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 AVE
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 KON RIVER AVE
,--------....... :,.::
LR
< C
er::
<
.., 1-
w "' :.:
<
w
w
er:: >- u < LR
3: 3:
0 u '---------J
BREITENBUSH AVE
LR
.._ ____ _, ..J ..._ ___________ ..,,.
LR
LAKE BRACCIAN O AVE
~
"' ffi ARNO RIV ER
[
>
er::
z
<
j'.::
er::
LN
< LR ~
HUSLIA RI V ER AVE
LR l
I-'
"' Ill,
z
u
u
:::>
0. LR
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 Can1n1enial
MC Ma;o, (on1meu ial
0( OHite Commercial
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 Recreation
OS-S Slope, exceeding 30%
lnte111ive Ag1·iculture
20 acre minimum panel sire
11-lA Ru.ouue ·
htensive Agriculture
20 aoe minimum pauel size
80 acre min (Williamson A,t)
II-MP Resource -
Mi11e1 ab & Peholeum
S acre minimum panel size
Ulll U.-ban Estate lluidential
WH te,n Ros edale Platt
0.j one net minimum panel
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 residentialzone 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 where 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 landowner 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 consistent 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 Housing 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 McCoy, 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 use 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 ResourceIntensive Agriculture in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and is currently 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 Low 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 separate 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. Substantial 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 specialstatus 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 consultation 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 implemented. 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 avoidance 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 specialstatus 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 and 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 chnica l
Eduw, nCenter
LR
P.S
Independence
H'gh !.i:hool
Land Use RESIDENTIAL
HMI . HighMdiumD, n,ity
□ ltsicltnTiol,> 1.1iun~1but S
11.47dw1ll inguni1J/1tt 1r11
CJ \176 t;;,~~-~s::~;/~;::::~, s
COMMERCIAL
- 6C - 6tm1l(omm,nial
PUBLICFACILIIIES
c:J ~ • MlkjPrivo1 1Kh1oh
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 Zo ne Designation5
- (·1/'-CQ.Combinin;
l!esidentialZone Duignotions
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 indicated by the checklist on the following pages, the project would result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the environmental factors checked below (Impacts reduced to a less than significant level through the incorporation of mitigation are not considered potentially significant.):
□ Aesthetics □ Agricultural Resources □ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Geology / Soils □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions □ Hazards & Hazardous Materials □ Hydrology / Water Quality □ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise
□ Population / Housing □ Public Services □ Recreation
□ Transportation / Traffic □ Utilities / Service Systems □ Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration will be prepared.
■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A mitigated negative declaration will be prepared. □ I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental impact report is required.
□ I find that the proposed project may have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect has been (1) adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An environmental impact report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been (1) analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
7/21/25
Signature Date
Ashley Knight
Printed 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. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\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 wellsuited 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 (SingleUnit 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 Project 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, there 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 coincides with the surrounding existing residential area designated for urban development by the General Plan. There are no agricultural or forestlands in proximity to the Project 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 nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant 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 regulations 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. The 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 onequarter 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 2025) and Cortese (CalEPA 2025) 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 Project 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, due 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 Impact. 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 Project 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 multimodal 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, the 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 within the City limits and surrounded by compatible existing and planned land uses and land use designations. The 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 District. 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 17.3 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/osfmwebsite/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones/firehazard-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-floodarea >. 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-andcode/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
feet, with a typical lot size of approximately 5,150 square feet. The project site consists of two contiguous parcels that are vacant and undeveloped. Historically the parcels have been used for agricultural purposes.
The cancellation is being requested in conjunction with a proposed 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 (MBGP). The project site is currently encumbered by an active Williamson Act contract, which restricts the use of the land to agricultural purposes
LEGAL STANDARD
As the California Supreme Court held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-20.) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code [“PRC”] § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” (Bakersfield Citizens, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.)
An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC § 21080(d); see also, Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) An MND instead of an EIR is proper only if project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and . . . there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331 [quoting PRC §§ 21064.5, General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 August 27, 2025
21080(c)(2)].) In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. (PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-05.)
An EIR must be prepared rather than an MND “whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact.” (No Oil, Inc. v City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) Under this “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602.) The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.)
The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:
This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. The lead agency’s decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument. (Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-74.) The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.)
DISCUSSION
I. The MND Failed to Adequately Mitigate the Project’s Significant Agricultural Impacts.
The Project will have a significant impact on agriculture from the conversion of Prime Farmland to nonagricultural uses. However, the City failed to adopt effective mitigation to reduce this impact to less than significant.
General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 August 27, 2025
The Project would convert 28.91 acres of Prime Farmland to nonagricultural use. (Id., p. 13; Department of Conservation, NOP Comments on MND for GPA 21-0424 (Apr. 29, 2025) [“DOC Comments”], p. 2.) As a result, the MND and Department of Conservation found that the Project would have a significant impact on agriculture if not adequately mitigated. (Id.) The Farmland Conversion Study prepared for the Project states that the “conversion of prime agricultural land is a significant and unavoidable impact with increased development and urbanization.” (Farmland Conversion Study, p. 15.) In addition, the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) EIR “determined that conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses is considered significant.” (Id.) Yet, the MND includes inadequate mitigation to reduce the Project’s agricultural impact to less than significant.
To mitigate this significant impact, the MND includes Mitigation Measure 11, which requires payment of the Williamson Act cancellation fee to the California Department of Conservation. This is not adequate mitigation under CEQA.
CEQA Guidelines define mitigation as an action taken to avoid, reduce, minimize, rectify, or compensate for a significant impact. Mitigation fees are not adequate mitigation under CEQA unless the fees are linked to a specific mitigation program and the lead agency can show that the fees will fund a specific mitigation plan that will actually be implemented. Payment of the cancellation fee does nothing to avoid, reduce, minimize, rectify, or compensate for the reduction of Prime farm land. Moreover, there is no evidence that the fee is linked to any specific mitigation program to fund any specific mitigation of this Project’s impacts. Accordingly, the impact remains significant and an EIR is required to analyze and mitigate this significant impact by restoring farmland or through other legally-adequate mitigation. If the impact cannot be mitigated, the City must adopt a statement of overriding considerations.
II. An EIR is Required Because the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan EIR Concluded that the Project’s Impact from the Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to a Nonagricultural Use is Significant and Unavoidable.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan EIR admits that the impact from the Project’s conversion of prime agricultural lands to urban uses will result in a reduction of the regional agricultural economy and is a significant adverse impact. (Farmland Conversion Study, p. 15.) As a result, a statement of overriding considerations for this impact was adopted by the City when the General Plan EIR was certified. (Id.)
Here, the implementation of the proposed Project will result in the conversion of 28.91 acres of land zoned for residential with a land use designated for agricultural use to urban uses.
Because the General Plan EIR determined that conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses is a significant and unavoidable impact, the City must prepare another EIR and statement of overriding consideration for this Project and its significant impact on agriculture. (See, e.g., Communities for a Better Environ. v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 122- 125 [“The requirement of a statement of overriding considerations is central to CEQA’s role as a public accountability statute; it requires public officials, in approving environmentally General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 August 27, 2025
detrimental projects, to justify their decisions based on counterbalancing social, economic or other benefits, and to point to substantial evidence in support.”].) III. The MND Failed to Analyze the Project’s Potentially Significant Cumulative Agricultural Impacts.
Under CEQA, 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.” (CCR § 15065(a)(3).) “Cumulatively considerable” means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Id.) Based on information in the MND and Farmland Conversion Study, the Project may have potentially significant cumulative impacts to farmland in the region that the MND failed to analyze.
As discussed above, the Project’s development would convert 28.91 acres of Prime Farmland to nonagricultural use. (MND, p. 13; Farmland Conversion Study, p. 15; see also, DOC Comments, p. 2.) The MND states that the farmland to the south remains in agricultural use but is already zoned for future residential development. (MND, p. 13.) Similarly, the Farmland Conversion Study states that the Project “may have an impact on the farmland located south of the site,” and that “[f]armers near the proposed project will inevitably be affected by planned development in the vicinity and may result in additional conversion of agricultural land.” (Farmland Conversion Study, p. 15.) Nowhere in the MND does it discuss potentially significant cumulative impacts to farmland based on past and reasonably foreseeable future impacts on farmland. Without any discussion of cumulative agricultural impacts, the MND violates CEQA.
An EIR should be prepared that adequately evaluates the Project’s potentially significant cumulative impacts on agriculture.
IV. The MND Failed to Mitigate the Project’s Significant VMT Impact.
Norman Marshall of Smart Mobility reviewed the MND and supporting documents and concluded that the Project has highly significant VMT impacts that have not been mitigated. Mr.
Marshall’s comment and CV are attached at Exhibit A.
The MND and related Traffic Study found that the project VMT is 19.62 miles per capita, assuming an average of 3.9 persons per dwelling unit, which is 37.2% greater than the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) recommended threshold. (Traffic Study, p. 6; MND, p. 3.) Therefore, the MND’s Traffic Study concluded the Project will have a significant VMT impact. (Traffic Study, p. 6.) As a result, “[t]o fully mitigate 37.2% excess VMT, VMT would need to be reduced by 27.1%.” (Ex. A, p. 2 & fn.1.) The MND includes Mitigation Measures No. 9 (combination of electric vehicles (“EVs”) and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure) and No. 10 (transportation impact fee payment) to reduce VMT. However, neither the MND nor the Traffic Study offer any evidence that these mitigation measures will be effective to reduce impacts below significance. (See Ex. A, pp. 2-5.) General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 August 27, 2025
“Mitigating conditions are not mere expressions of hope.” (Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1167 [quoting Lincoln Place Tenants Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508].) A lead agency must determine, based on substantial evidence, that mitigation measures are effective. (Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 656-658.) Here, there is no evidence that Mitigation Measures No. 9 and No. 10 will actually reduce VMT impacts to a less than significant level.
A. The MND’s Mitigation Measure No. 9 will not reduce the Project’s VMT to less than significant.
Expert evidence shows that the combined VMT reduction of EVs and pedestrian walk and bike infrastructure improvements from Mitigation Measure No. 9 would be less than 2% of the 27.1% reduction required for full mitigation. (Ex. A, pp. 3-4.)
1. VMT reduction from electric vehicles – 0%
While EVs reduce air quality and greenhouse gas impacts, they do not reduce VMT. (Ex.
A, p. 3.) The MND and Traffic Study also provide no evidence that EVs will lower VMT. (Id.) Additionally, due to state policies and market conditions, most new single-family homes are already EV-capable. (Id.) As such, Mr. Marshall concluded that EVs will not result in any reduction to VMT. (Id.)
2. VMT reduction from pedestrian improvements – less than 1% The 2021 CAPCOA Handbook quantifies potential VMT reductions from Neighborhood Design Measure T-18 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement. (Ex. A, p. 3.) According to the CAPCOA Handbook, Measure T-18 can reduce VMT by up to 6.4%. (Id.) However, its effectiveness in reducing VMT is case-specific and depends on a project’s proximity to destinations of 2 miles or less. (Id.) In this case, the project site has an extremely low Walk Score – 2 out of a possible 100 – and few nearby non-residential destinations other than Independence High School, limiting walking potential. (Id., pp. 3-4.) As such, Mr. Marshall concluded that pedestrian improvements are expected to reduce VMT by less than 1%. (Id., p. 3.)
3. VMT reduction from bike improvements – less than 0.8% The CAPCOA Handbook also quantifies potential VMT reductions from Neighborhood Design Measure T-19-A Construct or Improve Bike Facility. (Ex. A, pp. 3-4.) While the Bike Score for the project site is much higher – 30 out of possible 100 – VMT reduction is still minimal. (Id., p. 4.) According to the CAPCOA Handbook, the maximum VMT reduction for Measure T-19-A is only 0.8%. (Id.)
Thus, Mr. Marshall concluded that the combined reduction from Mitigation Measure No. 9 for EVs and pedestrian and bike improvements would be less than 2%, which is much less than the required 27.1% reduction required for full mitigation. (Id.) General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 August 27, 2025
B. The MND’s Mitigation Measure No. 10 will not reduce the Project’s VMT to less than significant.
Similar to Mitigation Measures 9, Mitigation Measure No. 10 will have not impact on VMT. Mitigation Measure 10 requires that the Project applicant participate in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program by paying adopted fees by land use type at the time of development. (MND, p. 3; see Ex. A, p. 5.) There is no evidence that payment of the fee will reduce the Project’s VMT by 25.3%1or otherwise mitigate the VMT impact below the significance threshold. (Id.) Without additional mitigation, there is substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant and unmitigated VMT impact, necessitating an EIR.
V. The MND’s Analysis of the Project’s Air Quality Impacts is not Supported by Substantial Evidence.
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the environmental consulting firm SWAPE reviewed the MND’s analysis of the Project’s air quality impacts.
SWAPE’s comment letter and CVs are attached as Exhibit B. As discussed below, SWAPE concluded that the MND underestimated the Project’s emissions. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis.
SWAPE found that the MND underestimated the Project’s emissions and therefore cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts. (Ex. B, pp. 3-5.) To estimate the Project’s emissions, the MND utilized the California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (“CalEEMod”). (Ex. B, p. 3.) CalEEMod relies on recommended default values based on site specific information related to a number of factors.
CEQA requires that any changes to the default values must be justified by substantial evidence.
SWAPE reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the MND. (Ex. B, p. 3.) This results in an underestimation of the Project’s emissions. (Id.) Specifically, SWAPE found that the following values used in the MND’s air quality analysis were either inconsistent with information provided in the MND or otherwise unjustified:
1. Changes to land use size. (Ex. B, pp. 3-4.)
2. Unsupported material import and export (Ex. B, p. 4)
3. Incorrect application of energy-related operational mitigation measure. (Ex. B, p.
5.)
As a result of these errors, the MND underestimates the Project’s construction and operational emissions and cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s air
1 Assuming Mitigation Measure No. 9 actually resulted in the potential maximum VMT reduction of 1.8%.
General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 August 27, 2025
quality impacts.
VI. The MND Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Health Impacts From Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter.
SWAPE also reviewed the Project’s impacts to human health due to emissions of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”). SWAPE concluded that the MND failed to adequately analyze the Project’s potentially significant impact to human health from emissions of diesel particulate matter. (Ex. B, pp. 5-6.) An EIR should be prepared to adequately analyze this impact.
The MND’s analysis of the cancer risk posed by emissions of DPM was inadequate.
SWAPE reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were potentially underestimated and inconsistent with information provided in the MND. (Ex. B, pp. 5-6.) As such, the MND’s construction health risk assessment (“HRA”) relies upon emissions estimates from an unsubstantiated air model. (Id.) As a result, the HRA utilizes a potentially underestimated DPM concentration to calculate the health risk associated with Project construction. (Id.) The MND’s failure to prepare an adequate HRA for the Project’s construction emissions resulted in an inadequate evaluation of the Project’s impacts and calls into question the MND’s less-than-significant conclusion.
SWAPE also found that the MND fails to disclose exposure assumptions used for the HRA, such as age sensitivity factors (ASF) and fraction of time at home (FAH). (Ex. B, p. 6.) Without this information, the HRA may underestimate cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors from project construction. (Id.) Furthermore, SWAPE found that the MND’s model does not include the appropriate dose or risk equation to calculate the Project’s construction cancer risks as recommended by the most recent guidance of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), making it impossible to verify the accuracy of the HRA. (Id.) As a result, the Project’s cancer risks may be underestimated. (Id.) Thus, an adequate HRA for construction of the Project is necessary to ensure that the Project’s health risks are disclosed, compared to the applicable SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds, and properly mitigated.
VII. An EIR is Required Because there is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts.
The Project site was previously used for agricultural crops. The Department of Toxic Substances Control explained in their comments that when agricultural land is proposed for residential use, a number of contaminants of concern can be present. (DTSC April 7, 2025, p. 1.) As a result, DTSC said the City:
shall identify the amounts of Pesticides and Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) historically used on the property. If present, OCPs requiring further analysis are dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, toxaphene, and dieldrin. Additionally, any level of arsenic present would require further analysis and sampling and must meet HHRA NOTE NUMBER 3, DTSC-SLs approved local. If they do not, remedial action must take place to mitigate them below those thresholds. Additional COCs may be found in General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 August 27, 2025
mixing/loading/storage areas, drainage ditches, farmhouses, or any other outbuildings and should be sampled and analyzed. If smudge pots had been routinely utilized, additional sampling for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and/or Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons may be required.
(DTSC April 7, 2025, p. 1-2.)
Similarly, SWAPE explains that, because agriculture has been practiced on the Project site, pesticides, including DDT, DDE, and chlordane may be present in soils, all of which are probable human carcinogens. (Ex. B., p. 3.)
The MND contains no evidence that the City analyzed the Project site for the presence and level of potential contaminants of concern such as pesticides. Nor did the City prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”).
DTSC and SWAPE’s comments are evidence that the pesticides and other chemicals in the soil from agricultural operations may create a significant hazard impact that has not been mitigated. The MND contains no substantial evidence to support its conclusion that the Project will not expose the public, workers, or the environment to potentially hazardous materials.
It is well-established that CEQA requires analysis of toxic soil contamination that may be disturbed by a Project, and that the effects of this disturbance on human health and the environment must be analyzed. The MND’s baseline for this potential impact is flawed for failure to identify existing soil conditions at the Project site. Without knowing the presence and levels of these chemicals, the MND cannot justify its conclusion that human exposure impacts are unlikely, and that the Project poses no significant risks from the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
SWAPE recommends that a Phase I ESA be prepared by a licensed professional that targets the potential for pesticides through an evaluation of agricultural practices, including the types of crops that were grown and when they were cultivated. (Ex. B, p. 3.) If recognized environmental conditions (“RECs”) are found, a Phase II ESA should follow to test for soil, vapor, and groundwater contamination. (Id.) Any contaminants above regulatory levels must be assessed and, if needed, remediated with oversight from the appropriate regulatory agencies, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board and DTSC. (Id.) Thus, an EIR should be prepared that adequately analyzes the Project’s potentially significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts from the project site’s past agricultural uses.
VIII. An EIR is Required Because there is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have a Significant Impact on Human Health.
The MND fails to discuss, disclose, analyze, and mitigate the significant health risks posed by the Project from formaldehyde, a toxic air contaminant (“TAC”). Certified Industrial General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 August 27, 2025
Hygienist, Francis Offermann, PE, CIH conducted a review of the Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. Mr. Offermann is one of the world’s leading experts on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. As discussed below and in Mr. Offermann’s comments, the Project’s emissions of formaldehyde to the air will result in very significant cancer risks to future residents of the Project’s residential units. Mr.
Offerman’s comments and CV is attached as Exhibit C.
Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen and is listed by the State as a TAC. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (“SJVAPCD”) has established a significance threshold of health risks for carcinogenic TACs of 10 in one million. (Ex. C, p. 2.) The MND fails to acknowledge the significant indoor air emissions that will result from the Project.
Specifically, there is no discussion of impacts or health risks, no analysis, and no identification of mitigations for significant emissions of formaldehyde to air from the Project.
Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products typically used in home and apartment building construction contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long period. He states, “[t]he primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” (Ex. C, pp. 2-3.)
Mr. Offermann found that future residents of the Project’s residential homes will be exposed to a cancer risk of 120 per million, even assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Ex.
C, pp. 3-5.) This is more than 12 times SJVAPCD’s CEQA significance threshold of 10 per million.
Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts must be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. (Ex. C, pp. 5, 9-11.) He prescribes a methodology for estimating the Project’s formaldehyde emissions in order to do a more project-specific health risk assessment. (Id., pp. 5-
9.) Mr. Offermann also suggests several feasible mitigation measures, such as requiring the use of no-added-formaldehyde composite wood products, which are readily available. (Id., pp. 11-
13.) Mr. Offermann also suggests requiring air ventilation systems which would reduce formaldehyde levels. (Id.) Since the MND does not analyze this impact at all, none of these or other mitigation measures have been considered.
When a Project exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold, as here, this alone establishes substantial evidence that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project’s air quality impacts. (See, e.g.
Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 [County applies Air District’s “published CEQA quantitative criteria” and “threshold level of cumulative significance”]; see also, Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 August 27, 2025
Cal.App.4th 98, 110-111 [“A ‘threshold of significance’ for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant”].) The California Supreme Court made clear the substantial importance that an air district significance threshold plays in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact. (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327 [“As the District’s established significance threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx emissions of 201 to 456 pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact.”].) Since expert evidence demonstrates that the Project will exceed the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold, there is substantial evidence that an “unstudied, potentially significant environmental effect[]” exists. (See, Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958 [emphasis added].)
The failure of the MND to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). In that case, the Supreme Court expressly holds that potential adverse impacts to future users and residents from pollution generated by a proposed project must be addressed under CEQA. At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-01.) However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. (Id. at 801.) In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” (Id. at 800 [emphasis added].)
The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. People will be residing in the Project’s buildings once built and emitting formaldehyde. Once built, the Project will begin to emit formaldehyde at levels that pose significant direct and cumulative health risks. The Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of air emission and health impact by the project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed in the CEQA process. The existing TAC sources near the Project site would have to be considered in evaluating the cumulative effect on future residents of both the Project’s TAC emissions as well as those existing off-site emissions.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.’” (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800.) Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 August 27, 2025
declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” (Id. [citing, e.g., PRC §§ 21000, 21001].) It goes without saying that the future residents of the Project are human beings and their health and safety must be subject to CEQA’s safeguards.
The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts. (See, County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98. [“[U]nder CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts.”].) The proposed buildings will have significant impacts on air quality and health risks by emitting cancer-causing levels of formaldehyde into the air that will expose future residents to cancer risks potentially in excess of SCAQMD’s threshold of significance for cancer health risks of 10 in a million. Currently, outside of Mr. Offermann’s comments, the City does not have any idea what risks will be posed by formaldehyde emissions from the Project. As a result, the City must include an analysis and discussion in an EIR which discloses and analyzes the health risks that the Project’s formaldehyde emissions may have on future residents and identifies appropriate mitigation measures.
Mr. Offermann’s comments are substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant impact on human health, necessitating preparation of an EIR.
CONCLUSION
As discussed above, the MND and expert comments of SWAPE, Mr. Marshall, and Mr.
Offermann are substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have significant impacts on agriculture, VMT, human health, air quality, ad hazardous and hazardous materials.
For those reasons, an EIR must be prepared for the Project.
Sincerely,
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
EXHIBIT A
1 794 Sawnee Bean Road
Thetford Center VT 05075
Norman Marshall, President
(802) 356-2969
[email protected]
August 14, 2025
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: General Plan Amendment NO 21-0424
Dear Ms. Yundt,
I have reviewed the vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) impacts of the proposed 147 single-family residential units proposed by New Gen Engineering Group, LLC in the City of Bakersfield and summarized in a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for General Plan Amendment NO 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001, dated July 28, 2025. I also have reviewed the VMT impacts discussion in the Traffic Study prepared for the project by Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers dated October 2024. I make the following findings:
1) The MND documents that the project would result in a highly significant VMT impact. 2) Most of the highly significant VMT impact is unmitigated. a. Requiring the residential units to be “EV-capable” will have no effect on VMT. b. The required pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements will reduce VMT by less than 2% which is far less than the 27.1% required to fully mitigate the VMT impacts. 3) The payment of the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (Mitigation Measure No. 10) is required for any development, and will have no impact on VMT.
2 The MND Documents that the Project Would Result in a Highly Significant VMT Impact The Traffic Study states:
From Table 2, the project VMT is 19.62 miles per capita, assuming an average of 3.9 persons per dwelling unit. This value is 37.2% greater than the OPR recommended threshold, therefore, based on the OPR TA the project will have a significant VMT impact. (Traffic Study, p. 6)
The MND restates the conclusion from the Traffic Study, stating:
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. (MND, p. 36 of 46)
Most of the Highly Significant VMT Impact of the Project is Not Mitigated To fully mitigate 37.2% excess VMT, VMT would need to be reduced by 27.1%.1 Both the Traffic Study and the MND make unquantified, and mostly false, assertions that VMT mitigation can be done through a combination of electric vehicles and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
The Traffic Study states:
The project’s per capita VMT is 37.2% greater than the assumed threshold and therefore, based upon the OPR TA, will have a significant impact for VMT. In order to mitigate these VMT impacts, we recommend that this project include residential dwellings that are EV-capable, promoting the use of electric vehicles. “EV-capable” means the developer will install a dedicated circuit within the service panel and provide a receptacle or blank cover labeled as “EV READY.” Additionally, the project 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 help reduce VMT associated with this project. (Traffic Study, p. 20)
Most of this text is reproduced in the MND:
1 1-100%/137.2%
3 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 Project 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. (MND, p. 36 of 46) Electric vehicles have significant climate and air pollution benefits but will not reduce VMT.
Neither the Traffic Study or the MND offer any evidence that electric vehicles do reduce VMT.
Furthermore, most, if not all, new single-family residential units constructed in California today would be “EV capable” without this condition due to market conditions, given the state’s commitment to EV vehicles.
VMT reduction from electric vehicles – 0%
The 2021 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity quantifies VMT reductions from mitigation measures. Two Handbook Neighborhood Design measures are relevant to the pedestrian and bicycle improvements required in the MND.
T-18 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement
T-19-A Construct or Improve Bike Facility
Measure T-18, pedestrian network improvements, has a maximum possible VMT reduction of 6.4%.
However, the reduction is case-specific and depends on the potential to effect trips of 2 miles or less that “could easily shift to walking.” As shown, below, the Walk Score for the project site is extremely low, 2 out of a possible 100, and there are few non-residential destinations within walking distance other than Independence High School. The planned improvements to the high school certainly will be beneficial, but the high school is only about half a mile away, so each round trip between the project and the high school switched from auto to walk would eliminate only 1 VMT. The VMT reduction from pedestrian improvements at this location will be less than 1 percent.
VMT reduction from pedestrian improvements – less than 1% 4 From walkscore.com
The Bike Score for the project location is much higher than the Walk Score, 30, although these only rates as “minimal.” The maximum reduction in the CAPCOA Handbook for Measure T-19-A Construct or Improve Bike Facility is only 0.8%.
VMT reduction from bike improvements – less than 0.8%
Combine VMT reduction from walk and bike improvements – less than 2% This is much less than the required 27.1% reduction require for full mitigation 5 The Transportation Impact Fee Payment Will Not Mitigate VMT The MND states:
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.
These fees are required in all development projects. The single-family residential fees as of July 1, 2025 are:
• Core Area: $7,747 per unit
• Non-Core Area $12,870 per unit2
The project site is in the non-core area. This is another indication that the project is in a high VMT area with significant transportation impacts. There is no assertion or evidence in either the Traffic Study or the MND that paying the required impact fees will mitigate the project’s VMT impacts.
Conclusion
The proposed project would result in very significant, and mostly unmitigated VMT impacts.
Sincerely,
Norman L. Marshall
2 https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/6ba09f4a-c60e-426e-aec7-94175357e3dd?cache=1800 6 Resume
NORMAN L. MARSHALL, PRESIDENT
[email protected]
EDUCATION:
Master of Science in Engineering Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 1982 Bachelor of Science in Mathematics, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, 1977 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: (37 Years, 23 at Smart Mobility, Inc.) Norm Marshall helped found Smart Mobility, Inc. in 2001. Prior to this, he was at RSG for 14 years where he developed a national practice in travel demand modeling. He specializes in analyzing the relationships between the built environment and travel behavior and doing planning that coordinates multi-modal transportation with land use and community needs.
Regional Land Use/Transportation Scenario Planning
Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System (PACTS) – the Portland Maine Metropolitan Planning Organization. Updating regional travel demand model with new data (including AirSage), adding a truck model, and multiclass assignment including differentiation between cash toll and transponder payments.
Loudoun County Virginia Dynamic Traffic Assignment – Enhanced subarea travel demand model to include Dynamic Traffic Assignment (Cube). Model being used to better understand impacts of roadway expansion on induced travel.
Vermont Agency of Transportation-Enhanced statewide travel demand model to evaluate travel impacts of closures and delays resulting from severe storm events. Model uses innovate Monte Carlo simulations process to account for combinations of failures.
California Air Resources Board – Led team including the University of California in $250k project that reviewed the ability of the new generation of regional activity-based models and land use models to accurately account for greenhouse gas emissions from alternative scenarios including more compact walkable land use and roadway pricing. This work included hands-on testing of the most complex travel demand models in use in the U.S. today.
Climate Plan (California statewide) – Assisted large coalition of groups in reviewing and participating in the target setting process required by Senate Bill 375 and administered by the California Air Resources Board to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions through land use measures and other regional initiatives.
Chittenden County (2060 Land use and Transportation Vision Burlington Vermont region) – led extensive public visioning project as part of MPO’s long-range transportation plan update.
Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization – Implemented walk, transit and bike models within regional travel demand model. The bike model includes skimming bike networks including on-road and off-road bicycle facilities with a bike level of service established for each segment.
Chicago Metropolis Plan and Chicago Metropolis Freight Plan (6-county region)— developed alternative transportation scenarios, made enhancements in the regional travel demand model, and used the enhanced 7 model to evaluate alternative scenarios including development of alternative regional transit concepts.
Developed multi-class assignment model and used it to analyze freight alternatives including congestion pricing and other peak shifting strategies.
Municipal Planning
City of Grand Rapids – Michigan Street Corridor – developed peak period subarea model including nonmotorized trips based on urban form. Model is being used to develop traffic volumes for several alternatives that are being additional analyzed using the City’s Synchro model City of Omaha - Modified regional travel demand model to properly account for non-motorized trips, transit trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more compact mixed-use development. Scenarios with different roadway, transit, and land use alternatives were modeled.
City of Dublin (Columbus region) – Modified regional travel demand model to properly account for nonmotorized trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more compact mixed-use development. The model was applied in analyses for a new downtown to be constructed in the Bridge Street corridor on both sides of an historic village center.
City of Portland, Maine – Implemented model improvements that better account for non-motorized trips and interactions between land use and transportation and applied the enhanced model to two subarea studies.
City of Honolulu – Kaka’ako Transit Oriented Development (TOD) – applied regional travel demand model in estimating impacts of proposed TOD including estimating internal trip capture.
City of Burlington (Vermont) Transportation Plan – Led team that developing Transportation Plan focused on supporting increased population and employment without increases in traffic by focusing investments and policies on transit, walking, biking and Transportation Demand Management.
Transit Planning
Regional Transportation Authority (Chicago) and Chicago Metropolis 2020 – evaluated alternative 2020 and 2030 system-wide transit scenarios including deterioration and enhance/expand under alternative land use and energy pricing assumptions in support of initiatives for increased public funding.
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Austin, TX) Transit Vision – analyzed the regional effects of implementing the transit vision in concert with an aggressive transit-oriented development plan developed by Calthorpe Associates. Transit vision includes commuter rail and BRT.
Bus Rapid Transit for Northern Virginia HOT Lanes (Breakthrough Technologies, Inc and Environmental Defense.) – analyzed alternative Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) strategies for proposed privately-developing High Occupancy Toll lanes on I-95 and I-495 (Capital Beltway) including different service alternatives (point-to-point services, trunk lines intersecting connecting routes at in-line stations, and hybrid).
Roadway Corridor Planning
I-30 Little Rock Arkansas – Developed enhanced version of regional travel demand model that integrates TransCAD with open source Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) software, and used to model I-30 alternatives.
Freeway bottlenecks are modeled much more accurately than in the base TransCAD model. 8 South Evacuation Lifeline (SELL) – In work for the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, used Dynamic Travel Assignment (DTA) to estimate evaluation times with different transportation alternatives in coastal South Caroline including a new proposed freeway.
Hudson River Crossing Study (Capital District Transportation Committee and NYSDOT) – Analyzing long term capacity needs for Hudson River bridges which a special focus on the I-90 Patroon Island Bridge where a microsimulation VISSIM model was developed and applied.
PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS (partial list)
DTA Love: Co-leader of workshop on Dynamic Traffic Assignment at the June 2019 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.
Forecasting the Impossible: The Status Quo of Estimating Traffic Flows with Static Traffic Assignment and the Future of Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Research in Transportation Business and Management 2018.
Assessing Freeway Expansion Projects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the August 2018 Transportation Research Board Tools of the Trade Conference on Transportation Planning for Small and Medium Sized Communities.
Vermont Statewide Resilience Modeling. With Joseph Segale, James Sullivan and Roy Schiff. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.
Assessing Freeway Expansion Projects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.
Pre-Destination Choice Walk Mode Choice Modeling. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.
A Statistical Model of Regional Traffic Congestion in the United States, presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
MEMBERSHIPS/AFFILIATIONS
Associate Member, Transportation Research Board (TRB)
Member and Co-Leader Project for Transportation Modeling Reform, Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU)
EXHIBIT B
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
August 26, 2025
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
Subject: Comments on the General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424 Project (SCH No. 2025031371)
Dear Ms. Yundt,
We have reviewed the July 2025 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424 Project (“Project”) located in the City of Bakersfield (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 147 single-family residential lots on the 28.91-acre project site.
Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, and health risk impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, and health risk impacts that the project may have on the environment.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Inadequate Disclosure and Analysis of Impacts
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was not prepared for the Project site. The preparation of a Phase I ESA is a common practice in CEQA matters to aid in the identification of hazardous materials issues that may pose a risk to the public, workers, or the environment, and which may require further investigation through the conduct of a Phase II ESA.
2 Standards for performing a Phase I ESA have been established by the US EPA and the American Society for Testing and Materials Standards (ASTM).1 Phase I ESAs are conducted to identify conditions indicative of releases of hazardous substances and include:
• a review of all known sites in the vicinity of the subject property that are on regulatory agency databases undergoing assessment or cleanup activities;
• an inspection;
• interviews with people knowledgeable about the property; and • recommendations for further actions to address potential hazards.
Phase I ESAs conclude with the identification of any “recognized environmental conditions” (RECs) and recommendations to address such conditions. A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. If RECs are identified, then a Phase II ESA generally follows, which includes the collection of soil, soil vapor and groundwater samples, as necessary, to identify the extent of contamination and the need for cleanup to reduce exposure potential to the public.
The preparation of a Phase I ESA for the Project site is especially needed because of usage for agriculture. The Project site is zoned Resource-Intensive Agriculture (R-IA) and an aerial image from the IN/MND shows the site to be in agricultural use (see below).
Figure 1: Figure from IS/MND showing site to be in agricultural use 1 http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1527.htm
3 Because agriculture has been practiced on the Project site, pesticides, including DDT, DDE, and chlordane may be present in soils. The U.S. EPA identifies DDT and DDE as probable human carcinogens.2 Chlordane has also been classified as a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. EPA.3 The recommended Phase I ESA should therefore target the potential for pesticides through an evaluation of agricultural practices, including the types of crops that were grown and when they were cultivated.
Consistent with professional due diligence procedures commonly used in CEQA proceedings, a Phase I ESA, completed by a licensed environmental professional is necessary for inclusion in an EIR to identify RECs, if any, at the proposed Project site. If a REC is identified, a Phase II should be conducted to sample for potential contaminants in soil (including pesticides), soil vapor and groundwater. Any contamination that is identified above regulatory screening levels, including California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s Soil Screening Numbers4
, should be further evaluated and cleaned up, if necessary, in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Toxics Substances Control.
Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the July 2024 Small Project Analysis Level Assessment (“SPAL”), we identified several model inputs related to Project construction and operation that are inconsistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that provides a more detailed evaluation of the impact that construction and operation of the Project may have on local and regional air quality.
Changes to Land Use Size
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “220501.0013 VTTM 741 0 v0.1 Custom Report” model only includes 739,649-SF of “Single Family Housing” space (see screenshot below) (SPAL, pp. 26).
The single-family housing square footage included in the model is unsupported. While the IS/MND proposes to develop 147 single-family residential lots, the IS/MND does not mention the square footage of the proposed building area. The IS/MND states:
“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 2 https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts35.pdf
3 https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts31.pdf
4 https://dtsc.cdev.sites.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/112/2019/04/HHRA-Note-3-June-2020-A.pdf 4 range in size from 4,589 square feet to 11,462 square feet, with a typical lot size of approximately 5,150 square feet” (p. 4).
As indicated above, the IS/MND only specifies the lot sizes for the proposed residential space. The single-family housing square footage is thus unsupported and may be underestimated.
This potential underestimation presents an issue, as the land use size feature is used throughout CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that affect the model’s calculations. The square footage of each land use is used for certain calculations such as architectural coatings and energy use.5 By potentially underestimating the size of the proposed single-family housing, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction and operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Unsupported Material Import and Export
The IS/MND reveals that Project construction involves grading, stating:
“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)” (p. 15).
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “220501.0013 VTTM 741 0 v0.1 Custom Report” model does not include any amount of material import or export (see screenshot below) (SPAL, pp. 87).
The inclusion of material import and export within the model is required to calculate emissions produced from material movement, including truck loading and unloading, and additional hauling truck trips.6 By not including the amount of material import and export required for Project construction, the model has potentially underestimated the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared to specify the required amount of material import and export during construction and provide an updated air quality analysis.
Incorrect Application of Energy-Related Operational Mitigation Measure The “220501.0013 VTTM 741 0 v0.1 Custom Report” model includes the following energy-related operational mitigation measure (see screenshot below) (SPAL, pp. 27). 5 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 30. 6 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, April 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, p. 36, 38. 5 This is incorrect, as the IS/MND does not mention nor explicitly require the use of solar power whatsoever. Additionally, according to the AEP CEQA Portal Topic Paper on Mitigation Measures:
“While not ‘mitigation’, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact.”7
Design features are not mitigation measures and may be eliminated from the Project’s design. As the use of solar power on the Project site is not formally included as a mitigation measure, we cannot guarantee that it would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. As a result, the inclusion of the above-mentioned energy-related operational mitigation measure in the model is incorrect. By including an operational mitigation measure without properly committing to its implementation, the model may underestimate the Project’s operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The SPAL estimates that the maximum incremental cancer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive receptors associated with exposure to diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions during Project construction would be 16.5 in one million, which would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance threshold of 20 in one million (see excerpt below) (pp. 14, Table 5-4):
The IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts may be underestimated for two reasons.
First, the IS/MND’s construction HRA relies upon emissions estimates from an unsubstantiated air model. When reviewing the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the SPAL, we found that several 7 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6. 6 of the values that may be underestimated or were consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND.
The HRA consequently utilizes a potentially underestimated DPM concentration to calculate the health risk associated with Project construction. The IS/MND’s construction HRA and resulting cancer risk should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Second, the IS/MND does not mention or provide the exposure assumptions for the HRA, such as the age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) or fraction of time at home (“FAH”) values, whatsoever. Until the IS/MND substantiates the use of correct exposure assumptions, the HRA may underestimate the cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors because of Project construction. Furthermore, according to the Risk Assessment Guidelines provided by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, the IS/MND’s model should have used the following equation:8 The IS/MND and associated documents do not include a dose or risk equation to calculate the Project’s construction cancer risks. As such, we cannot verify that the IS/MND’s HRA is accurate, and the Project’s cancer risks may be underestimated.
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited documentation regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.
8 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-7 Equation 8.2.4. 7 Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV
1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
MatthewF. Hagemann,P.G., C.Hg.
• Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization, Investigation and Remediation Strategies • Industrial Stormwater Compliance
• CEQAReview
• Expert Testimony
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist, P.G.
California Certified Hydrogeologist, C.Hg.
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Experience:
30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. Spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where I identified emerging threats to groundwater. While with EPA, I served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. Led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, I developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultations as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and managing projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Positions held include:
Government:
Attachment $
Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); 2 Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998).
Educational:
Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995).
Private Sector:
Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert, for both plaintiffs and defendants, in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards.
• Recommending additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce exposure to hazards from toxins.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation, for both government agencies and corporate clients, at more than 150 industrial facilities. • Serving as expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in cases including contamination of groundwater, CERCLAcompliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns, for both government agencies and corporate clients.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applicationsfor large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., duties included the following:
Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking 3 Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities included:
• Leading efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiating a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identifying emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. Used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Prepared geologic reports, conducted hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.
Served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties included:
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
• Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in LosAngeles that met strict Sate of California regulatory requirements. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation withclients and regulators.
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliancewith Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.EPA legal counsel.
4 With the National Park Service, directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.
Policy:
Served as senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advising the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential forthe gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinkingwater supplies.
• Shaping EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributingto guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water:
Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improving the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earning an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process.
• Establishing national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities included:
• Mapping geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinating research with community stakeholders who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterizing the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for thecity of Medford, Oregon.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. 5 Duties included the following:
• Supervising year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducting aquifertests.
• Investigating active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. • Part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.
Summary of Testimony Experience Over Past Four Years
In Re New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection et al. vs. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-14766-RMB-JBC. Deposition in 2025.
Representing Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater, wastewater, soil, and air with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
In Re Edmond Asher, et al., vs. RTX Corporation (f/k/a Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.) in the County of Huntington Superior Court, Indiana, Cause number 35D01-2006-CT-000338. Deposition in 2024. Representing Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater and soil vapor with trichlorethylene.
In Re Wright vs Consolidated Rail Corporation In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No: 21L3966.
Deposition in 2023, Representing Plaintiff in matters involving groundwater and drinking water contamination of perchloroethylene, trichlorethylene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride.
In Re Behr Dayton Thermal Products LLC In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division at Dayton, Case No: 08-cv-326. Deposition in 2022. Representing Plaintiff in matters regarding contamination of groundwater and indoor air with perchloroethylene and trichloethelene.
Orange County Water District vs. Sabic Innovative Plastics US, LLC, et al. In the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, As a consultant with Dames and Moore, led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large RCRA hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. 6 Los Angeles Waterkeeper vs. AAA Plating and Inspection, Inc. In the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No: No. CV 18-5916 PA (GJSx). Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff in matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Compton, California.
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics vs. Schneider Dock and Intermodal Facility. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No: 3:17-cv-05287-JST. Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff in matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Eureka, California.
Bells et al. vs. The 3M Company et al. In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No: 1:16-CV02531-RBJ. Deposition in 2018. Expert witness representing Plaintiff on matters regarding the general hydrogeological conditions present in an area impacted by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances.
Ungar vs. Foundation for Affordable Housing. In the Superior Court, State of California, Los Angeles County, Case No.
BC628890 Deposition in 2017. Expert witness representing defendant on matters involving alleged drinking water contamination.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making andPublic Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins atschools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Division 1, California, Case No: D070553. Deposition in 2020. Representing Plaintiff in matters involving compliance with The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 7 Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to atribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to ameeting of tribal representatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies.
Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting ofthe National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to ameeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA andState Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground StorageTanks.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin 8 Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal WatercraftUsage.
Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George WrightSociety Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval AirStation, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Airand Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Basesin California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations,2009‐2011.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage.
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 17 March 2025
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.
Attachment %
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 17 March 2025
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:
Rosenfeld, P.E., Spaeth, K.R., McCarthy, S.J. et al. Camp Lejeune Marine Cancer Risk Assessment for Exposure to Contaminated Drinking Water From 1955 to 1987. Water Air Soil Pollut 235, 124 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06863-y.
Rosenfeld P.E., Spaeth K.R., Remy L.L., Byers V., Muerth S.A., Hallman R,C., Summers-Evans J., Barker S. (2023) Perfluoroalkyl substances exposure in firefighters: Sources and implications, Environmental Research, Volume 220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115164.
Rosenfeld P.E. and Spaeth K.R., (2023) Authors’ Response to Letter to the Editor from Bullock and Ramacciotti, Water Air Soil Pollution Volume 234, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06165-3 Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 17 March 2025
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E., (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., Rosenfeld, P.E. Davletshin, A.R. (2008). Responsible Care. Gulf Publishing. Texas.
Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy of Odour Wheels for Odours of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme for The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated with Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49(9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affects on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook for Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation on St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Master’s thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelor’s Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted at University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus on Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 17 March 2025
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model for PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium on Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium on Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting for Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation with High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation with High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. The course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate the effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 17 March 2025
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate the effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the District Court of Harris County Texas
Mt Davis Interest, Inc v Sesco Cement Corp
Cause No 2023-26512
Trial 6-6-2-25
In the United States Southern District of New York
Gallo vs Avon Products Inc., et al
Civil Action No.: 1:23-cv-2023
Deposition 4-24-2025
In Vanderburgh Superior Court 5, County of Vanderburgh, Indiana Markello v CSX
Civil Action No 82D05-2011-CT-004962
Deposition 3-26-25
Iin the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jarosiewicz v Northeast Regional Railroad
Case No 2023 L 002290
Deposition 2-27-25
In the District Court 191st Judicial District Dallas County Acklin v Poly America International
Cause No DC-22-08610
Deposition 1-8-2025
United States District Court, Norther District of California Asustin Vs Monsanto
Case No 2:23-cv-272
Deposition 12-20-25
In Jefferson Circuit Court Division One, Louisville, Kentucky Stafford vs, CSX
Case No. 18-CI-001790
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 17 March 2025
Deposition: 8-27-24
In the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit of St. Louis. State of Missouri Patricia Godfrey vs, Amtrak
Case No. 2122-CC-00525
Deposition: 7-17-24
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda Early Vs. CSX
Case number CV-2021-00241
Deposition 6-24-24
In the Court of Common Please Lucas County, Ohio
Brenda Conkright vs. CSX
Case No. G-4801-CI-0202102664-000
Deposition: 6-4-24
In the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Greenup Circuit Court
Patsy Sue Napier vs. CSX
Case No. 19-CI-0012
Deposition: 5-8-2-24
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Trial 3-29-24 and 4-5-24
In the District Court of Hood County State of Texas
Artie Gray vs. Exxon Mobil
Case No. C-2018047
Rosenfeld Deposition:4-22-2024
In the Elkhart Superior Court State of Indiana
Estate of Clark Stacy vs. Penn Central Corporation
Cause No 2D01-2001-CT-00007
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-25-2024 and 3-7-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin Michael J. Sylla et al. vs. High-Crush Whitehall LLC
Case No. 2019-CV-63, 2019-CV-64, 2019-CV-65, 2019-CV-66 Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin Leland Drangstveit vs. High-Crush Blair LLC
Case No. 19-CV-66
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Donald Lee Ashworth vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No CV-2021-901261
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-23-2024
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Gary L Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-19-2024
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 17 March 2025
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Ricky Bush v. Clean Harbors Colfax LLC
Case No. 1:22-cv-02026-DDD-JPM
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-18-2023 and 1-15-2024
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-29-2023
In the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit St. Clair County, Illinois Timothy Gray vs. Rural King et al.
Case No 2022-LA-355
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-26-2023
In United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin Gary L. Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2023
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Fox vs. BNSF
Case No. 2021 L12
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-12-2023
In the Court of Common Please Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Thomas Schleich vs. Penn Central Corporation
Lead Case No. CV-20-939184
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-27-2023
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County Missouri at Kansas City Timothy Dalsing vs. BNSF
Case No. No. 2216-cv06539
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-28-2023
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division International Terminals Company LLC Deer Park Fire Litigation Lead Case No. 4:19-cv-01460
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-25-2023
In the Circuit Court of Livingston County Missouri
Shirley Ralls vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Lind Railroad Case No. 28LV-CV0020
Rosenfeld Daubert Hearing 7-18-2023 Trial Testimony 7-19-2023 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Brenda Wright vs. Penn Central and Conrail
Case No. No. 2032L003966
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-13-2023
In the Circuit Court Common Please Philadelphia of Jefferson County Alabama Frank Belle vs. Birmingham Southern Railroad Company et al.
Case No. 01-cv-2021-900901.00
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-6-2023
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 17 March 2025
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda De Gregorio vs. Penn Central
Case No. 002278
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-27-20203
In the United States District Court Eastern District of New York Rosalie Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-16-2023
In the Superior Court of Washington, Spokane County
Judy Cundy vs. BNSF
Case No. 21-2-03718-32
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-9-2023
In The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, PA Civil Trial Division Feaster v Conrail
Case No. 001075
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-1-2023
In United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois Sherman vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:17-cv-01192
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Gonzales vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01690
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-17-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Abeyta vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01689-KMT
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-3-2023
In United States District Court For The Easter District of Louisiana Nathaniel Smith vs. Illinois Central Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-01235
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-30-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.
Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 17 March 2025
Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.
Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022, Trial 1-10-2023
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.
Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 13 of 17 March 2025
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al. vs Cerro Flow Products, Inc.
Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a
AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 14 of 17 March 2025
Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.
Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.
Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.
Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.
Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.
Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 15 of 17 March 2025
Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintifs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. vs. Antero, et al.
Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 16 of 17 March 2025
Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the County of Kern, Unlimited Jurisdiction
Rose Propagation Services vs. Heppe Enterprises
Case No. S-1500-CV-278190, LHB
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2014
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
In the Court of Galveston County, Texas 56th Judicial District MDL Litigation Regarding Texas City Refinery Ultracracker Emission Event Litigation Cause No. 10-UC-0001
Rosenfeld Deposition: March 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: September 2013
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the United States District court of Southern District of California United States of America, Plaintiff vs. 2,560 Acres of Land, more or less, located in Imperial County, State of California; and Donald L. Crawford, et. al.
Civil No. 3:11-cv-02258-IEG-RBB
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2012, January 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 17 of 17 March 2025
Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
EXHIBIT C
INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: July 30, 2025
To: Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: New Gen Engineering Residential Project, Bakersfield, CA. (IEE File Reference: P-4891)
Pages: 19
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a wellrecognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.
The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2 of 19
2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.
Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD, 2021).
Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.
The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 3 of 19
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.
In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.
A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3(18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3found in the 2007 CNHS.
Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products.
This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million-cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).
With respect to the New Gen Engineering Residential Project, Bakersfield, CA|, the buildings consist of residential spaces.
4 of 19
The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.
Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3(Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences.
This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).
In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.
Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures.
Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.
5 of 19
Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.
The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.
6 of 19
1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.
2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2of material/m2floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).
3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.
7 of 19
CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.
If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area-specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.
Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate. 8 of 19
4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.
5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.
𝐶𝑖𝑛 =
𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑄𝑜𝑎
(Equation 1)
where:
Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.
Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section
3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).
6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).
7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or NonCancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.
Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the 9 of 19
health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:
1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde
2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:
1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.
Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. PreConstruction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a 10 of 19
result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week.
Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.
The New Gen Engineering Residential Project, Bakersfield, CA include areas close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., McCutcheon Road, Buena Vista Road, South Allen Road, Berkshire Road, etc.).
The Negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001- City of Bakersfield, CA, contains no assessment of the existing or future ambient noise levels.
In order to design the buildings for this Project such that interior noise levels are acceptable, an acoustic study with actual on-site measurements of the existing ambient noise levels and modeled future ambient noise levels needs to be conducted. The acoustic study of the existing ambient noise levels should be conducted over a one-week period. and report the dBA CNEL or Ldn. This study will allow for the selection of a building envelope and windows with a sufficient STC such that the indoor noise levels are acceptable. A mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors will also be required. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.
PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. 11 of 19
At the Project location, an air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.
It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.
Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
12 of 19
Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.
PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.
Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the 13 of 19
occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.
References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2004. Formaldehyde in the Home. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov › research › indoor › formaldgl08-04.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.
California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.
California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. 14 of 19
California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.
California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.
Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2018011001.
City of Bakersfield. 2025. Negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendment No. 21- 0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001- City of Bakersfield, CA.
EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.
Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf 15 of 19
OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.
Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-qualityanalysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
16 of 19
APPENDIX A
INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS
AND THE
CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.
Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3(18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.
Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.
For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the StandardMethod fortheTestingandEvaluationof Volatile Organic Chemical EmissionsforIndoor Sources UsingEnvironmental Chambers,Version1.1, 2017, California Department of Public Health, 17 of 19
Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/
DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.
For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence.
For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.
The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.
Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2(0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2(1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2(2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2(2.0 % of the floor area).
For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.
Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA 18 of 19
cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.
Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.
The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins.
September 17, 2025
Via Email
Adam Strickland, Chair
Candace Neal, Commissioner
Daniel Cate, Commissioner
Cassie Bittle, Commissioner
Allison Brandt Oliver, Commissioner
Matthew Martin, Commissioner
Gurtarpreet Kaur, Commissioner
Ashley Knight, Assistant Planner
Planning Commission
City of Bakersfield, Planning Department
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, Planning Commission September 18, 2025, Agenda Item 6.a Dear Chair Strickland, Honorable Planning Commissioners, and 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”), scheduled to be heard as Agenda Item 6.a at the Planning Commission’s September 18, 2025 meeting.
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 General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 September 17, 2025