 90% Draft Design Submittal: plans, specifications, City boilerplate and estimate (electronic pdf)

5. Final Bid Package (100%): plans, specifications, Bid documents, estimates, and preliminary schedule (hard copy and electronic pdf and CAD)
Assumptions:

1. Improvements at the six Phase-1 wells will be consolidated into a single set of construction documents.

2. Water production data and well pump information provided by the City will be used to evaluate the treatment sizing.

3. The City will provide a copy of the record drawings and on-site pipeline locations.

4. The City will provide pertinent GAC operational data to allow evaluation of their existing treatment systems.

5. Collection and analysis of water quality samples that may be recommended as part of the Pre- Design Memorandum will be arranged and paid for by the City.

6. The recommendations from the geotechnical investigation reports prepared during the TCP Mitigation Project for CBK-2/8, CBK-26, CBK-33, and CBK-43 will be updated for this project.

No investigations will be required at these sites.

7. The City will prepare the California Environmental Quality Act documents.

8. Permitting of the new treatment plant, including preparation of an Operations Plan, will be accomplished by CWS. Provost & Pritchard will assist by providing treatment process data.

9. The treatment system will be procured by the general contractor.

10. FWD and other GAC wasted water will be directed to the existing standpipes at CBK-2/8, CBK- 26, CBK-33, and CBK-43, to the adjacent City sump at CBK-9, and to a new storm drain pipeline connection assumed to be adjacent to the treatment plant at CBK-31. No off-site pipelines have been included.

11. Design of a standby generator will not be required.

12. Electrical improvements at the sites will be limited to integration of the flow and pressure instrumentation associated with the new treatment systems. We are assuming that the existing electrical service is adequate for the addition of treatment equipment power and instrumentation.

13. The City’s existing SCADA system has recently been upgraded and it can support the addition of the instrumentation and controls associated with the PFAS treatment plants.

14. Electrical and SCADA design will include schematic layout of conduits only to be installed by selected contractor. CWS will install wiring and complete programming under a separate contract with the City.

15. Evaluation of water treatment process alternatives (e.g. reverse osmosis and ion exchange) is not required.

16. Pilot or bench-scale testing will not be required.

17. The project will be exempt from Site Plan Review by City ordinance.

18. Building permits / plan check will be required only for green tag sign-offs required by PG&E.

19. The City will pay for all permit and service activation fees directly.

20. The City will handle coordination with property owners adjacent to the sites regarding aesthetic impacts and construction activities.

21. Provost & Pritchard CAD standards and title block will be used for the design of this project.

22. Provost & Pritchard’s current CAD version will be used.

23. City boiler plate front-end contract documents will be used.

24. Provost & Pritchard’s technical specifications in CSI format will be used.

Phase BID: Bidding Phase
A. Bidding Services

1. Assist with the preparation of addenda and clarifications as necessary during the bid period (assumed 2 addenda)
Deliverables:

1. Responses to Bidder Pre-Bid Requests for Information

2. Supporting Documents for Addenda (electronic pdf)
Assumptions:

1. The improvements at the six Phase-1 wells will be bid as a single construction project.

2. The City will advertise and facilitate the bidding process.

3. The City will prepare, compile, and distribute addenda to bidders.

Phase CON: Construction Phase
A. Construction Phase Services

1. Attend pre-construction meeting

2. Review contractor submittals (assumed 100 submittals inclusive of resubmittals)

3. Make periodic site visits while construction is active to observe the progress of work, . A total of six (6) construction administration site visits are included in the scope of services.

4. Assist in response to RFIs (assumed 12 RFI responses)

5. Site visit for substantial completion and a final walk-through; prepare list of items for City- prepared punchlist.

6. Review the contractor’s completion documents. Prepare record drawings based on “as-built” information furnished by the Contractor and City. Provide one copy of reproducible record drawings to City for permanent records.

Deliverables:

1. Submittal review letters (electronic pdf)

2. RFI responses (electronic pdf)

3. Record drawings (electronic pdf)
Assumptions:

1. Submittals for the six Phase-1 wells will be common.

2. The City will conduct preconstruction meeting, progress meetings, prepare contract change orders, review contractor progress pay estimates, provide daily observation during construction, and prepare and maintain punchlist.

3. The City will contract directly and coordinate with the soil and materials testing laboratory during construction.

Additional Services
The following services are not included in this proposal, however these and others can be provided at additional cost, upon request.
 Additional office or field services required due to any governmental agency changes in ordinances, codes, policies, procedures or requirements after the date of this agreement.  Construction staking
 Vessel and media pre-procurement documents
 Pilot or bench-scale testing
 Daily construction observation
 CEQA documentation
 Preparation of a treatment Operations Plan
 Clarifications, adjustments, modifications and other changes due to field and other conditions that change by the time project construction occurs.
 The costs of all checking and inspection fees, soils or geotechnical testing fees, and all other fees, permits, bond premiums, applicable taxes on professional services, blueprints and reproductions, and all other similar charges not specifically covered by the terms of this agreement.
 Extra work caused by delays beyond Consultant’s reasonable control by reason of strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns or stoppages, accidents, acts of God, failure of Client to furnish timely information or approve or disapprove of Consultant’s services or instruments of service promptly, or faulty performance by Client or other contractors or governmental agencies.  Services associated with litigation including responding to subpoenas and providing expert witness services.
 Applying for a backwash discharge waiver for Regional Water Quality Control Board General Order R5-2018-0085.

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER DEPARTMENT
PFAS TREATMENT PROGRAM - PHASE 1

FEE ESTIMATE
Task No. Task
Principal
Engineer VII
Principal
Engineer III
Principal
Engineer I
Assistant
Engineer V
Assistant
Engineer II
Assistant
Engineer IV
Senior
Technician
IV
Senior
Structural
Engineer III
Associate
Engineer II
Project
Administrat
or IV
Licensed
Surveyor IV
Assistant
Surveyor I
2 man
survey
Prevail Labor Totals Sub-cons. Fee
Mileage/
Reimb. Costs Total Fee
Hourly Rate: $287 $247 $227 $149 $128 $142 $165 $196 $149 $113 $196 $116 $345 15% 15% 1 Design Phase (assuming designing all in one package)

1.1 Project Management and Administration $0 $0 $0 $0

1.2 Project Management and Administration (8 months) 2 20 6 $5,792 $0 $0 $6,371

1.3 Internal Meetings 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 $2,477 $0 $0 $2,725

1.4 City Monthly Meetings (8 months) - Not in scope $0 $0 $0 $0

1.5 Prepare and maintain design schedule 4 $908 $0 $0 $999

1.6 Prepare and submit monthly billing 8 8 $2,720 $0 $0 $2,992

1.7 City Kickoff Meeting 6 4 $2,630 $505 $193 $3,661

1.8 Site Visits 8 8 $4,112 $3,029 $209 $8,085

1.9 Misc. outside coordination meetings (Parks & Rec, AEWSD, City WW Div) 8 8 $4,112 $0 $0 $4,523

1.10 Topographic Survey 2 4 4 12 24 40 $20,646 $0 $16 $22,728

1.11 Onsite utility confirmation exhibits 1 2 $525 $0 $0 $578

1.12 Permitting & Land Acquisitions Assistance $0 $0 $0 $0

1.13 CEQA (By City) 1 $227 $0 $0 $250

1.14 DDW Ops Plan and Applications (By City and CWS) 1 2 6 $1,635 $0 $0 $1,799

1.15 RWQCB WDR for Discharge to Sump (By City) $0 $0 $0 $0

1.16 City Planning Reviews (Exempt) $0 $0 $0 $0

1.17 Storm water connection (capacity and sump volume calculations) - One site 2 6 $1,348 $0 $0 $1,483

1.18 Sanitary sewer connection (capacity calculations) - No sites $0 $0 $0 $0

1.19 Building Department coordination (By City) $0 $0 $0 $0

1.20 Open Street Permits (for Potholing) - No sites $0 $0 $0 $0

1.21 Open Street Permits (for offsite pipelines) - No sites $0 $0 $0 $0

1.22 Land AcquisitionSupport (assuming 3 sites - 08, 33, & 09 8 24 $4,352 $34,500 $0 $42,737

1.23 Pre-Design Technical Memorandum $0 $0 $0 $0

1.24 Water Quality and Existing Treatment Assessment 16 4 12 $7,288 $0 $0 $8,017 System Sizing Including Alternative Vessel Arrangements 12 6 6 $5,700 $0 $0 $6,270

1.25 Vessel Procurement Approach 2 2 $1,028 $0 $0 $1,131

1.26 Impacts on Source Capacity (assuming new treatment on all 6 sites) 1 2 3 3 $1,572 $0 $0 $1,729

1.27 Fluidization Water Disposal 2 4 $1,482 $0 $0 $1,630

1.28 Coordination with Operators 6 12 $4,446 $0 $0 $4,891

1.29 Permitting and regulatory requirements (DDW coordination) 4 2 $1,602 $0 $0 $1,762

1.30 Site Specific Electrical and Controls Improvements 1 2 1 1 $1,018 $1,515 $0 $2,786

1.31 Site Specific Access, Constructability or Other Concerns 2 4 6 6 $3,144 $0 $0 $3,458

1.32 QC review 3 $741 $0 $0 $815

1.33 Submit Draft Report 4 4 4 $2,508 $0 $0 $2,759

1.34 Submit Final Report 2 4 2 $1,708 $0 $0 $1,879

1.35 30% Design $0 $0 $0 $0

1.36 Send out utility letters 2 6 12 $2,704 $0 $115 $3,101

1.37 Incorporate survey files into base maps (2 sites) 12 6 $2,778 $0 $0 $3,056

1.38 Review record drawings and incorporate into base maps (2 sites) 6 24 6 $5,928 $0 $0 $6,521

1.39 Coordinate with vessel suppliers (includes bringing in CAD blocks) 8 4 8 4 $5,308 $0 $0 $5,839

1.40 30% Drawings 40 80 80 80 48 28 24 $67,940 $0 $0 $74,734

1.41 Structural Calculations 3 24 32 $10,153 $0 $0 $11,168

1.42 QC Review 12 $2,964 $0 $0 $3,260

1.43 Easement plat and legal descriptions (Park Site) 1 4 4 $1,475 $0 $0 $1,623

1.44 30% List of Technical Specifications & complete draft GAC system specification 8 2 2 2 2 2 $3,950 $0 $0 $4,345

1.45 Submit 30% Plans and Specification List 4 4 $2,056 $0 $0 $2,262

1.46 30% Design Review Workshop with City and CWS 8 4 $3,204 $0 $193 $3,737

1.51 60% Design $0 $0 $0 $0

1.52 Geotechnical Investigations and reports (2 sites w/o exist TCP vessels) 4 $908 $23,690 $0 $27,058

1.53 60% Plans 24 12 36 120 120 48 12 12 36 $67,776 $0 $0 $74,554

1.54 Electrical plans and specs 3 6 6 $2,991 $10,097 $0 $14,397

1.55 Landscape plans (park site) and specs (By City Parks & Rec) $0 $0 $0 $0 I:\Marketing\Proposals\2025\City of Bakersfield - PFAS Treatment Program - 25-644\Interview\Fee Package\2025 FeeEstimate.xlsx Page 1 of 2 Task No. Task
Principal
Engineer VII
Principal
Engineer III
Principal
Engineer I
Assistant
Engineer V
Assistant
Engineer II
Assistant
Engineer IV
Senior
Technician
IV
Senior
Structural
Engineer III
Associate
Engineer II
Project
Administrat
or IV
Licensed
Surveyor IV
Assistant
Surveyor I
2 man
survey
Prevail Labor Totals Sub-cons. Fee
Mileage/
Reimb. Costs Total Fee
Hourly Rate: $287 $247 $227 $149 $128 $142 $165 $196 $149 $113 $196 $116 $345 15% 15%

1.56 60% Technical specifications and list of front-ends 12 4 24 12 12 8 $14,840 $0 $0 $16,324

1.57 Submit 60% Plans, Technical Specifications, & list of City boilerplate sections 6 12 $4,446 $0 $0 $4,891

1.58 60% Design Review Workshop with City and CWS 8 4 $3,204 $0 $193 $3,737

1.61 90% Design $0 $0 $0 $0

1.62 Plan updates 16 12 36 80 80 24 8 4 16 $45,784 $0 $0 $50,362

1.63 Electrical plans, specs, and estimate 2 6 6 $2,704 $20,194 $0 $25,188

1.64 Full Specification Book (City boilerplate and Tech Specs) 4 4 16 6 6 8 $8,700 $0 $0 $9,570

1.65 Preliminary Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Cost (EEOPCC) 6 2 6 16 2 2 4 $7,234 $0 $0 $7,957

1.66 Submit 90% Plans, Specifications, and EEOPCC 4 4 $2,056 $0 $0 $2,262

1.67 90% Design Review Workshop with City and CWS 8 4 $3,204 $0 $193 $3,737

1.71 100% Final Bid Package (Plans, Specs, Bid Docs, and EEOPC) $0 $0 $0 $0

1.72 Plan updates 16 12 36 80 80 24 8 4 16 $45,784 $0 $0 $50,362

1.73 Electrical plans, specs, and estimate 6 6 $2,130 $15,146 $0 $19,003

1.74 Specification and City boiler plate updates 4 2 16 6 6 8 $8,206 $0 $0 $9,027

1.75 Preliminary Schedule 2 4 $1,482 $0 $0 $1,630

1.76 Final EEOPCC 3 2 6 4 $3,313 $0 $0 $3,644

1.77 Submit Final Bid Package (Hard copy, electronic format, and CAD format) 6 6 8 $4,404 $0 $1,150 $6,109 271 66 446 471 389 173 89 101 104 60 25 52 40
Task 1 Fee Subtotal $77,777 $16,302 $101,242 $70,179 $49,792 $24,566 $14,685 $19,796 $15,496 $6,780 $4,900 $6,032 $13,800 $421,347 $108,675 $2,456 $585,726 2 Bidding Phase (assuming bidding all in one package)

2.1 Project Management and Administration (assumes 3 months) 9 3 $2,382 $0 $0 $2,620

2.2 Respond to contractor questions re: plans and specifications (25 assumed) 6 12 $4,446 $0 $0 $4,891

2.3 Prepare modifications to Plans and/or Specifications (City to issue addenda) 4 8 8 $4,156 $0 $0 $4,572

2.4 Electrical Bid Assistance $0 $5,750 $0 $6,325
10 0 29 8 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
Task 2 Fee Subtotal $2,870 $0 $6,583 $1,192 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $339 $0 $0 $0 $10,984 $5,750 $0 $18,407 3 Construction Phase (assuming constructing all in one package)

3.1 Project Management and Administration (assumes 16 months) 48 16 $12,704 $0 $0 $13,974

3.2 Submittal reviews (100 assumed submittals and resubmittals) 8 50 150 50 $41,646 $0 $0 $45,811

3.3 Respond to RFIs (12 assumed) 6 18 $5,808 $0 $0 $6,389

3.4 General observation and on-site consulting service as requested by City 8 12 $5,020 $0 $0 $5,522

3.5 Investigate proposed contract change orders and submit background to City (3 assumed) 3 12 12 $5,373 $0 $0 $5,910

3.6 Assist in final inspection and prepare punchlist 8 12 $5,020 $0 $16 $5,540

3.7 Prepare and submit record drawings (reproducible) 6 48 24 $12,474 $0 $2,300 $16,251

3.8 Electrical Construction Assistance $0 $20,700 $0 $22,770 33 0 158 210 0 0 24 0 0 66 0 0 0
Task 3 Fee Subtotal $9,471 $0 $35,866 $31,290 $0 $0 $3,960 $0 $0 $7,458 $0 $0 $0 $88,045 $20,700 $2,316 $122,167 Project Hour Subtotals 314 66 633 689 389 173 113 101 104 129 25 52 40 2,828 Project Fee Subtotals $90,118 $16,302 $143,691 $102,661 $49,792 $24,566 $18,645 $19,796 $15,496 $14,577 $4,900 $6,032 $13,800 $520,376 $135,125 $4,773 $726,301 I:\Marketing\Proposals\2025\City of Bakersfield - PFAS Treatment Program - 25-644\Interview\Fee Package\2025 FeeEstimate.xlsx Page 2 of 2 2025 STANDARD FEE SCHEDULE
This schedule supersedes previously published fee schedules as of the effective date of January 1, 2025.

Multi-year contracts are subject to any subsequent changes in these rates.

STAFF TYPE FEE RANGE

ENGINEERING
Assistant Engineer $121.00 – $149.00
Associate Engineer $142.00 – $172.00
Senior Engineer $180.00 – $217.00
Principal Engineer $227.00 – $287.00
Associate Structural Engineer $142.00 – $172.00
Senior Structural Engineer $180.00 – $216.00
Principal Structural Engineer $226.00 – $266.00
Assistant Electrical, I&C Engineer $128.00 – $156.00
Associate Electrical, I&C Engineer $163.00 – $192.00
Senior Electrical, I&C Engineer $202.00 – $242.00

SPECIALISTS
Assistant Specialist $101.00 – $121.00
Associate Specialist $126.00 – $156.00
Senior Specialist $163.00 – $201.00
Principal Specialist $211.00 – $271.00
Assistant Biologist $102.00 – $117.00
Associate Biologist $122.00 – $149.00
Senior Biologist $156.00 – $178.00
Principal Biologist $186.00 – $226.00
Assistant Geologist/Hydrogeologist $111.00 – $136.00
Associate Geologist/Hydrogeologist $137.00 – $165.00
Senior Geologist/Hydrogeologist $176.00 – $206.00
Principal Geologist/Hydrogeologist $216.00 – $256.00
Principal Tunneling Consultant $251.00 – $281.00

PLANNING
Assistant Planner $103.00 – $123.00
Associate Planner $130.00 – $151.00
Senior Planner $158.00 – $186.00
Principal Planner $194.00 – $224.00

TECHNICAL
Assistant Technician $90.00 – $107.00
Associate Technician $114.00 – $138.00
Senior Technician $144.00 – $172.00

STAFF TYPE FEE RANGE

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
Associate Construction Manager $140.00 – $160.00
Senior Construction Manager $167.00 – $191.00
Principal Construction Manager $201.00 – $231.00
Construction Inspector (1) $175.00 – $220.00
Construction Inspector OT (1) $225.00 – $270.00
Construction Inspector Dbl OT (1) $250.00 – $295.00

SUPPORT
Administrative Assistant $80.00 – $100.00
Project Administrator $94.00 – $120.00
Senior Project Administrator $128.00 – $210.00
Intern $70.00 – $85.00

SURVEYING SERVICES
Assistant Surveyor $116.00 – $146.00
Licensed Surveyor $166.00 – $206.00
1-Man Survey Crew $205.00
1-Man Survey Crew (1) $245.00
1-Man Survey Crew OT (1) $270.00
2-Man Survey Crew $315.00
2-Man Survey Crew (1) $345.00
2-Man Survey Crew OT (1) $370.00
(Field work not including survey equipment billed at individual standard rate plus vehicle as appropriate.)
(1) Prevailing wage rates shown for San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and Kern counties; other counties as quoted.

Additional Fees
Expert Witness / GIS Training: As quoted.

Travel Time (for greater than one (1) hour from employee’s base office): $95/hour (unless the individual’s rate is less) Project Costs
Mileage: IRS value + 15%
Outside Consultants: Cost + 15%
Direct Costs: Cost + 15%
WWW.PROVOSTANDPRITCHARD.COM (559) 449-2700
Attachment 1

1518 Mill Rock Way, Suite 100  Bakersfield, CA 93311  (661) 616-5900 www.provostandpritchard.com
City of Bakersfield Water Department PFAS Treatment Program – TentaƟve Project Schedule 11/17/25
12/15/25
1/12/26
2/9/26
3/9/26
4/6/26
5/4/26
6/1/26
6/29/26
7/27/26
8/24/26
9/21/26
10/19/26
11/16/26
12/14/26
1/11/27
2/8/27
3/8/27
4/5/27
5/3/27
5/31/27
6/28/27
7/26/27
8/23/27
9/20/27
10/18/27
11/15/27
12/13/27
1/10/28
2/7/28
3/6/28
4/3/28
Project Management
Technical Memorandum
30% Design
60% Design
90% Design
100% Design (Bid Set)
Bidding Phase
Construction Phase
Deliverable

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: November 19, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent-Miscellaneous TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kristina Budak, Water Director
DATE: October 27, 2025
SUBJECT: Appropriate and transfer $350,000 from the Water Availability Fees Fund to the Domestic Water Fund capital improvement budget for the purchase of land for water well site.

Appropriate and transfer $350,000 from the Water Availability Fees Fund to the Domestic Water Fund for the purchase of land for water well site CBK-84 within Old River Ranch Tract 6577.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approving the appropriation and transfer.

BACKGROUND:

The city has identified the need for additional groundwater supply to meet current and future domestic water demands. As part of the Old River Ranch development (Tract 6577), the city is in the process of acquiring parcel(s) suitable for the construction of future municipal water production well.

Funding for the purchase will be appropriated from the Water Availability Fees Fund revenue, which was established to support future water supply development and infrastructure needs. The transfer of $350,000 to the Domestic Water Fund will allow the acquisition to be properly recorded as a capital asset of the water enterprise.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Approval of this action will authorize the appropriation from the Water Availability Fees Fund (4490) to the Domestic Water Fund (4410) for the purchase of the well site at Old River Ranch Tract 6577. Sufficient funds are available, and there will be no impact on the general fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure

ATTACHMENTS:

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: November 19, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Miscellaneous TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Randy McKeegan, Finance Director
DATE: November 7, 2025
SUBJECT: Purchase of a portable generator for the Water Department (unbudgeted).

Appropriate $8,801 to the Public Works Department’s Operating Budget within the Equipment Management Fund to complete the purchase.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of the appropriation.

BACKGROUND:

This unbudgeted purchase of a portable generator for the Water Department will replace a unit that has major damage and is in need of costly repairs. Due to the needed repairs and equipment exceeding its life expectancy, it is not economically feasible to proceed with repairs. The unit will be replaced with a newer and more efficient unit. Staff have received previous approval of this unbudgeted purchase.

Staff recommend full appropriation in the amount of $8,801 to fund the cost of an unbudgeted portable generator for the Water Department. The amount of $2,976 recovered through rental rates and will be applied towards the purchase of the new unit.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This unforeseen purchase is unbudgeted and will require full appropriation of $8,801 to the Public Works Department’s Operating Budget within the Equipment Management Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Innovative and Efficient City Government

ATTACHMENTS:

Approved Unbudgeted Request

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: November 19, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Miscellaneous TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Randy McKeegan, Finance Director
DATE: November 7, 2025
SUBJECT: Purchase of a pressure washer for the General Services Division (unbudgeted).

Appropriate $7,140 to the Public Works Department’s Operating budget within the Equipment Management Fund to complete the purchase.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of the appropriation.

BACKGROUND:

This unbudgeted purchase of a pressure washer for the General Services Division within the Public Works Department will replace a unit that was stolen. Fleet staff recommend replacement of the unit. Staff have received previous approval of this unbudgeted purchase.

Staff recommend full appropriation of funds in the amount of $7,140 to fund the cost of an unbudgeted pressure washer for the General Services Division within the Public Works Department. An amount of $2,850 recovered through rental rates will be applied towards the purchase of the new unit.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This unforeseen purchase is unbudgeted and will require full appropriation of funds in the amount of $7,140 to the Public Works Department’s Operating Budget within the Equipment Management Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Innovative and Efficient City Government

ATTACHMENTS:

Approved Unbudgeted Request

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: November 19, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent Calendar Public Hearings TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: November 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider a resolution to Vacate the Street Right of Way located in front of 7410 Niles Street (Ward 3)

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the adoption of the resolution

BACKGROUND:

Quad Knopf, Inc, DBA QK, applicant on behalf of owner, Housing Authority of The County of Kern, has requested a Summary Vacation in accordance with Section 8330, et, seq., specifically Section 8331, of the State and Highway Code . The Purpose of this Street Right of Way vacation will allow for greater development design freedom for a critically needed residential use.

The City Fire, Police, Public Works, Development Services, and Economic Development Departments have been notified of the request, and no objections have been received as of the date of this report. A public utility easement will be reserved over the vacated area. The utility companies serving the area have been notified by mail. There has been no objection to date of this report.

Preliminary notices were also mailed to all adjacent property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the proposed vacating area. Public Works has not received any objections from these owners as of the date of this report.

The proposed vacation was approved by the Planning Department on October 6, 2025, per local ordinance and was found to be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan pursuant to Government Code 65402.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The action to vacate right of way, will not have a fiscal impact to the City and the General Fund, in fact it will save costs for the ongoing maintenance of this roadway being removed from City ongoing projects.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Economic Opportunity for All
Innovative and Efficient City Government

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A

3. Exhibit B
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\17393380842\17393380842,,,Resolution.doc

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL TO VACATE THE

STREET RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED IN FRONT OF
7410 NILES STREET
(WARD 3)

WHEREAS, on WEDNESDAY, October 22, 2025, the Council of the City of Bakersfield, pursuant to the provisions of the “Public Streets, Highways and Service Easements Vacation Law,” Government Code Sections 8300 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, declared its intention to vacate the Street Right of Way in front of 7410 Niles Street (Ward 3); and

WHEREAS, the Council did fix a time and place for hearing all persons interested in or objecting to said proposed vacation, which hearing was held on November 19 , 202 5, after notices of said hearing were duly published and posted as required by law; and

WHEREAS, for the above -described project, it was determined that the proposed vacation is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) of CEQA Guidelines (General Rule) in that there is no possibility that the proposed action could have a significan t effect on the environment; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 2.28.120, the proposed vacation was found to be consistent with t he Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan pursuant to Government Code 65402 on October 6, 2025, by the Planning Director.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein.

2. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to Section 8300, et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California.

3. The Council orders the vacation of the Street Right of Way located in front of 7410 Niles Street (more specifically described in Exhibit “A” and illustrated in Exhibit “B”, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein) , all in the City of Bakersfield, Coun ty of Kern, State of California.

4. The City is to reserve a Public Utility Easement (PUE) over the vacated area of the Street Right of Way in front of 7410 Niles Street.

5. The City C lerk shall certify to the passage of this resolution and shall cause a certified copy hereof, attested by the Clerk under the seal of the City, to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Kern, California.

C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\17393380842\17393380842,,,Resolution.doc

I HEREBY CER TIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted, by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on _____________________ by the following vote:

AYES: COUCILMEMBER ARIAS , GONZALES, WEIR, SMITH, KOMAN, BASHIRTASH, KAUR NOES: COUCILMEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUCILMEMBER
ABSENT: COUCILMEMBER

________________________________

JULIE DRIMAKIS, CPMC, MMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield

APPROVED: _________________

BY ______________________________

KAREN GOH
Mayor of the City of Bakersfield

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO

CITY ATTORNEY

By: _________________________

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney

Attachments: Exhibit “A”
Exhibit “B”

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: November 19, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent Calendar Public Hearings TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: November 14, 2025
SUBJECT: Public Appeal Hearing of Planning Commission’s Approval of Zone Change No. 25- 0001 And adoption of its proposed mitigated negative declaration. (Ward 5)

McIntosh & Associates, representing Camino Media Properties, LLC, is proposing a Zone Change on approximately 11.22 acres generally located at 9700 Camino Media. The request includes:

1. Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2. First Reading of an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code by changing the official zoning classification from R-2/PUD (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling/Planned Unit Development) to R-4 (High Density Multi-Unit Dwelling) zone.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refer back to staff.

BACKGROUND:

This item was originally scheduled to be considered on the November 19, 2025 agenda however, was incorrectly advertised as an appeal project hearing, yet there was no appeal filed. Therefore, staff recommends that your Council open and close the public hearing and refer the item back to staff, in order for this item to be correctly re-agendized for consideration at a later date.

The proposed project is Zone Change No. 25 -0001 amending the zone from R -2/PUD to R-4 to facilitate future development of a multiple -family residential complex, where the proposed zone change would allow for up to 191 multi-family units on 11.22 acres located at 9700 Camino Media.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The action to change the zoning is funded by the developer through fee’s paid by them . Therefore, this action has no impact to the City’s General Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Community Character & Quality of Life
Economic Opportunity for All

ATTACHMENTS:

None

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: November 19, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Hearings TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: November 14, 2025
SUBJECT: Public appeal hearing to consider Planning Commission’s approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424,

Williamson Act Cancellation No. 25-0001, Exclusion from Agricultural Preserve No. 10, and its proposed mitigated negative declaration.

Next Gen Engineering Group Inc., representing ORR Development 2, LLC, is proposing a General Plan Amendment, Williamson Act Cancellation No. 25-0001, and Exclusion from Agricultural Preserve No. 10 on approximately 28.91 acres generally located on the north side of McCutchen Road at Mountain Vista Road. (Ward 5)

1. Resolution adopting a General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from R - IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low-Medium Residential)

2. Resolution adopting the tentative Cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract and Exclusion of 28.91 acres from the boundaries of an Agricultural Preserve.

3. Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), submitted the appeal to the Planning Commission's approval of the request.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

BACKGROUND:

The project is a request to change the land use designation from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low -Medium Residential) intended for consistency wit h the existing residential zoning; Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract will allow for the proposed residential development; and Exclusion of 28.91 acres from the boundaries of an Agriculture Preserve, releasing the property from development restrictions.

Project Summary
The proposed project seeks the above approvals to establish consistent land use and zoning designations within the project site and with surrounding residential areas. The General Plan Amendment (GPA) proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from Resource - Intensive Agriculture (R-IA) to Low-Medium Density Residential (LMR), or a more restrictive designation, on approximately 28.91 acres located on the north side of McCutchen Road , an arterial street, between Buena Vista Road and Old River Road [APNs 541 -010-23 and -27]. The request also includes a tentative cancellation of the existing Williamson Act Land Use Contract and exclusion from the County of Kern administrative boundary of Agricultural Preserve No. 10.

The project proposes the development of 147 single -family residential lots (pending Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7410) with lot sizes ranging from 4,589 to 11,462 square feet and an average density of

8.64 dwelling units per net acre, consistent with the LMR designation. Mountain Vista Drive, a collector street, will be extended through the site to connect with McCutchen Road, improving local circulation.

Surrounding properties are characterized by single -family residential uses and undeveloped land. The project site consists of two contiguous, vacant parcels hist orically used for agriculture. All future development will be reviewed for compliance with municipal regulations and CEQA.

Site History
 February 24, 1971 – Williamson Act Contract and agricultural preserve recorded, committing land for agricultural use. (Book 4491, Page 521)

 January 23, 1998 – Parcel Map No. 10155 was recorded.

 February 22, 2006 – Annexation No. 498 – Old River No. 3 was annexed to the City of Bakersfield to facilitate the “Old River Ranch Development” (ORRD). This project site was not part of the ORRD but was included as a portion of this annexation area to avoi d creating a county island (Resolution No. 053-06).

 September 18, 2025 – Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of the project as described above under “Subject”, and recommended approval to the City Council.

 September 29, 2025 - Lozeau Drury LL P, on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), submitted the appeal to the Planning Commission's approval of the request.

Williamson Act Contract and Agricultural Preserve.

The Williamson Ac t, also known as the Californi a Land Conservation Act of 1965, has been the state’s premier agricultural land protection program , which preserves agricultural and open space lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses.

The project site is subject to a Willi amson Act Land Use Contract (WAC) recorded on February 28, 1969 (Document No. 12659). The property owner now requests cancellation of the WAC for the two parcels (project site) and the project site’s exclusion from Agricultural Preserve No. 10. In accordance with the

Williamson Act and described in the Planning Commission staff report, certain procedures must be followed and findings must be made in order to cancel a WAC. In accordance with the findings of Government Code 51282 c -1-2, the can cellation is in the public interest in that the cancellation will facilitate development of Mountain Vista Drive, a collector street to McCutchen Road, an arterial street which provides for vital connections in the City’s circulation system.

Approval of t he WAC cancellation and exclusion of the project site from the agricultural preserve facilitates the development of needed housing and construction of Mountain Vista Drive. As part of the WAC cancellation process, the cancellation is tentative until the pr operty owner pays the required cancellation fee to the County Treasurer, and the City Council accepts proof of the payment. The amount of the fee is determined by the County Assessor.

Environmental Review and Determination
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Staff prepared an initial study to review the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Initial Study determined that compliance with recommended mitigation measures, local ordinances, state laws, and construction to the standards of the Uniform Building Codes will reduce impacts to a less- than- significant level. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with CEQA. The MND was circulated for a 30-day public and agency review period starting July 28, 2025, through August 27, 2025 (SCH No. 2025031371).

Comments Received. The following comments were received. The Planning Commission found the responses included in their staff report adequately addressed the comments listed below.

1. A letter from Janine McCoy, a resident of the River Crossings Community, expressed general support for growth but raised concerns about potential impacts on property values and requested to be notified of future hearings.

2. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) provided comments focused on best practices and mitigation measures related to hazardous materials, which did not oppose the project.

3. The Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, raised concerns regarding the conversion of farmland and recommended consideration of agricultural mitigation strategies.

4. Two letters dated August 27, 2025 and September 17 , 2025, were submitted by Lozeau | Drury LLP, on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), opposed the use of an MND and asserted that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required based on potential impacts related to farmland conversion, vehicle miles traveled, air quality, and hazards.

Public Notification
Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in The Bakersfield Californian on November 8, 2025 . All property owners within a 1000 -foot radius of the project site typically receive mailing notices of the public hearing. However, if the number of owners exceeds one thousand, as is the case with this proposal, in lieu of mailed notice, notice may be provided by placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in the newspaper ten days prior to the

hearing (BMC 17.64.050.B.4). This notification process adheres to both city ordinance and state law.

Notice in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 18 was also mailed to the Native American Tribes of the proposed project on March 10, 2025.

Planning Commission Action
The project was considered by Planning Commission on September 18, 2025 . A representative of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) was present and spoke in opposition to the project. Brandon Martim, legal counsel for the Applicant, was also present and spoke in support of the project at the hearing. After hearing testimonies from both representatives, the Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of the project and recommended approval to the City Council.

The Planning Commission’s findings are contained in Resolution Nos. 47-25 and 48-25.

On September 29, 2025, an appeal to the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project was filed by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”).

The appeal states that the City failed to prepare an Environmental Impact report as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and on the project’s impact on local farmland conversion, vehicle miles traveled, air quality, and hazards . Pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section

17.64.090(A) and (B), the appeal was submitted in writing to the City Council within 10 calendar days after the Planning Commission decision. A decision of the City Council shall be final and conclusive.

In the final analysis, due to its overarching consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and its consistency with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan related to residential development, as described above. Any future development proposed on the project site will be required to acquire approval of a tract map to ensure c onsistency with City development standards as put forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has reviewed the proposal for compatibility with the applicable goals and policies contained within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Element.

City Council Options
The decision of the City Council shall be final and conclusive. City Council has the following option regarding this appeal request:
 Deny the Appeal. If the City Council were to deny the appeal, the General Plan land use designation would be amended to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential); the Williamson Act Contract would be tentatively canceled; the 28.91 acres would be removed from Agricultural Preserve No. 10. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared for this project would also be approved.
 Uphold the Appeal. If the City Council were to approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's approval, the project site could not be developed as proposed and would retain its current condition.

Conclusion
 Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan related to residential development, as described above. Any future development proposed on the project site will be required to undergo a Site Plan Review, ensuring consistency with City development standards as put forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

 Overall Recommendation. The project has been found to be consistent with General Plan policies and City Zoning Ordi nance requirements. For these reasons, City staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21 -0424, Williamson Act Cancellation No. 25-0001,

FISCAL IMPACT:

The action to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commiss ion action will not have an adverse impact on the General Fund. If this site develops to its full land use economic potential, it will have a positive impact on generating revenue for the City General Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Community Character & Quality of Life

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolutions
a. Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. b. Resolution adopting a General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424 c. Resolution adopting the Tentative Cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract and Exclusion from an Agricultural Preserve.

2. Attachment A: Map Set
a. GPA/WAC Aerial
b. GPA/WAC Zone Classification
c. GPA/WAC General Plan Designation

3. Attachment B: Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments

4. Attachment C: Planning Commission Resolutions
a. Approved MND with Attachments
b. Approved GPA with Attachments
c. Approve WAC with Attachments

5. Attachment D: Planning Commission Staff Report

6. Attachment E: Studies

7. Attachment F: Appeal Letter Lozeau Drury, September 29, 2025, including Comment Letters, August 27, 2025, and September 17, 2025.

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE

APPEAL AND APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF THE

METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN FROM R -IA
(RESOURCE-INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE) TO LMR (LOW -MEDIUM

RESIDENTIAL), LOCATED NORTH OF MCCUTCEN ROAD AT
MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE (EXTENDED) (GPA 21-0424).

WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates (applicant), on behalf of ORR Development 2, LLC (property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low -Medium Residential); (2) Cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract; and (3) Exclusion from the boundaries of an Agricultural Preserve , all on 28.91 acres; and

WHEREAS, it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a public review period from July 28, 2025, to August 27, 2025 , in accordance with CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 18, 2025, and accepted public testimony both in support and opposition. Following deliberations, the Commission approved Resolution No. 47-25, which recommended that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and WHEREAS, Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), filed an appeal with the City Clerk on September 29, 2025, on the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the project; and

WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, November 19, 2025 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the proposed Negative Declaration as required by Government Code Section 65355, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by City staff and the Planning Commission; and

WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the staff report, the Planning Commission’s deliberation, and action.

WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above-referenced public hearing support the following findings:

1. All required public notices have been given. The hearing notice regarding the Project was published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation , on November 8, 2025, 10 days prior to the hearing .

Pursuant to BMC 17.64.050.B.4, if the number of owners exceeds one thousand, as is the case with this proposal, in lieu of mailed notice, notice may be provided by placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in the newspaper ten days prior to the hearing. This notification process adheres to both city ordinance and state law.

2. The provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff determined that the proposal is a project under CEQA.

3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval as the Project will not significantly impact the physical environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield City Council as follows:

1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.

2. The Planning Commission’s findings as contained in its Resolution No. 47-25 are hereby adopted.

3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is hereby adopted subject to the mitigation measures found in Exhibit A for the Project located on the map as shown in Exhibit B, both of which are incorporated herein.

o0o

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of November 2025, by the following vote:

JULIE DRIMAKIS, CMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield

APPROVED:

By

KAREN GOH
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney

By:

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney

Exhibit: A Mitigation Measures
B Location Map
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: _Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Koman, Bashirtash, Kaur NOES: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER:

RESOLUTION NO. _____________

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE

APPEAL AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE

MAP DESIGNATION OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD
GENERAL PLAN FROM R -IA (RESOURCE – INTENSIVE

AGRICULTURE) TO LMR (LOW -MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL) LOCATED

NORTH OF MCCUTCHEN ROAD AT MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE
(EXTENDED) (GPA 21-0424).

WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates (applicant), on behalf of ORR Development 2, LLC (property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low -Medium Residential); (2) Cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract; and (3) Exclusion from the boundaries of an Agricultural Preserve , all on 28.91 acres; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 18, 2025, and approved Resolution No. 48-25, which recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and

WHEREAS, Lozeau Drury LLP , on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), filed an appeal with the City Clerk on September 29, 2025, on the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the project; and

WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, November 19, 2025 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the approval of the amendment as required by Government Code Section 65355 , and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and adopted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s deliberation, and action.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield City Council as follows:

1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.

2. The Planning Commission's findings as contained in its Resolution No. 48-25 are hereby approved.

3. The City Council hereby denies Lozeau Drury LLP’s appeal.

4. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424.

---------o0o--------

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of November 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Koman, Bashirtash, Kaur____________________ NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: ____________________________________________________________ ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: ______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________

JULIE DRIMAKIS, MMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield

By __________________________

KAREN GOH
Mayor

VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORNEY

By: ____________________________

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney

Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment Map

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL

DENYING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING THE TENTATIVE

CANCELLATION OF A LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT
(WILLIAMSON ACT) A N D E X C L U S I O N F R O M

A G R I C U L T U R A L P R E S E R V E FOR AN

AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF

THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN FROM

R-IA (RESOURCE-INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE) TO LMR
(LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL), LOCATED ON THE NORTH

SIDE OF MCCUTCHEN ROAD AT MOUNTAIN VISTA ROAD
[GOVERNMENT CODE 51282(a)(1)] (GPA 21-0424).

WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates (applicant), on behalf of O RR Development 2, LLC (property owner) is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low -Medium Residential); (2) C ancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract; and (3) Exclusion from the County of Kern administrative boundary of Agricultural Preserve No. 10, all on 28.91 acres; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Bakersfield in accordance with the provisions of Sections 51232, 51233, and 51284 of the Government Code, did set, WEDNESDAY, November 19, 2025, at the hour of 5: 15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall,1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before said City Council on said application. Notice of the time and place of hearing was given at least ten (10) calendar days before said hearing by publication in The Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and

WHEREAS, the subject parcel was originally entered into a Land Use Agreement with the County of Kern pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Government Code Title 5, Division 1, Part 1, Chapter 7, Section 51200 et seq.) commonly known as the “Williamson Act”, on February 24, 1971, as shown in Book 4491, Pages 52 0 of the Office of the Kern County Recorder;

WHEREAS, the subject parcel was annexed into the City of Bakersfield on February 22, 2006, as Old River No. 3 (Annexation No. 498) , joined to the annexation to facilitate the “Old River Ranch Development” (ORRD). The Kern County Land A gency Formation Commission (LAFCo) required th e subject outparcel to be included in the annexation area to avoid creating a county island (Resolution No. 053-06).

WHEREAS, Williamson Act Land Use Contract Cancellation of 28.91 acres and the exclusion of same acres from the boundaries of Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 10 is described as follows:

Williamson Act Contract Cancellation:

McIntosh and Associates (applicant), on behalf of O RR Development 2, LLC (property owner), has applied for the cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract for the 28.91 acre within Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 10 located

on the north side of McCutchen Road at Mou ntain Vista Road in Southwest Bakersfield, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of California (APN 541- 010-23 and 541-010-27); and

Exclusion of 28.91 Acres from Agricultural Preserve No. 10:

McIntosh and Associates (applicant), on behalf of ORR Development 2, LLC (property owner), has applied for the exclusion of 28.91 acres from the boundaries of Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 10 located on the north side of McCutchen Road at Mountain Vista Road in Southwest Bakersfield, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of California (APN 541 -010-23 and 541-010-27); and

WHEREAS, the requested cancellation covers portions of the northeast quarter of Section 123, Township 30 South, Range 27 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as described in Exhibit “A”, and shown generally in Exhibit “B”; and

WHEREAS, the project site contains approximately 28.91 acres; and

WHEREAS, the subject site is also part of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 21- 0424) to allow the development of urban uses on the site; and

WHEREAS, the applicant for the property owner has indicated the purpose of the request is to develop single-family residences within the City of Bakersfield limits; and

WHEREAS, the property lies within a path of development with approved urban development projects in progress; and

WHEREAS, said urban development projects, as well as local government agency efforts, have extended supporting utilities and infrastructure adjacent to the property; and

WHEREAS, the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has not been served based on the public interest findings; and

WHEREAS, the cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent contracted lands from agricultural use, since there is no evidence in the record to suggest that this project will be precedent-setting, and no comments were received to indicate there might be other lands removed from Contract, with remaining cultivated properties being unaffected; and

WHEREAS, the cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, subject to prior approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424; and

WHEREAS, the cancellation will not result in discontinuous patterns of urban development since adjacent lands in the City of Bakersfield are developed or approved for urban development , and the property lies within the path of rapid urban development and between two approved urban projects; and

WHEREAS, there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed, or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted lands. The project is located between approved urban projects and will result in a more contiguous pattern o f urban development than other, noncontracted lands farther from existing urbanized lands; and

WHEREAS, it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and adopted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 51283, the Kern County Assessor will determine the full market value of the land with respect to which the cancellation is requested, as though it was free of the contractual restriction, and will certify to this Council the fair market value and the amount of the cancellation to be paid prior to final approval of the cancellation of the contract; and

WHEREAS, prior to any further consideration for development entitlements or approvals on the property, payment of the Williamson Act Contract cancellation fee shall be made to the Kern County Treasurer in accordance with State, and

WHEREAS, upon the property owner paying the cancellation fee to the Kern County Treasurer, the landowner is to notify the Planning Department , satisfying any contingencies in the Certificate of Tentative Cancellation have been satisfied to including a copy of proof of payment of said cancellation fee, and

WHEREAS, within 30 days of such notice, the Planning Department shall execute a Certificate of (Final) Cancellation and present it by Resolution to the City Council at the next available meeting, and

WHEREAS, if the Resolution is approved by the City Council, the City Clerk shall have the Certificate of (Final) Cancellation recorded with the Kern County Recorder, and

WHEREAS, the Planning Department shall petition the Kern County Planning Department to modify the County’s Agricultural Preserve Map boundaries to execute the subject property from the Agricultural Preserve Map No. 10 boundaries, and

WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the administrative report, and the Planning Commission’s deliberation, and action, and

WHEREAS, the facts presented in the administrative report and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings:

1. That other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of this chapter.

1.1 The cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract is in the public interest and outweighs the objectives of this chapter as the cancellation will

allow for the development of needed road right-of-way which will provide for health and safety improvements.

2. That there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put or, that the development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximat e noncontracted land.

2.1 The proposed use of the contracted land to residential use will provide a contiguous pattern to the existing residential urban development which is immediately adjacent to the subject contracted property.

3. All required public notices have been given. The hearing notice regarding the Project was published in the Bakersfield Californian , a local newspaper of general circulation on November 8, 2025, 10 days prior to the hearing. Pursuant to BMC 17.64.050.B.4, if the number of owners exceeds one thousand, as is the case with this proposal, in lieu of mailed notice, notice may be provided by placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in the newspaper ten days prior to the hearing. This notificatio n process adheres to both city ordinance and state law.

4. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed.

5. A adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval as the Project will not significantly impact the physical environment.

6. Based on the initial study and comments received, staff has determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment.

7. The infrastructure exists or can easily be provided to accommodate the types and intensities of the proposed development.

8. The public necessity, general welfare and good zoning practice justify the recommended cancellation of the Land Conservation Contract on the

28.91 acres, located on the north side of McCutchen Road and at Mountain Vista Road.

9. The project site, with approval under General Plan Amendment No. 21- 0424, will be designated L MR (Low Medium Residential) under the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Plan.

10. The recommended cancellation is compatible with the surrounding uses.

11. The recommended tentative cancellation is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, subject to prior approval of General

Plan Amendment No. 21-0424.

12. That the tentative cancellation is consistent with the purposes of Title 5, Division 1, Part 1, Chapter 7 (the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or the Williamson Act) of the Government Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND AND RESOLVED as follows:

1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.

2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the cancellation of a Land Conservation Contract (Williamson Act) and exclusion from the Agricultural Preserve has been approved and adopted.

3. That the City Council has, pursuant to Section 51282 of the Government Code, made the required findings to tentatively approve the cancellation of the Williamson Act Land Use Contract.

4. The Williamson Act Land Use Contract cancellation and exclusion of the project site from Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 10 will occur when said property cancellation fee has been paid to the Kern County Assessor., and the City Council adopts a resolution approving the Certificate of (Final) Cancellation.

5. The City Council hereby tentatively approves and adopts the tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act Land Use Contract on 28.91 acres and exclusion of the subject property from Kern County Agricultural Preserve Map No. 10, subject to prior approval for the project of General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424.

6. The tentative cancellation of the Land Conservation Contract (Williamson Act) and exclusion from the Agricultural Preserve , as outlined above, is hereby approved, subject to prior approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424, and payment of the cancellation fees.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of November 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: _Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Koman, Bashirtash, Kaur NOES: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER:

JULIE DRIMAKIS, CMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield

APPROVED:

By

KAREN GOH
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney

By:

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney

Exhibits (attached):

Exhibit A: Original Williamson Act Contract
Exhibit B: Location Map and legal descriptions
Exhibit C: Certificate of Tentative Cancellation

11/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_

GARRISON ST

BREITENBUSH AVE

YUKON RIVER AVE
McCLOUD RIVER AVE
ANIAK

RIVER WAY

NIGU RIVER ST
WOOD

RIVER WAY

BASENTO WAY

LAKE BRACCIANO AVE

KOYUK RIVER ST

SCRIVIA CT

CHETCO RIVER ST

LAGO PUCCINI ST

CUYAMA RIVER ST

ARGI RIVER AVE

ARNO RIVER LN

COLANTA WAY

COW CREEK WAY

LAKE GARDA ST

MARTIAN RIVER ST

MINAM R

IVER WAY

QUENTARI AVE

ALCAZAR AVE

IRONTOOTH AVE

ARUNDEL WAY

EVERCLEAR AVE

HUSLIA RIVER AVE

MOUNTAIN VISTA DR

MOUNTAIN VISTA DR

MC CUTCHEN RD
KHSD Career
and Technical
Education Center

KHSD AQUATIC

COMPLEX
Independence
High School
Copyright nearmap 2015
AERIAL
GPA 21-0424
WAC 25-0001
General Plan Amendment 21-0424
Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

Recording requested by
and for the benefit of the

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

CITY CLERK
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

CERTIFICATE OF TENTATIVE CANCELLATION

WITH RESPECT TO LAND UNDER CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS
(LAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1965)

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

1. The City Council of the City of Bakersfield has given tentative approval of the petition of ORR Development 2, LLC for cancellation of contractual restrictions contained in a contract which a notice of nonrenewal has been served pursuant to Section 51245 of the Government Code, said notice was recorded on __________, as Document No. _______________ in the office of the Kern County Recorder, as to the land hereinafter more fully described, entered into under the Land Conservation Act of 1965, and which land is located in Agricultural Preserve No. 10 in the County of Kern, after public hearing duly noticed and held.

2. The name of the owner of the land herein mentioned, at the time of cancellation, was ORR Development 2, LLC.

3. The amount of the cancellation fee determined by said City Council to be paid as deferred taxes upon such cancellation, in accordance with paragraph (b) of Section 51283 of the Government Code, and certified by said Council as being due pursuant to said Act, is the sum of $596,475.00 for the 28.91 gross acre site and that the recently announced Kern County assessment portion is 100% of the cancellation fee.

4. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 51283.4, the Council has established the following conditions and contingencies, and has declared that a Certificate of Cancellation of said contract with respect to said parcel of land will be issued and recorded within thirty (30) days after being notified by the landowner that each and all of said conditions and contingencies is satisfied:

(a) Payment in full of the cancellation fee hereinabove mentioned; and

(b) Unless said cancellation fee is fully paid, or a Certificate of Cancellation is issued, within one year from the date of recordation of the Certificate of Tentative Cancellation, such fee shall be recomputed as of the date the landowner notifies this City Council that he /she has satisfied the conditions and contingencies, as provided in subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 51283.4, and the landowner shall pay any additional fee arising from such recomputation as a further condition to issuance of a Certificate of Cancellation; provided, however, that the landowner shall not be entitled to refund of any cancellation fee previously paid even if the recomputed fee is less; and

(c) Landowner sha ll obtain all per mits, if any , necessary to commence the project of the proposed alternative use, and

(d) Landowner shall satisfy all conditions of approval as stated in the attached Council Resolution No. ______ as Exhibit “B”.

5. Pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 51283.4, if land owner has been unable to satisfy the foregoing conditions or contingencies, he shall notify this City Council of the particular conditions or contingences he is unable to sa tisfy; within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice, and upon a determination by this that the landowner is unable to satisfy the foregoing conditions or contingenci es this Council shall execute a Certificate of Withdrawal of said tentative approval of the cancellation of contract and cause the sa me to be recorded; however, the landowner shall not be entitled to the refund o f any cancellation fee previously paid.

6. The real property to which the foregoing tentative cancellation proceedings applies is situated in the City of Bakersfield, State of California, and is described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference.

Dated this 19th day of November 2025, by order of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield.

Jennie Eng
Assistant Planning Director

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\01_Hearing Documents\CC\1st Reading\Misc\Certificate of Tentative Cancellation.doc

EXHIBIT A

Resolution No. ____

EXHIBIT B

Williamson Act Land Use Contract Map

MAP SET
11/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_

GARRISON ST

BREITENBUSH AVE

YUKON RIVER AVE
McCLOUD RIVER AVE
ANIAK

RIVER WAY

NIGU RIVER ST
WOOD

RIVER WAY

BASENTO WAY

LAKE BRACCIANO AVE

KOYUK RIVER ST

SCRIVIA CT

CHETCO RIVER ST

LAGO PUCCINI ST

CUYAMA RIVER ST

ARGI RIVER AVE

ARNO RIVER LN

COLANTA WAY

COW CREEK WAY

LAKE GARDA ST

MARTIAN RIVER ST

MINAM R

IVER WAY

QUENTARI AVE

ALCAZAR AVE

IRONTOOTH AVE

ARUNDEL WAY

EVERCLEAR AVE

HUSLIA RIVER AVE

MOUNTAIN VISTA DR

MOUNTAIN VISTA DR

MC CUTCHEN RD
KHSD Career
and Technical
Education Center

KHSD AQUATIC

COMPLEX
Independence
High School
Copyright nearmap 2015
AERIAL
GPA 21-0424
WAC 25-0001
General Plan Amendment 21-0424
Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
11/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_

GARRISON ST

BREITENBUSH AVE

YUKON RIVER AVE
McCLOUD RIVER AVE
ANIAK

RIVER WAY

NIGU RIVER ST
WOOD

RIVER WAY

BASENTO WAY

LAKE BRACCIANO AVE

KOYUK RIVER ST

CUYAMA RIVER ST

ARGI RIVER AVE

ARNO RIVER LN

SCRIVIA CT

CHETCO RIVER ST

LAGO PUCCINI ST

COLANTA WAY

COW CREEK WAY

LAKE GARDA ST

MARTIAN RIVER ST

MINAM R

IVER WAY

QUENTARI AVE

ALCAZAR AVE

IRONTOOTH AVE

ARUNDEL WAY

EVERCLEAR AVE

HUSLIA RIVER AVE

MOUNTAIN VISTA DR

MOUNTAIN VISTA DR

MC CUTCHEN RD

KHSD AQUATIC

COMPLEX
Independence
High School
C-2/P .C.D.

R-2/P .U.D.

R-1
R-1/P .U.D.

R-1/P .U.D.

R-1
R-1/P .U.D.

R-1/P .U.D.

R-1/P .U.D.

R-1
R-1
R-1/P .U.D.

Zoning
Commercial Zone Designations
C-2/P .C.D. Combining
Residential Zone Designations
R-1 One Family Dwelling
R-1/P .U.D. Combining
R-2/P .U.D. Combining
GPA 21-0424
WAC 25-0001
General Plan Amendment 21-0424
Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
11/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_

GARRISON ST

BREITENBUSH AVE

YUKON RIVER AVE
McCLOUD RIVER AVE
ANIAK

RIVER WAY

NIGU RIVER ST
WOOD

RIVER WAY

BASENTO WAY

LAKE BRACCIANO AVE

KOYUK RIVER ST

SCRIVIA CT

CHETCO RIVER ST

LAGO PUCCINI ST

CUYAMA RIVER ST

ARGI RIVER AVE

ARNO RIVER LN

COLANTA WAY

COW CREEK WAY

LAKE GARDA ST

MARTIAN RIVER ST

MINAM R

IVER WAY

QUENTARI AVE

ALCAZAR AVE

IRONTOOTH AVE

ARUNDEL WAY

EVERCLEAR AVE

HUSLIA RIVER AVE

MOUNTAIN VISTA DR

MOUNTAIN VISTA DR

MC CUTCHEN RD
LR
HMR
GC
LR
R-IA
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
PS
LR
KHSD Career
and Technical
Education Center

KHSD AQUATIC

COMPLEX
Independence
High School
Land Use

RESIDENTIAL
HMR - High Medium Density
Residential: > 7.26 units but ≤

17.42 d
welling units/net acre
LR - Low Density Residential: ≤

7.26 dw
elling units/net acre

COMMERCIAL
GC - General Commercial

PUBLIC FACILITIES
PS - Public/Private Schools

RESOURCE
R-IA - Resource - Intensive
Agriculture: 20 acr
e minimum parcel
size
GPA 21-0424
WAC 25-0001
R-IA to LMR
General Plan Amendment 21-0424
Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

MITIGATED

NEGATIVE

DECLARATION

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 1 of 46 NEGATIVE DECLARATION

The City of Bakersfield Development Services Department, Planning Division, has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following -described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a signific ant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures.

PROJECT NO. (or Title): General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001

COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: July 28, 2025

COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: August 27, 2025

MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required) :

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:

1. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer shall submit documentation to the Planning Division that they are compliant with air quality control measures and rules required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The documentation shall specify that the Project has complied with the SJVAPCD’s Indirect Source Rule (Rule 9510).

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

2. Prior to ground disturbance, the applicant/developer shall consult and comply with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service requirements related to listed plant and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA)

3. Prior to ground disturbance, a focused survey for burrowing owl shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Planning Division by the applicant/developer. The survey shall follow the methodology developed by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC 1993).

If the survey results identify the presence of burrowing owl nests, prior to grading (including staging, clearing, and grubbing), surveys for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no more than 30 days prior to the start of any ground disturbance and in a sufficient area around the work site to identify any nests that are present and to determine their status. A sufficient area means any nest within an area that could potentially be affected directly and/or indirectly by the project. In addition to direct impacts, such as nest destruction, nests might be affected by noise, vibration, odors, and movement of workers or equipment. If the Project applicant identifies active nests, CDFW shall be notified and recommended protocols for mitigation shall be followed , and a copy of the mitigation protocols shall be submitted to Planning Division.

(.;,

BAKERSFIELD
THE SOUND OFz;~ ~

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 2 of 46 If any ground disturbing activities occur during the burrowing owl nesting season (approximately February 1 through August 31), and potential burrowing owl burrows are present within the project footprint, avoidance measures shall be implemented. In the event that burrowing owls are found, the applicant/developer shall follow CDFW protocol for mitigation and comply with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

4. The biological resource evaluation performed by Pruett Biological Resource Consulting 2024 requires mitigation measures for the Western Mastiff Bat roost detected in trees as follows:

a. A biological resource pre -activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more 30 -days before the start of construction activities.
b. Biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance. c. Compliance reporting provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted. d. A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special- status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented, e. If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.
f. Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2 -feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet.
g. Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped should be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.
h. Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater should be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.

Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

5. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period, a construction worker cultural awareness training program shall be provided to all new construction workers within one week of employment at the project site. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a qualified cultural resources specialist.

6. During construction, if cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and excavation. All reports, correspondence, and determinations regarding the discovery shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Information System’s Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University Bakersfield.

7. During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code 5097.97, and Senate Bill 447 shall be followed. In the event of the discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c) shall guide Native American consultation.

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 3 of 46 Paleontological Resources Mitigation Measures:

8. During construction, if paleontological resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified paleontological resource specialist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include fossil salvage. Ground disturbance in the vicinity of the discovery site (within 50 feet) shall not resume until the resource- appropriate measures are implemented or the materials are determined to be less than significant.

Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:

9. All residential dwellings shall be Electric vehicle (EV) capable by installing a dedicated circuit within the service panel and provide a receptacle or blank cover labeled as “EV READY.” Applicant will also construct on-site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along McCutchen Road extending to the west tract boundary, ensuring no gaps in the infrastructure. This will facilitate future off -site improvements, constructed by others, that will provide access to Buena Vista Elementary School and the existing Class II Bike Lane along Buena Vista Road. Furthermore, the project will also include construction of off -site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along McCutchen Road to the east. This will close the existing gap between the project, Independence High School, the Career and Technical Education Center, and the existing Class II Bike Lane along Old River Road.

10. Prior to or concurrently with the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide proof to the Planning Division of the project’s participation in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program as well as payment of the adopted fees in place for the land use type at the time of development.

Agricultural
Mitigation Measures:

11. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant/property owner shall remit the required Williamson Act cancellation fee to the California Department of Conservation. Documentation confirming payment of the cancellation fee, calculated as 12.5 percent of the land’s fair market value as determined by the Kern County Assessor , shall be submitted to the Planning Division. No grading, construction, or ground disturbance shall occur until confirmation of fee payment has been received by the Planning Division.

PLANNING

COMMISSION

RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 47-25

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT

TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT RELATED
TO PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 21-0424;
CANCELLATION A WILLIAMSON ACT LAND USE CONTRACT;
AND EXCLUSION FROM AN AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE ON 28.91

ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF MCCUTCHEN ROAD AT MOUNTAIN
VISTA DRIVE (EXTENDED).

WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates is requesting: ( 1) General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from R-IA (Resource - Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low-Medium Residential); (2) Cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract on 28.91-acres; (3) Exclusion of 28.91 acres from the boundaries of an Agricultural Preserve; and (4) A Mitigated Negative Declaration will also be considered. (Ward 5)
WHEREAS, it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Thursday, September 18, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Project as required by Government Code Section 65353, and notice of the public hearing was given· in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Commission accepted public testimony both in support and opposition.

WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by City staff and the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department ( 1715 Chester A venue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings:
1 . All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation, 30 days prior to the hearing.

2. The prov1s1ons of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff determined that the proposal is a project under CEQA.

3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval as the Project will not significantly impact the physical environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield Planning Commission as follows:

1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.

2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby recommended for adoption by the City Council.

3. The project is subject to mitigation measures found in Exhibit A for the Project located on the map as shown in Exhibit B, both of which are incorporated herein.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on September 18, 2025, on a motion by Vice-Chair Bittle and seconded by Commissioner Martin, by the following vote:

AYES: Bittle, Brandt Oliver, Cater, Kaur, Martin, Neal, Strickland ABSENT: None
Exhibits (attached):

Exhibit A: Mitigation Measures
Exhibit B: Location Map
APPROVED± ..
~=~ -h>C A~LAND, CHAIR
City of Bakersfield Planning Commission

Exhibit A
~

BAKERSFIELD
Tl-£ SOUND OF £-,dJ,fNJ '8,<(,, NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakersfield Development Services Department, Planning Division, has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate . It has been found that the proposed project , as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines , and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures .

PROJECT NO. (or Title): General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: July 28, 2025
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: August 27, 2025
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:
l. Prior to grading plan approval , the applicant/developer shall submit documentation to the Planning Division that they are compliant with air quality control measures and rules required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The documentation shall specify that the Project has complied with the SJVAPCD's Indirect Source Rule (Rule 9510).

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

2. Prior to ground disturbance, the applicant/developer shall consult and comply with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service requirements related to listed plant and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA)

3. Prior to ground disturbance , a focused survey for burrowing owl shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Planning Division by the applicant/deve loper. The survey shall follow the methodology developed by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC 1993).

If the survey results identify the presence of burrowing owl nests, prior to grading (including staging, clearing , and grubbing), surveys for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no more than 30 days prior to the start of any ground disturbance and in a sufficient area around the work site to identify any nests that are present and to determine their status. A sufficient area means any nest within an area that could potentially be affected directly and/or indirectly by the project. In addition to direct impacts, such as nest destruction , nests might be affected by noise, vibration , odors, and movement of workers or equipment. If the Project applicant identifies active nests, CDFW shall be notified and recommended protocols for mitigation shall be followed, and a copy of the mitigation protoco ls shall be submitted to Planning Division.

S:\03_A dvance Planning\01 _GPAs\01 _Aclive\2021 \21-0 424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEOA \GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MNO_l.21 .25.docx Page 1 Of 3 If any ground disturbing activities occur during the burrowing owl nesting season (approximately February 1 through August 31), and potential burrowing owl burrows are present within the project footprint, avoidance measures shall be implemented. In the event that burrowing owls are found, the applicant/developer shall follow CDi=W protocol for mitigation and comply with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

4. The biological resource evaluation performed by Pruett Biological Resource Consulting 2024 requires mitigation measures for the Western Mastiff Bat roost detected in trees as follows:
a. A biological resource pre-activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more 30-days before the start of construction activities.
b. Biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance. c. Compliance reporting provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted. d. A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special-status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented, e. If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.
f. Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1 :1 ratio every 100 feet.
g. Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped should be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.
h. Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater should be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.

Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

5. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period, a construction worker cultural awareness training program shall be provided to all new construction workers within one week of employment at the project site. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a qualified cultural resources specialist.

6. During construction, if cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and excavation. All reports, correspondence, and determinations regarding the discovery shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Information System's Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University Bakersfield.

7. During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code 5097.97, and Senate Bill 447 shall be followed. In the event of the discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c) shall guide Native American consultation.

S:\03_Advance Planning\0I_GPAs\01 _Active\2021\2 l-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA \GPA 2 l-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_l.21.25.docx Page 2 of3 Paleontological Resources Mitigation Measures:

8. During construction, if paleontological resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified paleontological resource specialist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include fossil salvage. Ground disturbance in the vicinity of the discovery site (within 50 feet) shall not resume until the resource-appropriate measures are implemented or the materials are determined to be less than significant.

Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:

9. All residential dwellings shall be Electric vehicle (EV) capable by installing a dedicated circuit within the service panel and provide a receptacle or blank cover labeled as "EV READY." Applicant will also construct on-site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along Mccutchen Road extending to the west tract boundary, ensuring no gaps in the infrastructure. This will facilitate future off-site improvements, constructed by others, that will provide access to Buena Vista Elementary School and the existing Class II Bike Lane along Buena Vista Road. Furthermore, the project will also include construction of off-site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along Mccutchen Road to the east. This will close the existing gap between the project, Independence High School, the Career and Technical Education Center, and the existing Class II Bike Lane along Old River Road.

10. Prior to or concurrently with the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide proof to the Planning Division of the project's participation in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program as well as payment of the adopted fees in place for the land use type at the time of development.

Agricultural Mitigation Measures:

11. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant/property owner shall remit the required Williamson Act cancellation fee to the California Department of Conservation. Documentation confirming payment of the cancellation fee, calculated as 12.5 percent of the land's fair market value as determined by the Kern County Assessor, shall be submitted to the Planning Division. No grading, construction, or ground disturbance shall occur until confirmation of fee payment has been received by the Planning Division.

S:\03..Advonce P/onning\01 _GPAs\01 _Active \2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA \GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-000 I MND].21.25.docx Page 3 of3 \!)

ALCAZAR
AVE >-
~
~ z
<(
..J
0 u
GC
General Plan Amendment
21-0424
Williamson Act Cancellation
25-0001
"'Q'.

Ul Ul I­
X > v,
iii ii
I­
"' 0
z
Ul
~

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
LR ::1
I-
<( >­
Q'. <(
J.: ~
CL.
::>
Ul

STORA ALVARET AVE
GPA 21-0424
LR

TATUK WAY
<( >­
- <(
~ ~
::> Q:
..J Ul
0> u-
~ CLACKAMAS RIVER AVE
Q'.

Q:
1-
Ul
,.:
<(
..J

MC CUTCHEN RD
HMR
LR
I

BASENTO WAY
I
I
z Q'.
~o ~ , r.- <(
z l-
g ~ LR :E >
I
I
I­
"' Q:

Ul
>
Q'.
,.:
::>
>-0 ,.:

LR

YUKON RIVER AVE ---
,.:

Ul
Ul
Q'. >-u <(
~~
LR
0 LR ~ ~REITENBUSH AVE
<(
0 Q'.
<(
\!) 11-
Ul 1/l LR
,.:
<(
..J

LAKE BRACC IANO AVE
I-
"' Q'.

Ul
>
Q'.
::>
\!)
zl
[
1-:­
"' ~ ARNO RIVER
~ LN
Q'.
z
<(
iZ=
Q'.
<( LR :E
I-
I ~ 1/l
LR I ~
I >
ARGI e,vER-AVl i

HU SLIA RIVER AVE
LR ]
i-=
"' z
u u
~,
0 \!)
<(
..J
LR
PS
lndeptndrnc,
High lchool
Exhibit 8
LR
Land Use
RR Ru,al Rnldential

2.S g,oss acres /dwelling unit
(R Estate RHidential
I dwelling unit / net aue
SR Suburban Residential
S: 4 dwelling units /ne t aue
SR/LR
County: S: 4 dwelling unih /net
aue
City: :. 7.26 dwelling units/net
acre
LR low Density RHidential
~ 7 .26 dwelling units /net aue
lMR low Medium Den, ity
Residential
> 4 hut :. 10 dwelling units /
net aue
HMR High Mediuno Den, ity
Reiidential
> 7.76 unih but
:. 17 .42 dwelling units / net
aoe
HR High Den,ity Re,idential
> 17 .42 units bu t
s 12.6 dwelling unih /net aue
HC Highway Commercial
GC General Con1n1enial
MC Majot Con1meuial
OC Office C ommeuiol
MU( Mind Use Commercial
LI light lndu,toial
SI Serwi<e lndu shial
HI Heawf Indus.trial
P Puhli, Fo<ilttiH
PS Public,'Pf'iwate Schools
Pl Publi, lta1upo1 talion
Corridors
P-SW Solid Waste Fo<ilities
OS Ope11 Spa<e
OS-P Po.-h and Reneat ion
OS-S Slopes uceed ing 30%
R-IA Resource ·
Intensive A9ricuhure
20 acre minimum panel size
R-lA le,,ouH e ·
Extensiwe Agri<ultu, e
20 aoe minimu1u pa1ul siie
80 o<re min (William,on Act)
R-MP Resource ·
Miuuah & Peflol eun,
5 one min imum pan e l si,e
UER Urban Estate Reside-ntiol
WH tetn Rosedak- Pion
0 . .5 one net minimum pou el
sire
WM Wes t Ming Specific Plqn
l:J

BAKERSFIELD
0 t
Fee t
500
8/29/2025
1,000
RESOLUTION NO.48-25

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 21-0424 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE

DESIGNATION FROM R-IA (RESOURCE - INTENSIVE
AGRICULTURE) TO LMR (LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL) ON 28.91-

ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF MCCUTCHEN ROAD AT MOUNTAIN
VISTA DRIVE (EXTENDED).

WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates is requesting: ( 1) General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from R-IA (Resource - Intensive Agriculture) to LMR [Low-Medium Residential); (2) Cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract on 28.91-acres; (3) Exclusion of 28.91 acres from the boundaries of an Agricultural Preserve; and (4) A Mitigated Negative Declaration will also be considered. [Ward 5)
WHEREAS, adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project has been recommended; and
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Thursday, September 18, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Project as required by Government Code Section 65353, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Commission accepted public testimony both in support and opposition.

WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings:
1 . All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the proposed Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation, 30 days prior to the hearing.

2. The provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff determined that the proposal is a project under CEQA and an initial study was completed.

3. The public necessity, general welfare, and good planning practices justify the Project.

4. The Project is compatible with the land use designations and development of surrounding properties and is internally consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield Planning Commission as follows:

1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.

2. The Project is hereby recommended for approval by the City Council subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit A and located on the map as shown in Exhibit B, both of which are incorporated herein.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on September 18, 2025, on a motion by Vice-Chair Bittle and seconded Commissioner Martin, by the following vote.

AYES: Bittle, Brandt Oliver, Cater, Kaur, Martin, Neal, Strickland ABSENT: None
Exhibits (attached):

Exhibit A: Mitigation Measures
Exhibit B: Location Map

APPROVED

ADAM STRICKLAND, CHAIR
City of Bakersfield Planning Commission

Exhibit A
l:J

BAKERSFIELD
THE SOUND OF &"'1d/41,,,f '8e,/e, NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakersfield Development Services Department, Planning Division, has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment . This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures.

PROJECT NO. (or Title): General Plan Amendment No. 21 -0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: July 28, 2025
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: August 27, 2025
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to ovoid potentially significant effects, if required):

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:
l. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer shall submit documentation to the Planning Division that they are compliant with air quality control measures and rules required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The documentation shall specify that the Project has complied with the SJVAPCD's Indirect Source Rule (Rule 9510).

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

2. Prior to ground disturbance, the applicant/developer shall consult and comply with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service requirements related to listed plant and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA)

3. Prior to ground disturbance, a focused survey for burrowing owl shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Planning Division by the applicant/developer. The survey shall follow the methodology developed by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC 1993).

If the survey results identify the presence of burrowing owl nests, prior to grading (including staging , clearing, and grubbing), surveys for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no more than 30 days prior to the start of any ground disturbance and in a sufficient area around the work site to identify any nests that are present and to determine their status. A sufficient area means any nest within an area that could potentially be affected directly and/or indirectly by the project. In addition to direct impacts , such as nest destruction, nests might be affected by noise, vibration, odors, and movement of workers or equipment . If the Project applicant identifies active nests, CDFW shall be notified and recommended protocols for mitigation shall be followed, and a copy of the mitigation protocols shall be submitted to Planning Division.

S:\03_Ad vance Plonning\01 _GPAs\01 _Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA \GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-000 I MND_7.2 I .25.docx Page 1 of3 If any ground disturbing activities occur during the burrowing owl nesting season (approximately February l through August 31 ), and potential burrowing owl burrows are present within the project footprint, avoidance measures shall be implemented. In the event that burrowing owls are found, the applicant/developer shall follow CDFW protocol for mitigation and comply with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

4. The biological resource evaluation performed by Pruett Biological Resource Consulting 2024 requires mitigation measures for the Western Mastiff Bat roost detected in trees as follows:
a. A biological resource pre-activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more 30-days before the start of construction activities.
b. Biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance. c. Compliance reporting provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted. d. A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special-status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented, e. If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.
f. Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1 :1 ratio every l 00 feet.
g. Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped should be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.
h. Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater should be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.

Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

5. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period, a construction worker cultural awareness training program shall be provided to all new construction workers within one week of employment at the project site. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a qualified cultural resources specialist.

6. During construction, if cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and excavation. All reports, correspondence, and determinations regarding the discovery shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Information System's Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University Bakersfield.

7. During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code 5097.97, and Senate Bill 447 shall be followed. In the event of the discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c) shall guide Native American consultation.

S:\03_Advance P/onning\0I_GPAs\01 _Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MNDJ.21.25.docx Page2of3 Paleontological Resources Mitigation Measures:

8. During construction, if paleontological resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified paleontological resource specialist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include fossil salvage. Ground disturbance in the vicinity of the discovery site (within 50 feet) shall not resume until the resource-appropriate measures are implemented or the materials are determined to be less than significant.

Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:

9. All residential dwellings shall be Electric vehicle (EV) capable by installing a dedicated circuit within the service panel and provide a receptacle or blank cover labeled as "EV READY." Applicant will also construct on-site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along Mccutchen Road extending to the west tract boundary, ensuring no gaps in the infrastructure. This will facilitate future off-site improvements, constructed by others, that will provide access to Buena Vista Elementary School and the existing Class II Bike Lane along Buena Vista Road. Furthermore, the project will also include construction of off-site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along Mccutchen Road to the east. This will close the existing gap between the project, Independence High School, the Career and Technical Education Center, and the existing Class II Bike Lane along Old River Road.
l 0. Prior to or concurrently with the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide proof to the Planning Division of the project's participation in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program as well as payment of the adopted fees in place for the land use type at the time of development.

Agricultural Mitigation Measures:
11 . Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant/property owner shall remit the required Williamson Act cancellation fee to the California Department of Conservation. Documentation confirming payment of the cancellation fee, calculated as 12.5 percent of the land's fair market value as determined by the Kern County Assessor, shall be submitted to the Planning Division. No grading, construction, or ground disturbance shall occur until confirmation of fee payment has been received by the Planning Division.

S:\03_Advance Planning\0I_GPAs\0l_Active\2021\21--0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MNDJ.21.25.docx Page3of3

ALCAZAR
AVE >-
~
< 1-
z < ..J
0 u
GC
General Plan Amendment
21-0424
Williamson Act Cancellation
25-0001
"'er:: w w I-
>< > "'
"'ii:'

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

STORA A LVAR ET AV E
GPA21-0424
LR

TATUK WAY
:;; : ~
0 ~ 3: z :::> a: w ..J w
~ 0 >
~ CLACKAMAS RIVER AVE u er
er::
1-
w
:,.::
< ..J
HMR
LR
I

BASE NTO WAY I
I
z er::
<0
1-:-- ~
5~ o - LR ~ >
I
I-
"' er:: w
>
er::
:,.::
:::>
>-0 :,.::

YU KO N RIVER AVE
,-------- ....... :,.::

LR
< C
er::
< .., 1-
w "' :.:
<
w w
er:: >-u < LR
3: 3:
0 u '---------J

BREITEN BU SH AVE
LR
.._ ____ _, ..J ..._ ___________ ..,,.

LR

LAKE BRACC IAN O AVE
~
"' ffi ARNO RIV ER
[
>
er::
z < j'.::
er::

LN
< LR ~

HUSLIA RI V ER AVE
LR
l
I-'
"'
Ill,
z
u u
:::>
LR 0.
0 ..,
< ..J
PS
lnd,pind,nc,
High ldlool
Exhibit B
LR
Land Use
RR Ruoal Ruidenliol

2.S grou auu/dwelling unit
(R htate Re\idential
I dwelling unit / net aue
SR Suburla ■ n Residential
S: 4 dwelling unih /nel acre
SR/LR
County: S:. 4 dwelling unih / net
acre
City:,;; 7.26 dwelling unih/net
aue
LR low Density RHidential
,;; 7.26 dwelling unih /net one
LMR low Medium Oendty
Residential
> 4 but :,. 10 dwelling unit, /
net aue
HMR High Medium Density
Residentia l
> 7.76 units but
:,. J 7 .42 dwelling unit, /n•I
OU'e
HR High Oen,ity Re\idential
> 11.42 unih but
S: 72.6 dwelling unih /11et aue
HC Hi9hway Commercial
GC General Can1n1enia l
MC Ma;o, (on1m eu ial
0( OHite Commerc ial
MUC Mind Use Commercial
LI ligl1t lndu,trial
SI Service lndustt ial
HI Heavy lndu,h ial
p Public fa<ili1ie1
PS Publil/ Private Schools
PT Public T.-a11,po1 tation
Couidors
P•SW Solid Waste Fo,ilities
OS Open Spo<•
0§..P Pa,ks and Recreat ion
OS-S Slope, exceed ing 30%
lnte111ive Ag1·iculture
20 acre minimum panel sire
11-lA Ru.ouu e ·
htensive Agriculture
20 ao e minimum pauel size
80 acre min (Williams on A,t)
II-MP Resource -
Mi11e1 ab & Pehol eum
S acr e minimu m pan el size
Ulll U.-ban Estate lluidentia l
WH te,n Rosedale Platt

0.j one net minimum pane l
size
WM Wn t Ming Specific Plan
l;J

BAKERSFIELD
t
Feet
0 500 1,000
8 29 2025

PLANNING

COMMISSION
STAFF
REPORT

AK: S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\01_Hearing Documents

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: September 18, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: 6.a TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J.Eng
DATE: September 12, 2025
FILE: General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancelation 25-0001/ Exclusion from Agriculture Preserve [Document Description] STAFF PLANNER: Ashley Knight, Assistant Planner

REQUEST: A request to (1) General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from R -IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low-Medium Residential) on 28.91-acres; (2) Cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract on 28.91-acres; (3) Exclusion of 28.91 acres from the boundaries of an Agricultural Preserve; and (4) A Mitigated Negative Declaration will also be considered. (Ward 5)

APPLICANT: New Gen Engineering Group Inc. OWNER: Orr Development 2, LLC Attn: Blaine Neptune Attn: Keith Gardiner
10800 Stockdale Hwy., Suite 103 29341 Kimberlina Road
Bakersfield, CA 93311 Wasco, CA 93280

LOCATION: Northside of McCutchen Road at Mountain Vista Road APN: 541-010-23 and 541-010-27
PROJECT SIZE: 28.91 acres CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
(1) Adopt resolution ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) Adopt Resolution and suggested findings APPROVING General Plan Amendment No. 21 -0424 to change the land use designation from R -IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (low-Medium Residential); (3) Adopt Resolution Cancellation of a Williamson Act Land use Contract of the 28.91-acre site; and (4) Exclusion of 28.91-acres from the boundary of an Agricultural Preserve, and recommend the same to City Council.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site consists of two (2) contiguous undeveloped parcels previously used for agricultural. Surrounding properties are primarily developed as: north - single family residential and vacant; east – single family residential; south - agricultural; and west –vacant and . This area is in the stages of commencing grading activity for the future development of single-family residential homes.

GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001
BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:

This case was originally scheduled to be considered by your commission on May 15, 2025, following staff’s discovery of records that the project location is in an active Williamson Act Contract. When a project location is in an active Williamson Act Contract, the parcel is not permitted to change the land use or zoning to a residential designation. Therefore, the General Plan Amendment could not be considered until the Williamson Act Contract is cancelled or nonrenewed, and staff recommended that the project be “referred back to staff” to allow the applicant sufficient time to address this issue. Staff has worked with the applicant on the cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract which is before your commission for consideration at tonight’s hearing.

• February 24, 1971 – Williamson Act Contract and agricultural preserve recorded, devoting land for agricultural use. (Book 4491, Page 521)

• January 23, 1998 – Parcel Map No. 10155 was recorded.

• February 22, 2006 – Annexation No. 498 – Old River No. 3 was annexed to the City of Bakersfield to facilitate the “Old River Ranch Development” (ORRD). This project site was not part of the ORRD but was included as a portion of this annexation area to avoid creating a county island (Resolution No. 053-06).

PROJECT ANALYSIS:

The General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) request submitted by New Gen Engineering Group Inc., (applicant), on behalf of Keith Gardiner (property owner) is proposing a GPA to change the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use designation from Resource-Intensive Agriculture (R-IA) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMR), or a more restrictive designation on approximately 28.91 acres located on the north side of McCutchen Road between Buena Vista Road and Old River Road, in southwest Bakersfield [Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 541-010-23, and -27]. The project site is currently under a Williamson Act Contract and this request includes a tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract and exclusion from an agricultural preserve further described below.

The project intends to develop 147 residential lots ( pending Vesting Tentative Tract No. 7410), on approximately 28.91 acres. The residential lots range in size from 4,589 square feet (s.f.) to 11,462 s.f. and the typical lot size is approximately 50 feet wide by 103 feet deep (5,150 s.f.). The net density is 8.64 units per acre, which is consistent with the LMR designation of the project site, which is more than 4 but less than 10 dwelling units per net acre. Mountain Vista Drive will be fully constructed, extending through the project site and connecting to McCutchen Road.

Surrounding properties to the north, east, and south are also developed with single-family residential uses and undeveloped land. The project site is located within the County of Kern administrative boundary of Agricultural Preserve No. 10 and is encumbered by a Williamson Act Land Use Contract.

The project site consists of two contiguous parcels that are vacant and undeveloped. Historically, the parcels have been used for agricultural purposes.

GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001
Compatibility with Land Use Element. Staff has reviewed the proposal for compatibility with the applicable goals and policies contained within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Element and finds the following:

Goal 1: Accommodate new development which captures the economic demands generated by the marketplace and establishes Bakersfield’s role as the capital of the southern San Joaquin Valley.

The project is new residential development that captures the current residential marketplace within the southern San Joaquin Valley by providing denser but thoughtful residential development.

Goal 4: Accommodate new development which channels land uses in a phased, orderly manner and is coordinated with the provision of infrastructure and public improvements.

The necessary infrastructure and public improvements are available to accommodate residential developments or, if the project is approved, will be developed through the fair-share payment of impacts fees by the property owner. Therefore, the project is consistent with this goal.

Policy 3: Ensure that residential uses are located in proximity to commercial services, employment centers, public services, transportation routes, and recreational and cultural resources.

The proposed project site is within . 25 miles of an existing school and 1 mile from commercial services.

There are nearby employment centers as well as others throughout the city that can be easily accessed via the existing circulation system.

Policy 75: Provide adequate land area for the expansion of existing uses and development of new uses consistent with the policies of the general plan.

The project site is located on existing residential zone land near residential land uses. Therefore, adequate land is available for the project, and the project expands existing residential land uses at a similar density.

Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy.

WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT AND AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE:

Williamson Act Contract and Agricultural Preserve. The project site is subject to a Williamson Act Land Use Contract recorded on February 28, 1969 (Document 12659). Notices of nonrenewal of the Land Use Contract were filed in October 2005 for the portion of the Old River Ranch project site that excluded several outparcels. One of the property owners of the outparcels now desires to request cancellation of the Land Use Contract for two outparcel areas (project site).

The property owner has requested the cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract. This can be accomplished by paying the cancellation fee to the County Treasurer. Staff has requested that the Kern County Assessor’s Office provide an amount for the cancellation fee. The Kern County Assessor’s Office has established the fee, but the property owner is currently in negotiations with the Assessor’s Office over the fee amount.

Williamson Act Contract and Agricultural Preserve. The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, has been the state’s premier agricultural land protection program since its GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001
enactment in 1965. Nearly 16 million of California’s 30 million acres of farm and ranch land are currently protected under the Williamson Act.

The Williamson Act preserves agricultural and open space lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. The act creates an arrangement where local governments create agricultural preserves, which are areas of their jurisdiction w here landowners can enter into contracts under a standard set of rules. Once an agricultural preserve is created, a landowner within that area can choose to voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open-space uses under a minimum 9-year rolling term contract in exchange for the property’s tax assessment being based on actual use, rather than potential market value.

Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract and Agricultural Preserve: A cancellation is almost always done as a component of a larger project that will be changing the use of the land to something that is not consistent with agriculture or open space. Only the landowner can petition to cancel a contract. To approve a contract cancellation petition, a county or city must conduct a public hearing and make specific findings that are supported by substantial evidence. Because this is a discretionary action, there is frequently an associated CEQA action.

The existence of an opportunity for another use of the property is not sufficient reason for cancellation.

In addition, the uneconomic character of an existing agricultural use shall not, by itself, be a sufficient reason to cancel a contract. The landowne r must pay a cancellation fee equal to 12.5% (standard Williamson Act contract) or 25% (Farmland Security Zone contract) of the current fair market value of the property based on the determination by the county assessor.

The “Consistency” Findings (A.) Vs. The “Public Interest” Findings (B.) : Tentative cancellation may only be granted by the council if it makes one of the following findings:

A. That the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act (Chapter 7 of Title 5). City Council must make the following 5 “consistency” findings (GC 51282 b.1-5.):
(1) That the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Nonrenewal (NNR) has been served under Section 51245.
(2) That the cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. (3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan.
(4) That cancellation will not result in discontinuous patterns of development. (5) That there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put, or that the development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than the development of proximate noncontracted land.

OR
B. That the cancellation is in the public interest. City Council must make the following 2 “public interest” findings (GC 51282 c.1-2.):
(1) That other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of this chapter.

GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001
(2) That there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put, or that the development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than the development of proximate noncontracted land.
(Note: a NNR is not required for cancellation in the public interest.) Staff recommends approval of the proposed Williamson Act Land Use Contract cancellation, in accordance with the above findings, as listed under the cancellation is in the public interest category as contained in the attached draft resolution. Staff also recommends approval to petition the Kern County Planning and Resources Department to exclude from Agricultural Preserve No. 10. The intent of the Agricultural Preserve program is to conserve agricultural land and discourage premature or unnecessary conversion to urban uses. In order for property to be developed for urban or non -agricultural purposes, it must first be excluded from the Agricultural Preserve prior to the cancellation of the associated Williamson Act Land Use Contract. The subject property no longer qualifies for inclusion in the Agricultural Preserve due to its planned conversion to urban development, which is inconsistent with long-term agricultural use.

CALIFORNIA STATE HOUSING BILLS:

Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5, establishes limitations to a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects, emergency shelters, or farmworker housing that are co nsistent with objective local development standards and contribute to meeting housing need. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(3)(j), when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:

1. The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific , adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) is a process mandated by California state law that requires jurisdictions to plan for new housing to accommodate projected growth. The RHNA assigns the number of housing units that the California State Housin g and Community Development Agency (HCD) determines is necessary to build in an eight -year cycle for each jurisdiction, organized by affordability level. The project would contribute 497 -units at the moderate income level to the 5th Cycle of the Housing Element.

GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Initial Study was based on the following project-specific analysis and technical studies: aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, wildfires, and mandatory findings of significance.

The initial study determined that compliance with the recommended mitigation measures, local ordinances, state laws, and construction to the standards of the Uniform Building Codes will reduce impacts to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation measures for biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, traffic and agriculture were identified. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND was circulated for a 30-day public and agency review period starting July 28, 2025, through August 27, 2025 (SCH No. 2025031371).

Comments Received. As of this writing, three comment letters have been received for the Initial Study.

Staff’s responses are as follows:

The first comment letter was submitted by Janine McC oy, a resident in the River Crossings Community.

Staff’s responses are as follows:

1. Comment: While I understand and support the need for growth and development, my support is contingent upon these new homes not causing any depreciation in the value of my property. As a homeowner, maintaining the integrity and value of my investment is of utmost importance to me.

Response: The City acknowledges concerns regarding property values. While the City does not regulate real estate pricing, it does implement land use planning and zoning practices intended to ensure that developments are consistent with the General Plan and compatible with surrounding land uses. The project applicant is required to comply with all adopted development standards, including landscaping, traffic mitigation, and architectural guidelines. These measures are intended to promote neighborhood quality and minimize potential adverse effects on adjacent properties.

2. Comment: I respectfully request to be notified of any upcoming public hearings, planning meetings, or decisions related to these developments.

Response: Your request to be notified of future hearings and planning-related actions concerning this project has been noted. Please ensure your contact information is current with the Planning Division.

The second comment letter was submitted by the Department of Conservation Land Resource Protection are as follows:

GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001

1. Comment: The project site contains Prime Farmland as designated by the Department’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The Department requests the environmental review include a discussion of direct and indirect farmland conversion, potential land us e conflicts, cumulative impacts, and any local agricultural mitigation programs or policies. The Department also recommends the consideration of agricultural conservation easements or other feasible mitigation measures.

Response: The City acknowledges the Department of Conservation’s role in monitoring agricultural land conversion and appreciates the input provided. The subject site is designated Resource - Intensive Agriculture in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and is cur rently zoned R -1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) for residential uses, while also being under a Williamson Act contract as part of an agricultural preserve. The General Plan Amendment and Williamson Act Contract cancellation request propose a change to Lo w Medium Density Residential in accordance with regional growth strategies and the City’s long-term housing goals.

It is noted that the project site encompasses approximately 28.91 acres, which represents less than

0.004% of Kern County’s total 866,127 acres of harvested crops reported in 2022. While the site is under a Williamson Act contract, it is not subject to a s eparate conservation easement. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was previously adopted in 2006 for this site, which found the conversion impact to be less than significant, and an MND is currently being considered for the present General Plan Amendment/Williamson Act Contract cancellation.

In regard to mitigation, the City has determined that the scope and scale of this conversion does not constitute a significant regional impact under CEQA Guidelines §15206(b), which pertains to the conversion of more than 100 acres of Williamson Act land. As such, the City will not be requiring agricultural conservation easements or payment of mitigation fees in this case.

Nevertheless, the City respects the Department’s guidance and will continue to review such recommendations on a case -by-case basis. Should similar projects of a larger magnitude be proposed in the future, more comprehensive farmland mitigation strategies may be considered in accordance with state guidelines and local planning policies.

The Department’s request to be notified of future hearings and staff reports has been noted and will be accommodated accordingly.

The third comment letter was submitted by Lozeau | Drury LLP on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER). Staff’s responses are as follows:

1. Comment: The commenter asserts that the project may result in significant environmental impacts requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) rather than adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).

Response: The City has determined that preparation of an EIR is not required. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§15070 –15071, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate where feasible mitigation reduces potential impacts to less than significant. Substanti al evidence in the record supports the conclusion that impacts will be mitigated to less than significant levels.

2. Comment: Concerns are raised regarding the conversion of farmland, including land currently under a Williamson Act contract, and the adequacy of mitigation for direct, indirect, and cumulative farmland impacts.

GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001
Response: The project site is under a Williamson Act contract; however, cancellation is being processed under the “public interest” findings of Government Code §51282(c). The approximately

28.91-acre conversion represents less than 0.004% of Kern County’s total harvested acreage and does not constitute a significant regional impact under CEQA Guidelines §15206(b).

3. Comment: The commenter states that the project will generate Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in excess of state thresholds and that the proposed mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

Response: The project incorporates feasible mitigation measures, including EV -capable infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, participation in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee program, and the extension of Mountain Vista Drive from McCutchen Road to Panama Lane, which improves circulation and reduces trip lengths. CEQA requires feasible mitigation, not elimination of VMT impacts.

4. Comment: The letter identifies air quality impacts, including construction and operational emissions, and alleges that the MND does not adequately address cumulative effects on sensitive receptors.

Response: The MND’s technical studies used standard CEQA methodologies, including CalEEMod, to quantify emissions. No substantial evidence demonstrates that project -related emissions will exceed adopted thresholds after mitigation. Disagreement with methodology does not constitute substantial evidence of a significant effect.

5. Comment: The commenter raises concerns related to hazards, including potential contamination from past agricultural use and possible impacts to future residents.

Response: Hazards and hazardous materials were evaluated using standard CEQA protocols.

Mitigation measures require assessment and, if necessary, remediation of agricultural residues such as pesticides or arsenic in soils prior to residential development. With these measures, impacts are reduced to less than significant.

6. Comment: The letter asserts that the project may result in indoor air quality impacts related to formaldehyde and other emissions from building materials, and states that these impacts have not been adequately addressed in the MND.

Response: Compliance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) formaldehyde standards ensures that indoor air emissions remain within applicable regulatory limits. CEQA does not require addressing speculation beyond these existing regulatory requirements.

7. Comment: The commenter claims that substantial evidence exists in the record to support a “fair argument” of significant environmental effects, thereby requiring preparation of an EIR under CEQA.

Response: The City has reviewed the entire record and determined that, with the mitigation measures identified, no substantial evidence exists that the project will result in significant unmitigated impacts. Additionally, the Old River EIR (SCH No. 2005031113) evaluated cumulative and regional impacts for this area, including transportation, air quality, and farmland conversion, and found them less than significant with mitigation. The current project is consistent with those GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001
assumptions and does not result in new or more severe impacts. Accordingly, preparation of an EIR is not required.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in The Bakersfield Californian on September 5 , 2025 . All property owners within a 1000 -foot radius of the project site typically receive mailing notices of the public hearing. However, if the number of owners exceeds one thousand, as is the case with this proposal, in lieu of mailed notice, notice may be provided by placing a display advertisement of at least one- eighth page in the newspaper ten days prior to the hearing (BMC

17.64.050.B.4). This notification process adheres to both city ordinance and state law.

Comments Received. One comment letter was submitted to the City during the public hearing circulation period.

The following comment letter was submitted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

Staff’s responses are as follows:

1. Comment: CDFW notes that the Project site is within the geographic range of several special - status species and expresses concern about whether proposed mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce impacts to less than significant or avoid unauthorized take.

Response: The City acknowledges CDFW’s trustee and responsible agency role and has reviewed the biological resource evaluation prepared for the Project. The MND incorporates mitigation measures for special -status species, including preconstruction surveys, avoidance buffers, and consultation with appropriate agencies, ensuring that potential impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels.

2. Comment: CDFW states that the Project is within the known range of the San Joaquin kit fox and recommends enhanced preconstruction surveys, no-disturbance buffers, and potential incidental take authorization if avoidance is not feasible.

Response: The City concurs that San Joaquin kit fox are present in the Bakersfield area. Mitigation Measure 4 in the MND requires preconstruction surveys consistent with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocols and includes procedures for avoidance and cons ultation if dens are discovered. These measures are consistent with CDFW’s recommendations and ensure compliance with CESA and the federal Endangered Species Act.

3. Comment: CDFW states that the Project is within the range of Swainson’s hawk and that suitable nesting and foraging habitat exists in the area. CDFW recommends preconstruction surveys, seasonal avoidance buffers, potential incidental take authorization, and compensatory mitigation for foraging habitat loss.

Response: The City acknowledges the presence of Swainson’s hawk within the region. The MND requires preconstruction surveys consistent with the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000) guidance and implementation of appropriate no -disturbance buffers. The City GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001
will coordinate with CDFW if active nests are detected, and mitigation for foraging habitat will be considered consistent with CDFW’s 1994 Staff Report.

4. Comment: CDFW notes that the Project area may contain suitable habitat for the western burrowing owl, which is currently a candidate for listing under CESA. CDFW recommends updated preconstruction surveys, avoidance buffers, and potential incidental take authorization if avoidance is not feasible.

Response: The MND includes Mitigation Measure 3 requiring preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl using the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If active or inactive burrows are identified, avoidance buffers or consultation with CDFW will be imple mented. These measures ensure compliance with CESA candidate protections.

5. Comment: CDFW identifies the Project area as within the known range of Crotch’s bumble bee, a candidate for listing under CESA, and recommends site -specific habitat assessments, focused surveys, and consultation if presence is confirmed.

Response: While the biological resource evaluation did not identify suitable habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee, the City acknowledges CDFW’s recommendations. If future surveys indicate potential habitat on-site, consultation with CDFW will occur, and appropriate avoi dance or minimization measures will be implemented.

6. Comment: CDFW identifies the potential for other species of special concern such as the Tulare grasshopper mouse and California glossy snake and recommends habitat assessments, preconstruction surveys, and avoidance measures.

Response: The MND requires preconstruction biological surveys to evaluate potential special - status species habitat. If these species are observed, construction activities will be adjusted to avoid disturbance, including use of appropriate buffers and relocation by a qualified biologist.

7. Comment: CDFW provides editorial comments regarding nesting birds, recommending surveys and buffers during the breeding season to avoid take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code.

Response: The MND includes Mitigation Measure 2 requiring preconstruction nesting bird surveys if construction occurs during the breeding season. Buffers consistent with CDFW recommendations will be applied to avoid nest disturbance, ensuring compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code.

8. Comment: CDFW requests that any detections of special-status species during surveys be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).

Response: The City acknowledges this request. Project biologists will submit species occurrence data to the CNDDB in accordance with CDFW guidance.

GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001

9. Comment: CDFW notes that the Project will have an impact on fish and/or wildlife and that CEQA filing fees will be required at the time of the Notice of Determination.

Response: The City acknowledges that CEQA filing fees will be paid in compliance with Fish and Game Code §711.4 and CEQA Guidelines §753.5 at the time of the Notice of Determination.

CONCLUSIONS:

Consistency with Surrounding Development. The project is designed to introduce a low-medium density residential use that complements the prevailing single-family residential development in the vicinity.

Consistency with General Plan/Zoning Ordinance . The proposal is consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan related to residential development, as noted above. Should the applicant submit site development plans, they will be reviewed for compliance with requirements an d regulations as set forth in the Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) and City Development Standards.

Recommendation. Staff finds that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area, land use designation, and zoning ordinance.

Therefore, staff recommends your Commission: (1) Adopt Resolution ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) Adopt Resolution APPROVING general plan amendment to change the land use designation from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low-Medium Residential); (3) Adopt Resolution Cancellation a Williamson Act Land Use Contract on the 28.91-acre site; and (4) Exclusion of 28.91 acres from the boundaries of an Agricultural Preserve, and recommend the same to City Council.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: Map Set
• GPA/WAC Aerial
• GPA/WAC Zone Classification
• GPA/WAC General Plan Designation
Attachment B: Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments Attachment C: Planning Commission Draft Resolutions
• Adopt MND with Attachments
• Approve GPA with Attachments
• Adopt WAC with Attachments
Attachment D: Comments

STUDIES

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 4 of 46 INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

1. Project (Title & No.): General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424 Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001

2. Lead Agency (name and address): City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301

3. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Ashley Knight, Assistant Planner (661) 326-3673

4. Project Location: The project is located on two contiguous parcels totaling approximately 28.91 acres (APN: 541- 010-23 and 541-010-27 in southwest, Bakersfield, California. The Project site is located on the northside of McCutchen Road between Buena Vista Road and Old River Road.

5. Applicant (name and address): New Gen Engineering Group Inc.

Attn: Isabella Herrera
10800 Stockdale Hwy., Suite 103
Bakersfield, CA 93311

6. General Plan Designation: R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture)

7. Zoning: R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) Zone

8. Description of Project
(describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.):

Keith Gardiner (property owner), through his representative New Gen Engineering Group Inc. (applicant), is requesting the cancellation of a Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract on approximately 28.91 acres located on the north side of McCutchen Road between Buena Vista Road and Old River Road, in southwest Bakersfield [Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 541-010-23 and -27].

The cancellation is being requested in conjunction with a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land use designation of the site from Resource -Intensive Agriculture (R -IA) to Low-Medium Density Residential (LMR), or a more restrictive designation, under the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The project site is currently encumbered by an active Williamson Act contract, which restricts the use of the land to agricultural purposes.

The cancellation is necessary to facilitate the development of 147 single -family residential lots (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7410) across the 28.91- acre project site. The proposed lots will range in size from 4,589 square feet to 11,462 square feet, with a typical lot size of approximately 5,150 square feet. The net density of the proposed development is 8.64 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the LMR designation. The project will include the full construction of Mountain Vista Drive, which will traverse the site and connect to McCutchen Road, providing circulation and access for future residents.

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 5 of 46 Cancellation of the Williamson Act contract is being pursued in accordance with state law, based on findings that the proposed use is consistent with the City's General Plan and that cancellation is in the public interest.

9. Environmental setting (briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses):

The project site consists of two contiguous parcels that are vacant and undeveloped. Historically the parcels have been used for agricultural purposes.

Surrounding properties are primarily developed as: north - single family residential and vacant; east – single family residential; south - agricultural; and west – currently vacant however there is a tentative tract map (T7042) for single family residential. This area is in the stages to commence grading activity for future development of single family residential homes.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement):

Agency Approvals and Decisions
Subsequent City of Bakersfield Approvals
Development Services
Department and Public Works
• Issue grading permits.
• Issue building permits.
• Accept public right-of-way dedications.
• Approve road improvement plans.
• Issue encroachment permits.
• Approve proposed sewer connections and
improvements.

Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits
Regional Water Quality Control
Board
• Issue a Construction Activity General Construction
Permit.
• Confirm Compliance with National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and
Waste Discharge Requirements.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District
• Approve Indirect Source Rule compliance
California Water Service
Company Bakersfield district
• Approve proposed water connections and
improvements.

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 6 of 46 General Plan Amendment 21-0424
Williamson Act Cancellation 25-000 l
AERIAL
~

BAKERSFIELD
0 t
Feet
500
11 /22/2024
1,000

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 7 of 46 General Plan Amendment 21-0424
Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001
!RONIOOTHAVE
AlUZARAVE

QUENTUIAVE
LR
GPA 21-0424
WAC 25-0001
R-IAto LMR
HMR
~
~ >
i "
LR
-,-
' J; ARNORIVERlN
~
= ;
'
LR
~HID AQU~IK K )D Career
{Ot\PLEX ariii chnical
Eduw, nCenter
LR
P.S
Independence
H'gh !.i:hool
Land Use

RESIDENTIAL
HMI . HighMdiumD, n,ity
□ lts icltnTiol,> 1.1iun~1but S

11.47dw1llinguni1J/1tt 1r11
CJ \176 t;;,~~-~s::~;/~;::::~, s

COMMERCIAL
- 6C - 6tm1l(omm,nial

PUBLICFACILIIIES
c:J ~ •MlkjPrivo11Kh1oh
moum
~

BAKERSFIELD
t
Feet
0 500 1,000
11 /22/2024

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 8 of 46 General Plan Amendment 21 -0424
Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001
R-1
R-2ZP.U.D.

Zoning
Commerdol Zone Designation5
- (·1/'-CQ.Combinin;
l!esidentia lZone Duign otions
c:J l •IOn1familyDwollin1
l-t/P.U.D.Combinin1
1-1/P.U.D.ComHling
~

BAKERSFIELD
0 t
Feet
500
11 /22/2024
1,000
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 9 of 46 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

As in
dicated by the checklist on the following pages, the project would result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the environmental factors checked below (Impacts reduced to a less than significant level through the incorporation of mitigation are not considered potentially significant.):
□ A est
hetics □ Agricultural Resources □ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Geology / Soils □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions □ Hazards & Hazardous Materials □ Hydrology / Water Quality □ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise
□ Population / Housing □ Public Services □ Recreation
□ Transportation / Traffic □ Utilities / Service Systems □ Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

On t
he basis of this initial evaluation:
□ I fi
nd that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration will be prepared.
■ I fi
nd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, t here will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A mitigated negative declaration will be prepared. □ I fi
nd that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental impact report is required.
□ I fi
nd that the proposed project may have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect has be en (1) adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An environmental impact report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
□ I fi
nd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been (1) analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration pursuant to appl icable legal standards, and (2) avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
7/
21/25
Sig nature Date
A sh
ley Knight
Prin ted name

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 10 of 46 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identi fy which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and ad equately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 11 of 46 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

I. AESTHETICS: Would the project;

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?

Discussion

a. Less-than-significant impact. A viewshed is the geographical area that is visible from a location.

Scenic vistas often refer to views of natural lands within a viewshed but may also be compositions of natural and developed areas, or even entirely of developed and unnatural areas, such as a scenic vista of a rural town and surrounding agricultural lands. The project is located on a major arterial (McCutchen Road ) and within 0.5 miles to two other arterials (Buena Vista Road and Old River Drive). The viewshed from the project site to the north, east and west is comprised of single-family residential communities and vacant land. The viewshed directly to the south is land currently used as agriculture.

The project location is considered generally flat at about 345 feet above mean sea level (Pruett 2024). There are no local vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements, or design criteria that are applicable to the project.

Additionally, the area is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) as being visually important or designated “scenic.” The construction and development of the project would be consistent with the existing neighborhood commercial development surrounding the site therefore, the project would not have substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts are less than significant.

b. No impact. There are no rock outcrops or historic buildings located at the project site. The project does not conflict with any local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan regarding the trees that are on site. Additionally, the project is not located adjacent to or near any officially designated or potentially eligible scenic highways to be listed on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System (Caltrans 2017). The closest section of highway eligible for state scenic highway designation is State Route (SR) 33 (Caltrans 2017) located in Kern County about 32 miles to the southwest. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 12 of 46 c. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to responses I.a, I.b, and I.d. As described, the project site is compatible with existing urban land . Therefore, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings , and impacts are less than significant.

d. Less-than-significant impact. This project involves incremental urban growth within the City of Bakersfield’s jurisdiction. This project would be required to comply with City development standards, including Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 17 Zoning, Title 15 Buildings and Construction, and the California Code of Regulations Title 24 (Building Standards Code).

Together, these local and state requirements oblige project compliance with current lighting standards that minimize unwanted light or glare to spill over into neighboring properties.

Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project;

a. Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?

d. Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest?

e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Discussion

1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 13 of 46 a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated . The proposed project site consists of approximately 28.91 acres of land designated as “Prime Farmland” by the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). Although the site is classified as Resource -Intensive Agriculture (R -IA) under the current land use designation, the zoning classification is Single -Unit Dwelling (R-1). The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation to Low Medium Density Residential (LMR) to align with the existing zoning and facilitate the development of 147 residential lots. This change would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland to non -agricultural use, representing a potentially significant impact.

The site, however, is situated within an area that has transitioned rapidly from agricultural production to residential development. Surrounding the property, there are established and developing residential neighborhoods to the north, east, and west, while the land to the south remains in agricultural use but is already zoned for future residential development. The proposed project would act as an infill development, blending into the existing community and aligning with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) growth strategy. The MBGP acknowledges that farmland conversion is an unavoidable consequence of urban expansion, but it encourages infill development to reduce the outward spread of development into larger, contiguous agricultural areas.

The site itself has not been actively farmed in recent years, and the irrigation infrastructure has been removed. While the land is currently under a Williamson Act contract, it is no longer viable for long-term agricultural use due to its lack of active cultivation and proximity to existing urban development. The proposed cancellation of the contract reflects this shift in land use potential.

The site's location near existing urban services , such as water, sewer, and roads , makes it well- suited for residential development without the need for significant infrastructure expansion.

Additionally, given California’s ongoing housing crisis, the development of new housing units directly addresses a critical state need, helping to alleviate pressure on housing supply and affordability (McIntosh & Associates, 2025).

The City of Bakersfield’s General Plan policies, which consider land use transitions and buffer requirements to mitigate conflicts between residential and agricultural uses, further supports the suitability of this land use change. Therefore, although farmland conversion remains a serious consideration, the proposed project aligns with regional growth patterns and broader policy goals, making the impact on agricultural resources less severe within the overall planning framework. While the permanent loss of Prime Farmland is potentially significant, the context of the site within an increasingly urbanized area, the absence of ongoing agricultural production, and the demonstrated need for housing collectively reduce the impact to a less -than-significant with mitigation incorporated.

b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated . The Project site is currently zoned R -1 (Single- Unit Dwelling) for residential uses, which is not an agricultural zone; however, the property is currently under a Williamson Act contract (McIntosh & Associates, 2025). As such, the proposed development would require cancellation of the contract prior to construction. While the zoning does not support agricultural uses, the presence of the Williamson Act contract means the Project must demonstrate consistency with state requirements for cancellation and ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are implemented to address the loss of contracted agricultural land. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning or a Williamson Act contract, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

1:1 .......,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 14 of 46 c. No impact. As discussed in II.b, the Project site is zoned for residential uses . The proposed land use change would provide for residential density throughout the Project site. There are no forest lands, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production lands on the Project site or in the nearby vicinity. Therefore, the P roject would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.

d. No impact. As discussed in II.c, t here are no forestlands on the Project site. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non- forest.

e. No impact. Please refer to responses II.a through II.d . This project proposes to change the existing land use designation to residential which coincide s with the surrounding existing residential area designated for urban development by the General Plan. There are no agricultural or forestlands in proximity to the P roject that would experience conflicts in operation due to the proposed development.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

III. AIR QUALITY:

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

Discussion

a. Less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated . The project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District ( “SJVAPCD”), as such, air quality impacts from the Project are controlled through policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the General Plan. The SJVAPCD has adopted an Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) and is required to submit a “Rate of Progress” document to the California Air Resources Board ( “CARB”) that demonstrates past and planned progress toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants.

1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 15 of 46 The SJVAPCD requires local jurisdictions to design all developments in ways that reduce air pollution from vehicles, which is the largest single category of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley and from other stationary sources. They do so through the permitting authority under the New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule (Rule 2201) and the Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate (Rule 2010). Other regulation s and policy that require compliance with air quality strategies for new residential and commercial developments include, but are not limited to, Title 24 efficiency standards, Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards, 2005 building energy efficiency standards, Assembly Bill 1493 motor vehicle standards, and compliance with the General Plan Air Quality Conservation Element.

A Small Project Analysis Level Assessment (SPAL) ( Trinity, July 2024) was conducted for the proposed Project. The study concluded that the proposed emissions from the Project are below the SJVAPCD’s established emissions impact thresholds, and that the primary source of emissions from the Project will be motor vehicles that are licensed through the State of California and whose emissions are already incorporated into the CARB San Joaquin Valley Emissions Inventory.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, the applicable air quality plan.

As shown in the following table, the SJVAPCD has established specific criteria pollutants thresholds of significance for the operation of specific projects.

SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant/Precursor
Construction-Related
Emissions Operational Emissions
Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy) Emissions
(tpy)
Carbon Monoxide
(CO2) 100 100 100
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 10 10 10
Reactive Organic Gass
(ROG) 10 10 10
Sulfur Oxides (Sox) 27 27 27
Particulate Matter, less
than 10 microns (PM
10)
15 15 15
Particulate Matter, less
than 2.5 microns (PM

2.5)
15 15 15
Source: Trinity, July 2024

Construction of the project would result in air pollutant emissions. Emissions from construction would result from fuel combustion and exhaust from equipment as well as vehicle traffic, grading, and the use of toxic materials (e.g., lubricants). The following table provides estimated construction emissions from the project. It was assumed in developing construction emission calculations that: 1) exposed areas would be watered three times per day and 2) construction vehicle speeds would be reduced to less than 15 miles per hour. 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 16 of 46 Construction Emissions
Construction Year Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2026 Construction Emissions 0.26 2.28 2.67 0.01 0.30 0.17 2027 Construction Emissions 0.16 1.30 1.94 0.00 0.11 0.06 2028 Construction Emissions 0.15 1.24 1.92 0.00 0.11 0.05 2029 Construction Emissions 2.37 0.48 0.78 0.00 0.04 0.02 Max Construction Emissions 0.26 2.28 2.67 0.01 0.30 0.17 SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Trinity, July 2024

As shown in the above table, construction emissions are not predicted to exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds levels.

Project operations would also result in air pollutant emissions. The main source of emissions would be from vehicular traffic associated with the Project site. The following table provides estimated operational emissions from the project.

Operational Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 0.76 0.80 6.97 0.02 1.64 0.42
Area 3.34 0.08 2.13 0.00 0.20 0.19
Energy 0.02 0.26 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02
Water - - - - - -
Waste - - - - - -
Refrigerant - - - - - -
Max Operational Emissions 4.12 1.14 9.22 0.02 1.86 0.64 SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Threshold Exceeded? No No No N/A No No
Source: Trinity, July 2024

As shown in the above table, operational emissions are also not predicted to exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds levels. Because the project develops more than 2,000 square feet of residential space, it must comply with the SJVAPCD’s Indirect Source Rule ( “ISR”) (Rule 9510).

Mitigation Measure 1 requires that the project comply with SJVAPCD air quality control measures and rules, including the ISR . Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

b. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to response III.a. Under SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts ( “GAMAQI”; SJVAPCD 2015), any project that would have individually significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have significant cumulative air quality impacts. Impacts of local pollutants are cumulatively significant when the combined emissions from the project and other planned projects exceed air quality standards.

1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 17 of 46 Additionally, the GAMAQI, citing CEQA Guidelines Section15064(h)(3), states on page 66 that “[a] Lead Agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located” (SJVAPCD 2015).

Because the air quality modeling indicates that project’s regional contribution to cumulative impacts would be negligible and the project would comply with the requirements of the SJVAPCD attainment plans and rules, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Based on these anticipated activity levels, the Project construction activities would not exceed construction thresholds. Therefore, construction emissions were found to be less than significant impact.

c. Less-than-significant impact. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved that expose sensitive receptors to sustained exposure to any pollutants present. The proposed Project is located on the north side of McCutchen Road between Buena Vista Road and Old River Road . Sensitive receptors are defined as areas where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside. Schools, hospitals, nursing homes and daycare centers are locations where sensitive receptors would likely reside. The closest sensitive receptors are the surrounding residential uses and Independence High School located one half mile east of the proposed Project site. There is a daycare approximately one mile to the northwest. There are no known nursing homes or hospitals within a one -mile radius of the Project. Based on the predicted operational emissions and activity types, the proposed Project is not expected to affect any on -site or off-site sensitive receptors and is not expected to have any adverse impacts on any known sensitive receptor (Trinity, July 2024) . Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts are less than significant.

d. Less-than-significant impact. The proposed Project consists of residential uses that do not include activities listed in Table 6 of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts are less than significant.
1:1 .......,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 18 of 46 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project;

a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?

Discussion

a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The Project site has the potential to result in significant impacts to some special- status wildlife species, but no listed special- status plant species were found on the site during reconnaissance-level surveys for the Project (Pruett, 2024).

The reconnaissance -level survey performed by Pruett Biological Resource Consulting 2024 requires mitigation measure 4 as follows:

• A biological resource pre -activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more that 30-days before the start of construction activities. • Biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance. • Compliance reporting provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted. • A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special- status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented, 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 19 of 46 • If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.
• Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet.
• Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped should be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.
• Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater should be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.

Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

b. No impact. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities located at the site (Pruett, 2024). This Project is also not located within, or adjacent to, the Kern River riparian habitat area. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.

c. No impact. There are no wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, located at the Project site, and no features identified as wetlands categories are found in the National Wetlands Inventory within the Project area ( Pruett, 2024). Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands.

d. Less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated . It was concluded that the Project would not interfere with wildlife movement ( Pruett, 2024). The Project is not within the Kern River floodplain or along a canal which has been identified by the USFWS as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. There is the potential during construction to temporarily affect nursery sites such as dens and burrows. Project construction could cause the direct destruction of a nursery site or cause enough of an indirect disturbance to cause special- status wildlife to abandon a nursery site.

However, Mitigation Measures as identified in IV.a would reduce potential impacts to nursery sites. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures the Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

e. Less-than-significant impact. It was concluded that the Project site does not contain any biological resources that are protected by local policies or ordinances protecting any biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (Pruett, 2024). Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to responses IV.a, IV.d, and IV.e.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

1:1 .......,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 20 of 46 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project;

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion

a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated . A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey ( Hudlow, 2024) was completed for the Project by a qualified cultural resources specialist. It has been concluded that the Project site does not contain historical resources but has potential to find historical resources during construction ( Hudlow, 2022). Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 5, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. It has been concluded that the Project site does not contain any known archaeological resources (Hudlow, 2022). However, there is still the potential to unearth previously unknown archaeological resources at the site, and grading and other ground -disturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources.

Mitigation Measure 4 requires that construction workers are provided with cultural awareness training. Mitigation Measure 5 requires ceasing work and investigating any discovery in the event that previously unknown archaeological resources are unearthed during construction. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4 and 5, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource , and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. There are no known human remains found at the Project site ( Hudlow, 2022). The Project could inadvertently uncover or damage previously unknown human remains. Mitigation Measure 6 requires that if any human remains are found at the site during construction, work would cease and the remains would be handled pursuant to applicable law. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 6, the Project would not significantly disturb any human remains, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated .

1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 21 of 46 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

VI. ENERGY: Would the project;

a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?

b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

Discussion

a. Less than significant impact. Project construction would require temporary energy demands typical of other residential projects that occur throughout the state and this development’s construction would not result in inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources beyond typical residential construction. All new construction within the City of Bakersfield must adhere to adopted building standards, including California Code of Regulations Title 24, which outlines energy efficiency standards for new residential buildings to ensure that they do not wastefully, inefficiently, or unnecessarily consume energy. Therefore, the project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation and the impacts are less than significant.

b. Less than significant impact. There is no adopted plan by the City of Bakersfield for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As mentioned above, all new development projects within the City are required to adhere to adopted building standards related to energy efficiency. Additionally, the City encourages applicants and developers to go beyond the required standards and make their developments even more efficient through programs such as LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, which is a green building rating system that provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient, and cost -saving green buildings. Other encouraged programs available to applicants and developers are Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards and 2005 building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and the impacts are less than significant.
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 22 of 46 Discussion

a. The following discusses the potential for the project to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects because of various geologic hazards. The City is within a seismically active area.

According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan , major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these major active fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge -Kern County, Garlock, Pond Poso, and White Wolf faults. There are numerous additional smaller faults suspected to occur within the Bakersfield area, which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge -Kern County) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project;
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on - or off -
site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
~
□
~
□
□
□
□
~
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 23 of 46 i. No Impact. Ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of a fault during an earthquake. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map (California Geological Survey) , the project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.

ii. Less than significant impact. The City is within a seismically active area. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (specifically Seismic Zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake construction standards. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking, and impacts are less than significant.

iii. Less than significant impact. The most common seismic -related ground failure is liquefaction and lateral spreading. In both cases, during periods of ground motion caused by an event such as an earthquake, loose materials transform from a solid state to near -liquid state because of increased pore water pressure. Such ground failure generally requires a high water table and poorly draining soils in order for such ground failure to occur. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Web Soil Survey (Natural Resources Conservation Service) shows the site contains Kimberlina soil at a 0 to 2 percent slope.

The project site is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides.

Public supply wells in Kern County are at depths between 600 and 800 feet below land surface (USGS 2016) and therefore, groundwater levels are not close enough to the ground surface to result in sufficiently saturated soils suitable for liquefaction. As a result, the potential for liquefaction at the project site is low. In addition, future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, and impacts are less than significant.

iv. No impact. In Kern County, the common types of landslides induced by earthquake occur on steeper slopes found in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon; in these areas, landslides are generally associated with bluff and stream bank failure, rockslide, and slope slip on steep slopes. The project site is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade . Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides.

b. Less than significant impact. Construction of the site would temporarily disturb soils, which could loosen soil however during operation, the soils would be paved over with impervious surfaces such that the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion. In addition, the relatively low precipitation in the project area (on average about 7 to 10 inches/year) results in surface runoff that is intermittent and temporary in nature. The erosion potential at the site, low average rainfall, and the fact that the soils are well drained does not make the project site susceptible to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts are less than significant .

1:1 .......,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 24 of 46 c. Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the project site’s soils would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides.

Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low -density materials that collapse and compact under the addition of water or excessive loading. Future structures proposed on the Project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, and impacts are less than significant.

d. Less-than-significant impact. The soils identified on site, primarily Kimberlina fine sandy loam , do not have a high potential to be expansive. Additionally, future structures proposed on the Project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property , and the impacts are less than significant.

e. No impact. The project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because the project would connect to existing City sewer services in the area.

Therefore, there would be no impacts related to soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.

f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Due to the presence of alluvial deposits, there is the potential to unearth previously unknown paleontological resources at the site, and grading and other ground -disturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources.

Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 8, the project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature , and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project;

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

Discussion

a. Less than significant impact. The project would generate an incremental contribution and, when combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases (“ GHG”), could contribute to global climate change impacts. Although the project is expected to emit GHG, the emission of GHG by a single project into the atmosphere is not itself necessarily an adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased accumulation of GHG from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change. The 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 25 of 46 resultant consequences of that climate change can cause adverse environmental effects. A project’s GHG emissions typically would be relatively very small in comparison to state or global GHG emissions and, consequently, they would, in isolation, have no significant direct impact on climate change. Therefore, a project’s GHG emissions and the resulting significance of potential impacts are more properly assessed on a cumulative basis.

On September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (“AB 32”), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 was enacted by the State of California which charges the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) with responsibility to monitor, regulate, and reduce GHG emissions. CARB defined the 1990 baseline emissions for California and adopted that baseline as the 2020 statewide emissions cap. In order for Projects to conform with the goals of AB 32, at least a 29% reduction of GHG emissions from Business- as-Usual (“BAU”) must be achieved. Subsequent legislation by the California legislature included Senate Bill (SB) 32, which expanded upon AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 levels by 2030. Senate Bill 100 which was signed by the Governor recently requires 100% zero -carbon electricity by 2045. On the day SB 100 was signed into law, the Governor also signed Executive Order B -55-18 which commits California to total, economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. T he 2009 guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today's standards which propose a grand vision that, if achieved, would fundamentally change how business is conducted and citizens live in the State.

For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in Table 5 -3 are primarily for disclosure purposes. The Project's largest contributors to GHG emissions are from electricity and exhaust from transportation fuels. Electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by requiring providers and importers of electricity and fuel to participate in the GHG Cap- and-Trade Program and other Programs (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, renewable portfolio standard, etc.). Each sector -wide program exists within the framework of AB 32 and its descendant laws the purpose of which is to achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons) CO2
Emissions
CH4
Emissions
N20
Emissions
Refrigerant
Emissions
CO2E
Emissions
Total Project
Operations
2,156 1.91 0.09 3.26 2,233
Total Project
Operations -
Mitigated
2,123 1.91 0.08 3.26 2,199
Source: Trinity, July 2024

The Project would generate GHGs from electricity use and combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near the top of the supply- chain. As such, each citizen of California (including those creating emissions of this Project) will have no choice but to purchase electricity and fuels produced in a way that is acceptable to the California market. Thus, Project GHG emissions will be consistent with the relevant plan (i.e., AB 32 Scoping Plan). The Project would meet its fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative impact of global climate change based on energy purchases from the California market. Thus, consumers of electricity and transportation fuels are in effect regulated by higher level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on applicable GHG reduction plans and the Project's contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, impacts are less than significant .

1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 26 of 46 b. Less than significant impact. CARB is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. As proposed, the Project would not conflict with any statewide policy, regional plan, or local guidance or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The Project would not interfere with the implementation of AB 32 and SB 375 because it would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction targets identified by CARB and the Scoping Plan. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project; a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

Discussion

a. Less than significant impact. The project proposes to develop a 147 unit single family residential project and therefore, does not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. Construction activities would require the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials such as fuels and greases for the fueling/servicing of construction equipment and fuel tanks, and there is the potential for upset and accident conditions that could release such material into the 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 27 of 46 environment. Such substances would be stored in temporary storage tanks/sheds that would be located at the site. Although these types of materials are not acutely hazardous, they are classified as hazardous materials and create the potential for accidental spillage, which could expose construction workers. All transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials used in the construction of the project would be in strict accordance with federal and state laws and regulations. During construction of the project, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all applicable materials present at the site would be made readily available to onsite personnel.

During construction, non-hazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of at approved facilities for handling such waste. Also, during construction, waste disposal would be managed using portable toilets located at reasonably accessible onsite locations.

Day-to-day activities from the Project operations do not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. Maintenance of residential buildings would require the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides.

Building tenants are required to follow any instructions for use and storage provided on product labels carefully to prevent any accidents in the workplace. Users should also read product labels for disposal directions to reduce the risk of products exploding, igniting, leaking, mixing with other chemicals, or posing other hazards on the way to a disposal facility. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts are less than significant.

b. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response VIX.a. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment , and impacts are less than significant.

c. Less than significant impact. The project site is approximately 0.2 miles west of Independence High School. Due to the location and nature of the project, materials, substances, and waste, considered hazardous in nature will be handled accordingly during construction activities. The Air Quality/GHG Study concluded that the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people ( Trinity, 2024). Therefore, as mentioned above, the Project would be required to adhere to all applicable federal and state laws and regulations with respect to the handling of hazardous materials thus, impacts are less than significant.

d. No impact. The EnviroStor (DTSC 202 5) and Cortese (CalEPA 202 5) lists pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65962.5 were reviewed. No portion of the project site is identified on either list, which provides the location of known hazardous waste concerns. Therefore, the project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to GC Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

e. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area (Kern County 2012). The closest airport to the project site is the Bakersfield Municipal Airport, which is located approximately 7.4 miles northeast of the site. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The P roject is not located within the specified distance or within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted.

f. Less than significant impact. Access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period, and appropriate detours would be provided in the event of potential 1:1 .......,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 28 of 46 temporary road closures. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in a substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield, and is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Bakersfield 1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts are less than significant .

g. Less than significant impact. The project site is not located within a “very high,” “high,” or “moderate” fire hazard severity zone (CalFire 2023). The site is surrounded by extensively developed land, and its vicinity is urban and does not possess high fuel loads that have a high potential to cause a wildland fire. The project site would be developed with hardscapes and irrigated landscaping, which would further reduce fire potential at the site. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands, and impacts are less than significant .

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project;
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:

d. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

e. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?

f. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?

g. Impede or redirect flood flows?

h. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
i. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?

1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 29 of 46 Discussion

a. Less than significant impact. Construction would include ground -disturbing activities.

Construction of the site would temporarily disturb soils, which could loosen soils; however, during operation, the soils would be paved over with impervious surfaces such that the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion.

The City owns and maintains a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). The project’s operational urban storm water discharges are covered under the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board ( “CVRWQCB”) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Order No. R5-2016- 0040; NPDES No. CAS0085324) (MS4 Permit) (CVRWQCB 2016). The MS4 Permit mandates the implementation of a storm water management framework to ensure that water quality is maintained within the City because of operational storm water discharges throughout the City, including the project site. Therefore, by complying with the MS4 Permit, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements , and impacts are less than significant.

b. Less than significant impact. The project site had been supplied by the California Water Service Company Bakersfield district for its current use. California Water Service Company Bakersfield district has provided a Verification of Property Location for Water Service letter for the Project.

The District receives at least a portion of its supplies from groundwater sources. By state law, current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) do not need to address the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) or sustainable groundwater management at this time.

It was concluded that District has sufficient existing capacity to service the project. Therefore , it can be concluded that the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, and impacts are less than significant.

c. Less than significant impact. The following responses to items X.d. through X. g. discuss whether the project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, and impacts are less than significant.

d. Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain any blue -line streams or other surface water features and therefore, the project would not alter the course of a river or stream.

The project site would be graded and, as a result, the internal drainage pattern at the site would be altered from the baseline condition. Additionally, the project would result in increased impervious surfaces (i.e., building pads, sidewalks, asphalt parking area, etc.) at the site, which would reduce percolation to ground and result in greater amounts of storm water runoff concentrations at the site. If uncontrolled, differences in drainage patterns and increased impervious surfaces could result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or offsite. However, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit during construction and MS4 permit during operation. In order to comply with the MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with adopted building codes, including complying with an approved drainage plan, which avoids on- and offsite flooding, erosion, and siltation problems. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the 1:1 .......,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 30 of 46 alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite, and impacts are less than significant.

e. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X. d. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on - or offsite. Therefore, the project’s impacts are less than significant.

f. Less than significant impact. In order to comply with the City’s MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with an approved drainage plan that would avoid on - and offsite flooding thus, the project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and impacts are less than significant.

g. Less than significant impact. A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Maps, shows the project site is located in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1 -percent and 0.2- percent-annual-chance floodplain. Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and impacts are less than significant .

h. Less than significant impact. The City of Bakersfield is located within Central California and is not near a coastal environment that risks flood inundation. In addition, the City is not located within a tsunami zone as identified by the California Department of Conservation’s Tsunami Map. As mentioned above, the project site is located in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1 - percent and 0.2- percent-annual-chance floodplain. The project site, like most of the City, is located within the Lake Isabella flood inundation area (Kern County 2017), which is the area that would experience flooding in the event that there was a catastrophic failure of the Lake Isabella Dam. There is an approved Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan (Kern County 2009) that establishes a process and procedures for the mass evacuation and short -term support of populations at risk below the Lake Isabella Dam. The City would utilize the Evacuation Plan to support its Emergency Operations Plans. Therefore, d ue to the project’s location and implementation of related emergency safety plans, the project would not likely risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones , and impacts are less than significant.

i. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X. d.. There is currently no adopted groundwater management plan for the project site or its vicinity. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan or will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area which would result in flooding on- or offsite, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project;

a. Physically divide an established community?

b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 31 of 46 Discussion

a. No impact. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern of the City.

The project does not include a long and linear feature, such as a freeway, railroad track, block wall, etc., that would have the potential to divide a community. The proposed project is the development of a residential tract totaling 147 residential lots and is adjacent to existing residential development. The development will not impede existing or future movement or development of the City. Additionally, as part of the proposed development, existing street collectors and arterials will be further developed thereby increasing circulation and access to communities with int City. Therefore the project will not physically divide an established community.

b. No impact. The Project requires a General Plan Amendment (“GPA ”) to be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan to allow residential development , namely a change from R-IA (Resource-Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential). The Project does not require a Zone Change (“ZC”) because it is already zoned R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling), which is consistent with the LMR land use. The site’s zoning allows for the implementation of the proposed Project’s density and meets the development standards in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. If the GPA were to be approved by the City, the Project land use and zoning would be consistent with both the MBGP and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project;

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

Discussion

a. No impact. The project site is not within the administrative boundaries of an oilfield and there are no oil wells found on the site ( CalGEM). Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.

b. No impact. The Project site is currently designated R-IA, if the GPA is approved, this designation would change to LMR. No portion of the site is designated for potential mineral resource extraction use such as R -MP (Mineral and Petroleum). Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 32 of 46 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:

a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?

c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion

a. Less than significant impact. The project would generate both short -term construction noise and operational noise. The first type of short -term construction noise would result from transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site, and construction worker commutes.

The total daily vehicle trips resulting from construction worker commutes would be minimal when compared to existing traffic volumes on the affected streets, and the long -term noise level change would not be perceptible.

The second type of short- term construction noise is related to noise generated during project construction. The site preparation and grading phase, which includes excavation and grading, tends to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving equipment is the noisiest construction equipment. Construction noise would cease to occur once project construction is completed. The project will also be required to comply with the construction hours specified in the City Noise Ordinance, which states that construction activities are limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekends.

Project operations would generate sound levels typical of residential land uses, which would have to comply with Bakersfield Municipal Code regarding noise. Typical examples of noise sources associated with residential land uses include HVAC/mechanical equipment, truck deliveries, parking lot activities, drive thru operations, etc. It was determined that the noise levels at all points around the project site would experience noise level impacts that would be less than the City’s daytime and nighttime maximum noise level standards of 75 dBA and 70 dBA.

Therefore, the project would not generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies , and impacts are less than significant.

1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 33 of 46 b. Less than significant impact. Some ground-borne vibration and noise would originate from earth movement and building activities during the project’s construction phase. Groundborne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low to moderate. The operation of typical construction equipment would generate groundborne vibrations that would not exceed guidelines that are considered unsafe for any type of buildings. Operation of the proposed residential development would not generate groundborne vibration. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and impacts are less than significant.

c. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area or within the vicinity of a private airstrip (Kern County 2012). Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project result in:

a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

Discussion

a. Less-than-significant. The proposed Project would accommodate population growth in this area through the development of 147 residential lots. The Project will be developed adjacent to existing established residential uses and is therefore the logical extension of existing urban development. Bakersfield has experienced approximately 13% growth in population (347,483 people in 2010 to 394,328 in 2019) since 2010 (DOF 2019a and DOF 2019b). It is predicted that by 2040, 1,137,676 people will live in Kern County (DOF 2019c). Given that 42.5% of the people in Kern County currently live in Bakersfield (DOF 2019b), and if this trend continues, it is estimated that about 483,512 people would live in Bakersfield in 2040. This means that by 2040, 81,951 additional people would need housing in the Bakersfield area. This Project will be in compliance with the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and will accommodate the orderly development projected increase in Bakersfield’s population by providing residences for existing and future residents in Bakersfield. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, and impacts are less than significant.

b. No impact. The Project site is undeveloped land, historically used for agricultural. Therefore, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 34 of 46 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in:

a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:

i. Fire protection?

ii. Police protection?

iii. Schools?

iv. Parks?

v. Other public facilities?

Discussion

a. The following discusses whether the project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts to public services. The need for additional public service is generally directly correlated to population growth and the resultant additional population’s need for services beyond what is currently available.

i. Less than significant impact. Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County.

Potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, and impacts are less than significant.

ii. Less than significant impact. Police protection for the project would be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department. Potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, and impacts are less than significant.

iii. Less than significant impact. The project is growth accommodating and therefore, is a driver for population growth, including the need for additional schools. The need for additional schools can be paid for by existing school impact fees and increased 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
181
181
181
181
181
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

G:\pln\SHARED\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424 & WAC 25-0001\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 35 of 46

property tax revenues. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable performance objectives for schools , and impacts are less than significant.

iv. Less than significant impact. The proposal does not include nor require the construction of recreational facilities. However, park impact fees are required for residential land uses. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks , and impacts are less than significant.

v. Less-than-significant impact. The Project and eventual buildup of this area would result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City. Though the Project may necessitate increased maintenance for other public facilities, this potential increase can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities , and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XVI. RECREATION: Would the project result in:

a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?

Discussion

a. Less than Significant Impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. Although the project would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, park impact fees shall allow the City to upgrade, improve or rehabilitate an existing or proposed public park to better serve the public, and impacts are less than significant.

b. Less than Significant I mpact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. The Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 36 of 46 might have an adverse physical effect on the environment , therefore , impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project result in:

a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

Discussion

a. Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated . The Project would result in temporary construction-related traffic impacts. Construction workers traveling to and from the Project site as well as construction material delivery would result in additional vehicle trips to the area’s roadway system. Construction material delivery may require a number of trips for oversized vehicles that may travel at slower speeds than existing traffic and, due to their size, may intrude into adjacent travel lanes. These trips may temporarily degrade level of service on area roadways and at intersections. Additionally, the total number of vehicle trips associated with all construction- related traffic, including construction worker trips, could temporarily increase daily traffic volumes on local roadways and intersections. The Project may require temporary lane closures or the need for flagmen to safely direct traffic on roadways near the Project site.

A Traffic Study was completed and reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department (Ruettgers & Shuler Civil Engineers, 2024). Section 15064.3 required agencies to begin implementing the new VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) requirement no later than July 1, 2020. Since the City of Bakersfield has not adopted any thresholds for VMT analysis, the Technical Advisory (TA) released by Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) was used as a basis for the evaluation. The traffic study concluded that the project’s per capita VMT is 37.2% greater than the assumed threshold from the OPR.

In order to mitigate the VMT impacts, Mitigation Measure No. 9 will require that the Project includes residential dwellings that are EV (electric vehicle) capable, promoting the use of electric vehicles. Additionally, the P roject will construct on -site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along McCutchen Road extending to the west tract boundary, ensuring no gaps in the infrastructure. This will facilitate future off -site improvements, constructed by others, that will provide access to Buena Vista Elementary School and the existing Class II Bike Lane along Buena Vista Road. Furthermore, the project will also include construction of off -site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along McCutchen Road to the east. This will close the existing gap between the project, Independence High School, the Career and Technical Education Center, and the existing Class II Bike Lane along Old River Road. These improvements will enhance multi- modal access and reduce VMT associated with this project. 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 37 of 46 Mitigation Measure No. 10 requires the Project applicant to participate in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program by paying adopted fees by land use type at the time of development. Additionally, t he Project will be designed in accordance with City development standards. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure No. 9 and No. 10, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

b. Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated . Section 15064.3 of the updated California Code of Regulations (“ CCR” or CEQA Guidelines), statewide application came into effect July 1, 2020. This CCR Section 15064.3(b) states:

Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts.

(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one -half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high- quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.

(2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.

(3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project's vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.

(4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project's vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

The baseline (2015) conditions regional VMT per capita was obtained from the Kern COG TDM model “no project” model run. The regional VMT per capita is 16.8. Further, as stated above, 15 percent below the baseline regional VMT per capita was considered as the threshold which results in a numerical value of VMT threshold of 14.3. Table A shows the regional threshold and 1:1 .......,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 38 of 46 project VMT per capita rate. As shown in Table A, the project VMT per capita is 19.62 which is greater than the threshold by 37.2 percent. As such, based on the OPR TA and the methodology described in this memorandum, the project will have a significant VMT impact.

Baseline (2015) Regional and Project VMT per capita Comparison 2015 Project City of Bakersfield Threshold* Difference % Difference VMT per Capita 19.62 14.30 5.32 37.2%
*Estimated using “No project” VMIP II base year (2015) model runs

However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures No. 9 and No. 10 (identified in XVII.a.), the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b) and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

c. Less-than-significant impact. The project would have to comply with all conditions placed on it by the City Traffic Engineering Division in order to comply with accepted traffic engineering standards intended to reduce traffic hazards, including designing the roads so that they do not result in design feature hazards. The project is with in the City limits and surrounded by compatible existing and planned land uses and land use designations. T he project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses , therefore impacts are less than significant.

d. Less-than-significant impact. There is the potential that, during the construction phase, the project would impede emergency access. For projects that require minor impediments of a short duration (e.g., pouring a new driveway entrance), the project would be required to obtain a street permit from City Public Works. If a project requires lane closures and/or the diversion of traffic, then a Traffic Control Plan, subject to Public Works approval, would be required. During operations, the project would have to comply with all applicable City policies and requirements to ensure adequate emergency access. The need for such permits is determined by the Public Works Department during the permitting and construction phases of their permitting process. In addition, the site plans have been designed in accordance with all City development standards, therefore, impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project result in:

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?

b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria

1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD

I I I I

I I I I
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 39 of 46 set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?

Discussion

a. Less than significant impact. The project requires a GPA and therefore, request for consultation letters were sent to a list of tribal contacts received from the Native American Heritage Commission in compliance with Senate Bill 18 (“SB 18”) . In the letters, the City stated that the applicable tribes may request consultation with the City regarding the preservation of, and/or mitigation of impacts to, California Native American cultural places in connection with the project. To date, none of the tribes have responded to the request. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources , and impacts are less than significant.

b. Less than significant impact. There are no tribal cultural resources determined by the lead agency to be of significance onsite. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project result in:

a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

c. Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?

d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 40 of 46 Discussion

a. Less-than-significant impact. The project would require the construction of new water, storm water drainage, sewer facilities; above and/or belowground electrical facilities, natural gas facilities, and telecommunications (e.g., cable, fiber optics, phone, etc.) typical of residential development. Water, storm water, and sewer structures would have to be designed to meet the City’s Current Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual (Bakersfield 1999). Compliance with the Design Manual would ensure that the facilities would not result in significant environmental effects. Electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities would be placed by the individual serving utilities; these entities already have in place safety and siting protocols to ensure that placement of new utilities to serve new construction would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts are less than significant .

b. Less-than-significant impact. The designated water purveyor is California Water Service Company Bakersfield D istrict. The District has provided a Verification of Property Location for Water Service letter stating that water service can be supplied in compliance with their current UWMP that accounts for normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Therefore, the Project has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years, and impacts are less than significant .

c. Less-than-significant impact. Wastewater as a result of the Project would be treated at Waste Water Treatment Plant (“WWTP”) No. 3, which is owned and operated by the City. WWTP No. 3 has an overall capacity of 32 MGD and a current available capacity of 1 7.3 MGD (Bakersfield 2023). WWTP No. 3 has sufficient capacity to serve the Project. As a result, it has been determined that the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s Projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments, and impacts are less than significant.

d. Less-than-significant impact. It is assumed that solid waste generated as a result of the project would be disposed at the Bena Landfill located at 2951 Neumarkel Road, Bakersfield, CA 93307.

In accordance with city standards which are designed to achieve State waste stream reduction and recycling goals, the Solid Waste Division of Public Works will conduct a detailed review of the facility at the time of development to incorporate appropriate on -site trash facilities, subject to city approval. Therefore
, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs, and impacts are less than significant.

e. Less-than-significant impact. By law, the project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, including those relating to waste reduction, litter control, and solid waste disposal, and impacts are less than significant. 1:1 .......,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 41 of 46 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XX. WILDFIRES: Would the project result in:

a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

Discussion

a. Less than significant impact. The project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The project is located in an urbanized area and access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield and is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Bakersfield 1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan , and impacts are less than significant.

b. Less than significant impact. As mentioned above, the project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Additionally, the project site is relatively flat, not near wildlands, the site and its surrounding do not possess high fuel loads (i.e., lots of vegetation and other burnable material) to exacerbate wildfire risks and therefore, fire -related pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfires and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors , and impacts are less than significant.

c. Less than significant impact. The project is located within the Bakersfield city limits and the surrounding area is extensively developed with existing infrastructure such as roads, power lines, utilities etc., to support the development of this project. Therefore, the project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, and impacts are less than significant . 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 42 of 46 d. Less than significant impact. The project site is relatively flat, is not within a floodplain, and is not in a moderate - to high-risk area for wildfires. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post- fire slope instability, or drainage changes , and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Would the project result in:

a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of life of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Discussion

a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures No. 2, 3, and 4 mitigate potential impacts to biological resources to less than significant. There are no important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory found at the site. Therefore, the Project, with the implementation of the identified conditions of approval, best management practices, and mitigation measures, would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

b. Less than significant impact. Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” This section further states that cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 43 of 46 Past, present, and future projects in proximity to the project were considered and evaluated as part of this Initial Study. Also, in addition to project specific impacts, this Initial Study considered the projects potential for incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable. As described in the responses above, there is no substantial evidence that there are cumulative effects associated with this project. In addition, any future development projects not identified above would be required to undergo a separate environmental analysis and mitigate any project - or site-specific potential impacts, as necessary. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described in the responses above, the project, with mitigation, would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 1:1 .......,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 44 of 46 REFERENCE LIST

Bakersfield (City of Bakersfield). 1997. Hazardous Materials Area Plan. January. Bakersfield. 1999.

Proposed Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual. June.

Bakersfield. 2023. Wastewater Treatment Plants. Available:< https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/679/Wastewater-Treatment-Plants >. Accessed: March 17, 2025.

Biological Resource Evaluation. Pruett Biological Resource Consulting . September 2024.

CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Cortese List Data Resources.

Available:<https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/>. Accessed: March 5, 2025.

CalFire (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2023. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps. Available:< https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/osfm- website/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones/fire- hazard-severity-zones-map-2022/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps-2022- files/fhsz_county_sra_11x17_2022_kern_3.pdf?rev=6a1762dc936a43e3b6cd8a89691aad56&hash=87FB25 D33BA10F1DE36F26C5B998B421>. Accessed: March 5, 2025.

California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). Well Finder Map. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/ (Accessed March 14, 2025) California Geological Survey. (n.d.). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation [Map]. California Department of Conservation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/ .

Accessed: March 4, 2025.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. (2016). Waste discharge requirements general permit for storm water discharges from small municipal separate storm sewer systems (Order R5-2016-0040). Retrieved from
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_orders/r5- 2016-0040_ms4.pdf Accessed: Marc 10, 2025.

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2017. California State Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available:<
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1a acaa >. Accessed: March 4, 2024.

CBOC (California Burrowing Owl Consortium). 1993. Burrowing Owl Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines.

April.
1:1 .......,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 45 of 46 CVRWQCB. 2016. Order No. R5-2016-0040, NPDES No. CAS0085324, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems.

Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022a. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Available:< https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp >. Accessed: February 25, 2025.

Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022b. Well Finder CalGEM GIS. Available: < https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/ >. Accessed: March 14, 2025.

DTSC (Department of Toxic Substance Control). 2025. EnviroStor.

Available:<https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>. Accessed: March 5, 2025.

Farmland Conversion Study for General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424. McIntosh & Associates, June 2025.

Kern County. 2009. Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan. Available:< https://www.kernpublicworks.com/services/development/floodplain- management/lake-isabella-flood- area >. Accessed: March 10, 2025.

Kern County. 2012. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. November.

Kern County. 2017. Lake Isabella Flood Area. Available:< https://kernpublicworks.com/building -and- code/floodplain-management/lake-isabella-flood-area/>. Accessed: March 17, 2025.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. (n.d.). Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture. <https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx>. Accessed: March 4, 2025.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates. February 2022.

SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality
Impacts. March.

Small Projects Analysis Level Assessment. Trinity Consultants. July 2024. 1:1 .......,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 46 of 46 Traffic Study. Ruettgers & Shuler Civil Engineers. October 2024.

1:1 .......,

BAKERSFIELD
APPEAL
LETTER

August 27, 2025
Via Email

Ashley Knight, Assistant Planner
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]

Re: Comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the General Plan Amendment 21-0424 and Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001

Dear Ms. Knight:

I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living and working in and around the City of Bakersfield regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the General Plan Amendment 21-0424 and Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001, including the construction of a 147 lot residential development on approximately 28.92 acres, located north of McCutchen Road between Buena Vista Road and Old River Road (Ward 5) (“Project”).

SAFER’s review of the MND was assisted by transportation expert Norman Marshall of Smart Mobility, air quality and hazards and hazardous materials experts Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”), and indoor air quality expert Francis Offermann, CIH, whose written comments and CVs are attached as Exhibits A, B, and C, respectively.

As discussed below, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have significant and unmitigated impacts on agricultural resources, VMT, human health, air quality, and hazards and hazardous materials necessitating the preparation of an EIR.

Therefore, SAFER respectfully requests that staff prepare and circulate an EIR for public review and comment.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed Project requires a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Williamson Act Cancellation to allow for the construction of a 147 lot residential development on approximately

28.92 acres, located north of McCutchen Road between Buena Vista Road and Old River Road (Ward 5). The Project’s proposed lots will range in size from 4,589 square feet to 11,462 square General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 August 27, 2025