Bakersfield City Council
March 11, 2026

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 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 General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 November 18, 2025

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, 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
General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 November 18, 2025

I. The MND Failed to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Significant Agricultural Impacts.

SAFER’s agricultural resources experts Henry House and Gregory House of House Agricultural Consultants (“House”) concluded that the Project will have significant impacts on agricultural resources from the conversion of Prime Farmland to nonagricultural uses. However, the City failed to adequately analyze these significant impacts and failed to adopt effective mitigation to reduce these impacts to less than significant. (See Exhibit D.) A. The MND fails to adequately analyze the Project’s agricultural impacts.

House confirmed, using the United States Department of Agriculture’s Web Soil Survey that soil of the Project site is “0174 Kimberlina fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, a class-I soil in the USDA’s Land Capability Classification System, and therefore Prime Farmland if irrigated.” (Ex. D, p. 2.) Therefore, the Project would convert 28.91 acres of Prime Farmland to nonagricultural use. (MND, p. 13; California Department of Conservation, NOP Comments on MND for GPA 21-0424 (Apr. 29, 2025) [“DOC Comments”], p. 2.) As a result, the MND and California 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, as House explains, the MND improperly justifies the Project’s conversion of Prime Farmland—a significant impact—as “no longer important because of external forces that have led to its disuse and demise as agriculturally productive land.” (Ex. D, p. 2.) As discussed below, House concluded that the MND failed to adequately analyze the Project’s significant agricultural impacts for several reasons.

1. The MND’s agricultural impact analysis improperly confounds land-use potential.

House found that the MND improperly confounds the Project site’s recent lack of cultivation and absence of irrigation infrastructure with a “shift in land use potential.” (Ex. D, p. 2; MND, p. 13.) However, this is not evidence of a diminished agricultural land-use potential, but rather that the Project site is located in an area that is merely in transition from agricultural to urban use pursuant the MBGP. (Ex. D, p. 2.) House notes that while the MBGP may support eventual conversion of agricultural land, the transition has not yet occurred and the Project site’s Prime Farmland potential remains if irrigation is available. (Id.) Because the MND does not investigate the site’s actual potential for agricultural production or the status of its Prime Farmland if irrigation is made available, House concluded that the MND fails to adequately analyze agricultural impacts as required as under CEQA. (Id.) General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 November 18, 2025

2. The MND failed to use the California LESA model to adequately analyze the Project’s agricultural impacts.

House found that the MND improperly relies on the Farmland Conversion Study because it “lacks the rigor to render certainty to its findings.” (Ex. D, p. 2.) The Farmland Conversion Study does not provide a reliable basis for evaluating the impacts from the Project converting Prime Farmland to urban use. (Id.) Instead, House explains that the MND should rely on the California Department of Conservation’s “Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model as a point-based approach for rating the relative importance of agricultural land resources based upon specific measurable features.” (Id.)
House noted that even though the Farmland Conversion Study references elements of the LESA framework, it fails to apply the LESA Model’s required methodology or generate a numerical score that would objectively rate the Project site’s agricultural significance. (Ex. D, p.

2.) Because the site is recognized as Prime Farmland, House explains that a full LESA analysis is mandatory and standard practice throughout California. (Id.) House further highlights that the LESA Model includes specific criteria for assessing water availability and irrigable acreage— key factors the MND and its Farmland Conversion Study failed to evaluate—rendering the MND’s agricultural analysis incomplete. (Id., p. 3.)

3. The MND’s agricultural impact analysis fails to analyze water availability.

House found that the MND fails to investigate whether the Project site still has access to irrigation water, despite its history of irrigated agricultural use. (Ex. D, p. 3.) House notes that the Farmland Conversion Study only briefly references potential water delivery limits in some districts, without providing any actual analysis of current irrigation water availability. (Id.) House further points out that the adjoining property continues to irrigate crops along the Project site’s southern boundary indicating that irrigation water may still be accessible. (Id.) As such, House concludes that the omission of any evaluation of irrigation water availability is a significant deficiency in the MND’s agricultural impact analysis. (Id.) Therefore, the MND’s analysis of the Project’s agricultural resources impacts and less-than-significant conclusion cannot be relied upon.

4. The MND lacks substantial evidence regarding the agricultural viability of the Project site.

House explains that while the MND acknowledges that the MBGP EIR states that farmland conversion is an unavoidable consequence of urban expansion and that the conversion of Prime Farmland on the Project site is a potentially significant impact, it dismisses this impact by citing housing demand, other City policies favoring urban development, infill status, and assumptions regarding the site’s diminished agricultural viability. (Ex. D, p. 3.) However, the MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support its argument that the Project site lacks agricultural viability.

General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 November 18, 2025

Specifically, House found that the MND lacks substantial evidence to support its assertion that the Project site is “no longer viable for long term agricultural use” because of its proximity to existing urban development and not currently being cultivated. (Ex. D, p. 3.) However, House notes that there are numerous examples of agricultural cultivation occurring adjacent to urban development, including nearby parcels—some immediately adjacent to the Project site—that continue to be actively cultivated despite being near urban development or currently zoned for urban uses. (Id., pp. 3-4.) Therefore, House concludes that “mere adjacency to existing urban development does not preclude the land from being farmed,” and that the MND’s viability argument lacks substantial evidence and does nothing to address whether the loss of Class I Prime Farmland is a significant impact under CEQA. (Id., p. 4)

5. The MND fails to analyze impacts from “other changes” that could covert farmland to nonagricultural uses.

House notes that “[t]he MND also fails to assess impacts to agricultural resources known as ‘other changes,’ a way of looking at unintended consequences on neighboring farm land.” (Ex.

D, p. 3.) According to House, the Farmland Conversion Study identifies several ways a project resulting in “agricultural conversion could generally reduce agricultural feasibility, including restrictions on pesticide usage, vandalism, and reduced water supply.” (Ex. D, p. 4.) However, as House explains, the MND and Farmland Conversion Study fail to analyze any of these as is required to comply with II(e) of the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. (Id.; MND, pp. 12, 14.) Specifically, the MND and its accompanying study fail to analyze whether the Project would “involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.” (Id.) As a result, the MND fails to adequately analyze the Project’s impacts to agricultural resources.

B. The MND relies on inadequate mitigation to reduce the Project’s significant agricultural impacts.

Although the MND and Farmland Conversion Study do not deny that the Project could result in significant agricultural impacts, the MND includes inadequate mitigation to reduce the Project’s agricultural impacts to less-than-significant. As explained by House, paying the Williamson Act cancellation fee is not adequate mitigation. (Ex. D, pp. 5-6.) Instead, House recommends the purchase of an agricultural conservation easement as a form of adequate mitigation. (Id.)

1. Payment of a Williamson Act cancellation fee does not mitigate farmland conversion.

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.

House explains that a Williamson Act cancellation fee is meant to recover the following:

General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 November 18, 2025

A Williamson Act contract between a landowner and the County of Kern allows the farmland to be assessed for property tax purpose on a different formula than other real estate. The contract has a rolling ten-year termination date, and provides significant property-tax relief benefits to the landowner based on this ten-year period. Thus if the contract is to be terminated prematurely, that is, without a tenyear period of agreed nonrenewal, then a cancellation fee is imposed by the county.
(Ex. D, p. 5.) Its sole purpose is to make up for taxes not paid and to discourage premature contract cancellation. As House notes, “[i]n no way does such a process mitigate the conversion of farmland to urban uses.” (Id.)
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 Williamson Act 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.

2. Conservation easements should be adopted as mitigation for the Project.

The MND concludes that the Project’s impacts on agricultural resources would be lessthan-significant “with mitigation incorporated.” (MND, p. 13.) “But again,” as House notes, “no mitigation for the conversion of Prime Farmland is proposed in this MND.” (Ex. D, p. 5.) House explains that the standard method of mitigation for agricultural impacts is the purchase of an agricultural conservation easement, as outlined by the California Department of Conservation. (Id., p. 6.) Although the MND and Farmland Conversion Study acknowledge that the Project’s conversion of Prime Farmland is a significant impact, the MND does not require an agriculturalconservation easement as mitigation for farmland conversion. (Id.)Without additional mitigation, “the Project’s impact from the loss of Prime Farmland remains significant,” and therefore an EIR is required. (Id.)
C. 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 General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 November 18, 2025

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. (Ex. D, pp. 4-5.) 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.; see also, id., pp. 11-13.) The Farmland Conversion Study also explains that “the development trend in the City is similar to that of the proposed project in that as the City expands, new development converts outlying farmland to non-agricultural uses.” (Id., p. 13.) In addition, the Farmland Conversion Study quotes the MBGP EIR as stating that “conversion of prime agricultural lands to urban uses will result in a reduction of the regional agricultural economy and is considered a significant adverse impact.” (Id., p. 15.) As House notes, the “Farmland Conversion Study has aptly described a policy of creeping, piecemeal approval of farm land conversion approval that has significant impacts on nearby agriculture.” (Ex. D, p. 5.) According to House, “[t]his is all evidence of the project’s significant contribution to a cumulative impact as a result of the conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses in Bakersfield.” (Id.)
House’s comments are substantial evidence of a significant cumulative impact on agricultural resources requiring preparation of an EIR. The MND ignores this impact and does not discuss cumulative impacts to farmland by looking at the Project together with past and reasonably foreseeable future conversions of farmlands to non-agricultural uses.

II. The Project has a Significant Land Use and Planning Impact Because it Conflicts with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan’s Policies Concerning the Conservation of Agricultural Resources.

The Project conflicts with the MBGP, which includes goals and policies to conserve agricultural land, minimize development of prime land, promote soil conservation, and protect areas of agricultural production. (Ex. D, p. 3.) For example, House notes that MBGP Policy 3 requires protection of Class I and II agricultural soils with surface-delivery water systems from urban residential and commercial encroachment. (Id.; see also, MBGP, p. V-13.) The Project conflicts with this policy because it removes Class I agricultural soils by converting the land to residential uses. When converting designated agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses, MBGP Policy 14 requires the City to evaluate several factors, such as “soil quality,” “availability of irrigation water,” and “ability to create a precedent-setting situation that leads to the premature conversion of prime agricultural lands.” (MBGP, p. V-14.) The Project conflicts with MBGP Policy 14 because the City has failed to adequately evaluate the soil quality and agricultural water availability of the site or its potential precedent-setting, cumulative conversion impacts.

General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 November 18, 2025

(Ex. D, pp. 3-4; see also, MBGP, p. V-14.) As discussed above, there is substantial evidence that the Project will impact Class I Prime Farmland with agricultural water viability, which the MND fails to adequately mitigate. These conflicts constitute a significant land use and planning impact under CEQA. (See CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, XI(b).) Yet, the MND ignores this significant impact and provides no meaningful mitigation for converting Class I Prime Farmland on the Project site. (Ex. D, pp. 3-4.) Even though the Farmland Conversion Study summarizes relevant MBGP policies, neither it nor the MND adheres to MBGP Policy 3 and Policy 14 meant to safeguard the Project site’s Class I Prime Farmland. (Id.) III. The MND’s Farmland Conversion Study Concludes the Project’s Impact on Agricultural Resources is Significant and Unavoidable.

The Farmland Conversion Study prepared for the Project also states that the “conversion of prime agricultural land is a significant and unavoidable impact with increased development and urbanization.” (Farmland Conversion Study, p. 15.) This study and its conclusions are substantial evidence of a significant and unavoidable impact. An EIR must be prepared, along with a statement of overriding considerations, in order to approve this Project with its significant environmental impacts.

IV. An EIR is Required Because the MBGP EIR Concluded that the Project’s Impact from the Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to a Nonagricultural Use is Significant and Unavoidable.

The MBGP 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 MBGP 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 MBGP 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 detrimental projects, to justify their decisions based on counterbalancing social, economic or other benefits, and to point to substantial evidence in support.”].) V. The Project will Have a Significant Unmitigated 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.

General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 November 18, 2025

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.) “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.) General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 November 18, 2025

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.) 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 no 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.

VI. 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

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 November 18, 2025

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 quality impacts.

VII. 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.

VIII. An EIR is Required Because there is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts.

General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 November 18, 2025

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 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 General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 November 18, 2025

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.

IX. 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 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- General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 November 18, 2025

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 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 General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 November 18, 2025

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 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 House Agricultural Consultants, 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, and hazardous and hazardous materials. For those reasons, an EIR must be prepared for the Project.

Sincerely,
Victoria Yundt
General Plan Amendment 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 November 18, 2025

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.

EXHIBIT D
October 15, 2025 (via electronic mail)
To: Ms. Victoria Yundt From: Greg and Henry House
Lozeau Drury House Agricultural Consultants
[email protected] [email protected], [email protected] Re: Expert review of Memorandum of Negative Declaration of General Plan Amendment No. 21- 0424 (New Gen Engineering Group Inc.) in the City of Bakersfield, California, with respect to agricultural matters
Dear Ms. Yundt:

At your request, we have reviewed the Negative Declaration (hereinafter, MND) of the City of Bakersfield for proposed general-plan amendment no. 21-0424 (New Gen Engineering Group Inc.), dated July 21, 2025—hereinafter, the New Gen Project— to comment on agricultural resources in our capacity as agriculture experts.

We, House Agricultural Consultants (hereinafter, HAC), are an agricultural-consulting firm that has analyzed agricultural impacts of numerous similar development projects over a period of many years. These are our first comments on this project. A description of our qualifications as consultants follows as an appendix to this memorandum.

In brief, we comment on three problematic aspects of the MND that cause it to fail to prove its negative declaration finding specifically related to agricultural resources. The MND:— 1) The MND does not comply with CEQA requirements to analyze impacts on agricultural resources. Discussed under 1, below.
2) The MND fails to comply with the general-plan policies of the City of Bakersfield. Discussed under 2, below.
3) The MND mistakes the payment of a Williamson Act contract’s cancellation fee for a mitigation of the conversion of Prime Farmland. Discussed under 3, below. 1 The MND does not comply with CEQA requirements. Item a in the CEQA checklist for impacts to agricultural resources requires that the responsible agency determine whether the project would “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”.

The MND is grossly inadequate in addressing item a, above. On page 13, the MND develops a reasoning in which there only exists a potentially significant impact:

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). . . . 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.

Memorandum · October 15, 2025 · On New Gen MND in Re Agriculture Matters 2 But nowhere in the MND does it deny this is a significant impact, but rather instead it develops the idea that, while the New Gen Project site is Prime Farmland, its conversion is somehow no longer important because of external forces that have led to its disuse and demise as agriculturally productive land.

1.1 Prime Farmland confirmed. We have confirmed, using the United States Department of Agriculture’s Web Soil Survey*that soil of the site is 0174 Kimberlina fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, a class-I soil in the USDA’s Land Capability Classification System, and therefore Prime Farmland if irrigated.†

1.2 Confounding lack of use with land-use potential. The MND describes how the project site is located in a area of transition from agriculture to residential development, that the project is “infill development”, and is aligned with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) growth strategy, which by the by, acknowledges that farmland conversion is an unavoidable consequence of urban expansion.

However, the MND confounds the lack of cultivation in recent years and the absence of irrigation infrastructure on site‡ with a “shift in land use potential.” It goes on to state that the City of Bakersfield’s general-plan policy “further supports the suitability of this land use change”.

While this land-use change may align with the MBGP, it has not yet happened: it is a transition that has not been completed. The fact that the land has not been cultivated for several years and that its undescribed irrigation infrastructure has been removed does not obviate its potential for agricultural production nor obviate its Prime Farmland status if irrigation water is available to it.

This has not been investigated in the MND and is therefore a failure of the CEQA process.

1.3 The MND should rely on the California LESA Model. While the MND relies on a Farmland Conversion Study prepared by McIntosh & Associates dated February 2025, this study, which purports to analyze the impact of this farmland conversion, lacks the rigor to render certainty to its findings.

On the other hand, the California Department of Conservation (DOC) provides a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model as a point-based approach for rating the relative importance of agricultural land resources based upon specific measurable features. According to DOC’s web site,
The California LESA Model was developed to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that potentially significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process (Public Resources Code Section 21095), including in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reviews.

While nominally reviewing many of the elements of the California LESA Model, The Farmland Conversion Study does not follow any of the model’s methodology for developing a numerically based measurement that would objectively rank the significance of the conversion of the New Gen Project site from farmland to urban use.

Since the MND recognizes that the project site is Prime Farmland, it is mandatory that the MND considers a full and complete analysis of the agricultural resources of the site, and this is standardly done by use of the California LESA model throughout California. The CEQA checklist for reviewing agricultural resources recommends its use, as noted on page 1 of the Farmland Conversion Study.
hhttps://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ i
*
See hhttps://www.nrcs.usda.gov/publications/Legend and Prime Farmland—Query by Soil Survey Area.htmli. †
The flood and row irrigation infrastructure has been removed some years ago (MND page 10, and 13). ‡ Memorandum · October 15, 2025 · On New Gen MND in Re Agriculture Matters 3 The California LESA Model has specific criteria for evaluating water resources on a project subject to CEQA analysis, which includes the availability of a water resource to a property, and the amount of area of the property to which the water might be available.

1.4 Analysis of water availability lacking. There is no effort in the MND to determine whether the project site still has a water source that it once used for irrigation; nor is there one in the Farmland Conversion Study that only weakly mentions that: “Some water districts have limits on the amount of water they can deliver to agricultural crops. Water demands change somewhat when croplands are converted to urban uses.” There is no actual analysis of irrigation water’s availability, and crop irrigation appears to continue on a property adjoining the New Gen Project site on the western portion of the project site’s south border§, providing evidence that water might also still be available to the New Gen Project site.

This is a serious failing in the CEQA analysis; the city cannot just turn its back on the assessment process, which is what it has done in the MND. 2 Conflicts with Bakersfield’s general-plan policies. The City of Bakersfield’s general plan, known as the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP), has a section devoted to agricultural resources. The Farmland Conversion Study also has a section covering pertinent policies of the MBGP, beginning on page 8 of the study. Goals and policies within the MBGP are, according to the study, “established for specific direction and guiding action for the conservation of soils and agriculture within the City”.

The agricultural goals are to conserve agricultural land, to minimize urban development of prime land, and to “establish urban development patterns and practices that promote soil conservation and that protect areas of agricultural production”. Sixteen policies of the MBGP to achieve these goals are recorded in the study, pages 6 to 7.

Among other relevant policies, policy number 3 states:

Protect areas designated for agricultural use, which include Class I and II agricultural soils having surface-delivery water systems, from the encroachment of residential and commercial subdivision development activities.

The MND conflicts with this policy by not providing real mitigation for the conversion of class-I soil on the New Gen Project site.

2.1 The MND conflicts with the general plan concerning site-conversion impact.

The MND quotes that “the MBGP acknowledges that farmland conversion is an unavoidable consequence of urban expansion.” The MND, as already noted, considers the conversion of Prime Farmland a “potentially significant impact.” It goes on to dismiss this potential through a number of arguments including the need for housing, prior and conflicting policies of the City concerning urban development, the subject New Gen Project site is merely “infill”, and that the site is no longer viable for agriculture. The MND also fails to assess impacts to agricultural resources known as “other changes”, a way of looking at unintended consequences on neighboring farm land.

2.2 Viability issues. The MND states that the project site is “no longer viable for long term agricultural use” because it is proximate to existing urban development and it not currently being cultivated. There is no evidence to support this statement and there are innumerable examples of cultivation occurring adjacent to urban development, some apparently as close as APN 542-010-17, hhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/MDwgBKVB7cNPiDii8 i, downloaded October 13, 2025. § Memorandum · October 15, 2025 · On New Gen MND in Re Agriculture Matters 4 the 58.5 acres south of the New Gen Project site already mentioned, and APN 542-010-21, 15.53 acres immediately east of the former. While these parcels are apparently already zoned for urban use, they are still being cultivated, thus proving that mere adjacency to existing urban development does not preclude the land from being farmed. This viability argument is therefore toothless, both in common sense and also and especially as it does nothing to address whether the loss of class-I Prime Farmland is a significant environmental impact.

2.3 “Other changes” impacts. Although it lists seven ways a project causing agricultural conversion could generally reduce agricultural feasibility, including restrictions on pesticide usage, vandalism, and reduced water supply, the Farmland Conversion Study and the MND fail to analyze any of these to comply with Item e in the CEQA checklist for impacts to agricultural resources:
whether the project would “involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use”. There is simply no analysis whatsoever.

2.4 Cumulative impacts. The MND and its Farmland Conversion Study note that the New Gen Project site is surrounded on three sides by urban development: “The proposed project, though once determined an outparcel, is now surrounded by development and has become an infill site.”|| Using this perspective, surely there is a blindspot in how the City of Bakersfield handles, and fails to mitigate, the loss of farmland.

Currently, the development trend in the City is similar to that of the proposed project in that as the City expands, new development converts outlying farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, conversion of the proposed 28.91 gross acre project site to a non-agricultural use will not be precedent setting.¶
And it affects neighboring farm properties and has a cumulative effect:

Although the active farmland to the south of the project site is not under contract, the agricultural operations may be affected by the close proximity of surrounding urbanized areas. Additionally, land values tend to increase due to the proximity of urban areas and services, thereby encouraging the conversion of farmland to urban uses.ℵ
And:

The proposed project may have an impact on the farmland located south of the site, but the impacts would be similar in nature to the existing residential land uses in proximity of the farmland. Farmers near the proposed project will inevitably be affected by planned development in the vicinity and may result in additional conversion of agricultural land.i And finally,
The MBGP concludes that conversion of prime agricultural lands to urban uses will result in a reduction of the regional agricultural economy and is considered a significant adverse impact. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact was adopted by the City when the MBGP was certified. 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. However, the MBGP has determined that conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses is considered significant. ג From page 2 of Farmland Conversion Study.
||
Farmland Conversion Study, page 13. ¶
Farmland Conversion Study pages 11 to 12. ℵ
Farmland Conversion Study, page 15. i
Farmland Conversion Study, page 15. ג
Memorandum · October 15, 2025 · On New Gen MND in Re Agriculture Matters 5 The Farmland Conversion Study has aptly described a policy of creeping, piecemeal approval of farm land conversion approval that has significant impacts on nearby agriculture. The Farmland Conversion Study quotes the MBGP as stating that “conversion of prime agricultural lands to urban uses will result in a reduction of the regional agricultural economy and is considered a significant adverse impact”.

This is all evidence of the project’s significant contribution to a cumulative impact as a result of the conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses in Bakersfield. The MND, however, concludes no significant impact from the New Gen Project. This is another cumulative impact that is not addressed or mitigated in the MND. This flies in the face of the policies of the MBGP. The MND has turned a blind eye and fails to mitigate in this New Gen Project what it has determined to be a significant impact.
3 A legal fee paid is not mitigation. The MND seems to imply that the payment of a Williamson Act contract’s cancellation fee is mitigation for the conversion of Prime Farmland to nonagricultural uses. Part IIb of Agricultural Resources, page 12 of the MND has the header “Less than significant with mitigation incorporated”. This section of the MND discusses compliance with the Williamson Act in cancelling a Williamson Act land conservation contract. It concludes:
. . . 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.

recordation of the final map, the applicant/property owner shall remit the required Williamson Act cancellation fee to the California Department of Conservation.” That’s it. No mention of the conversion of Prime Farmland as an unavoidable significant impact requiring mitigation.

3.1 Payment of a WA contract’s cancellation fee does not mitigate land conversion. A Williamson Act contract between a landowner and the County of Kern allows the farmland to be assessed for property tax purpose on a different formula than other real estate.

The contract has a rolling ten-year termination date, and provides significant property-tax relief benefits to the landowner based on this ten-year period. Thus if the contract is to be terminated prematurely, that is, without a ten-year period of agreed nonrenewal, then a cancellation fee is imposed by the county.

In no way does such a process mitigate the conversion of farmland to urban uses. The cancellation fee has an entirely different purpose and mitigates only the fact of the property taxes which should have been paid but for the contract; in other words, it is a means to recover or make up for taxes not paid, while at the same time acting to discourage premature cancellation by the imposition of a substantial “penalty”.

The MND has got it wrong to confound this Williamson Act cancellation fee with mitigation for agricultural-land conversion, as it implies on page 12.

3.2 Conservation easement is true mitigation. The MND finally concludes on page 13 there is less-than-significant impact on agricultural resources based on the specious reasoning reviewed above, “with mitigation incorporated”. But again, no mitigation for the conversion of Prime Farmland is proposed in this MND.

Memorandum · October 15, 2025 · On New Gen MND in Re Agriculture Matters 6 The standard method of mitigation accepted through legal precedent in California is through the purchase of an agricultural-conservation easement. The outline of such an easement is available from the California Department of Conservation as a “model easement” which can be fitted to particular circumstances.

While its Farmland Conversion Study finds that the conversion of Prime Farmland is a significant environmental impact (page 10), the requirement of an agricultural-conservation easement as mitigation for farmland conversion, as consistent with CEQA, is nowhere to be found in the MND.

This is a fatal flaw. Without additional mitigation, the project’s impact from the loss of Prime Farmland remains significant.
4 Closing. This concludes our current review of the MND of the New Gen Project. A description of our professional qualifications is found in the appendix that follows.

Sincerely,
Henry House Gregory A. House
5 Appendix: Qualifications of House Agricultural Consultants. 5.1 Qualifications of Henry House. Agricultural Economist · Agricultural Consultant · Licensed Appraiser · Farmer.

Summary of professional expertise:—
– California appraiser’s license number AG-3010876 (Certified General Appraiser). This is the highest level of licensing for a real-estate appraiser and additionally qualifies Mr. House to value business interests, intellectual property, and other specialized assets and to opine on appraisals by others (the service of appraisal review).
– Agricultural economics and lost profits.
– Value of lost crops, emblements, and foodstuff inventory. – Farm management: good farming practices in orchards, such as almonds and walnuts, row crops.
– Livestock management: carrying capacity of land, range management, standard of care for grazing animals, fencing.
– Right-to-farm issues, e.g., vehicle–agriculture, vehicle–livestock conflicts in agricultural districts, feasibility of agriculture on urban-proximate lands. – Appraisal: valuation in disputes concerning real property, valuation of agricultural and rural land, valuation of valuation of agricultural personal property (e.g., chattel), valuation of agricultural-commercial facilities (e.g., aquaculture), valuation of development rights, assessedvalue analysis for assessment appeal. – Condemnation: valuation services for this appraisal specialty, including severance damages, in support of eminent-domain litigation.
– Conservation projects: Mr. House has assisted numerous land trusts in establishing conservation easements, including The Nature Conservancy, Yolo Land Trust, Solano Land Trust, Agricultural-Natural Resources Trust, River Partners, and Sutter Buttes Regional Land Trust. – Management evaluation of commercial equestrian facilities. – Management of rural-residential property.

Memorandum · October 15, 2025 · On New Gen MND in Re Agriculture Matters 7 – Statistical analysis, geographic-information-system (GIS) analysis, and software engineering (analytics).
– Expert services to litigation on the foregoing with deposition and trial-testimony experience; partial list of matters below. Qualified expert in the counties of Butte, Colusa, Kern, and Riverside.

Representative recently concluded matters in which Mr. Henry House was retained by counsel as a forensic expert:—
County of Sacramento, September 2025.—Topic: farming standard of care · agricultural dust · walnuts. Gerald Larson, et al. v. Robert Larson, et al. (Sacramento County case no. 34- 2021-00294930, consolidated with 34-2021-00311331 and 34-2022-00327390). An auto-accident case wherein dust allegedly originating from the defendants’ walnut orchard obscured visibility on a public road, contributing to an accident with multiple vehicles involved. Mr. House was retained and designated to review the location of the incident, the crops and nature of agriculture in the area, and the standard of care used by the farming defendants, reasonableness of their actions, and their process for conducting agricultural operations, opining on the same and in rebuttal of other experts.

County of Wake, State of North Carolina, November 2024.—Topic: farm management, standard of care for labor contracting. Carlos Moreno, et al. v. Florida Orange Gold, LLC, José Javier Gutierrez, Gilberto Gutierrez, and Howell Farming Co., Inc. Mr. House was retained and designated for expertise on the client’s standard of care in hiring contract labor in Wayne County, North Carolina. Plaintiff Moreno suffered a workplace injury, alleged to have been caused by heat sickness, while weeding watermelons as a contract laborer (as an employee of Florida Orange Gold) on the farmland of client Howell Farming Co. (defendant); the plaintiffs’ cause of action against Howell was negligence. Mr. House opined on several controverted factual elements of the allegation of negligence, including the division of responsibility for workers’ safety between farm-labor contractor (employer) and farmer hiring contract labor (nonemployer owner of the crop and possessor of the farmland), customary and accepted practices to manage risk of heat illness from hot weather, and whether summertime weeding in eastern North Carolina meets the characteristics of an “inherently dangerous activity” as defined by North Carolina law.

Federal venue, August 2024.—Topic: farm management, real-property rights. A federal-court matter, involving appraisal and farm-management expertise, which is confidential per our agreement with the client. This matter was venued in a federal district of California.

County of Sacramento, July 2024.—Topic: real-estate costs to cure · appraisal · conspiracy.— Robert Williams and Christina Williams v. Dynamic Asset Solutions, LLC, Prato Real Estate, Inc., Bricker Construction, Inc., and Finley Home Services, Inc., et al.. Mr. House was retained by Williams and opined in deposition on the fair market value of the subject property, a luxury home, in as-sold condition, its fair market value as if it had not suffered from damage discovered by buyer, and the market cost of repairs. Additional details on this matter are found in Mr. House’s separately provided testimony list.

County of Los Angeles, March 2024.—Topic: real-estate appraisal. JP’s Nevada Trust v. 2Bulls Conservation Ventures et al. Mr. House was retained by JP’s Nevada Trust and opined on valuation methodology and opined the fair market value of three ranch properties at the times of three controverted transactions in service of the plaintiff in a dispute in which the buyer (plaintiff) alleged conspiracy to defraud and a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1962(c), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Additional details on this matter are found in Mr. House’s separately provided testimony list.

Memorandum · October 15, 2025 · On New Gen MND in Re Agriculture Matters 8 County of Nevada, November 2023.—Topic: lost profits. Andrew Hainsworth, et al. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company. A fire loss on a property in Rough and Ready. Mr. House was retained by Hainsworth and subsequently opined written findings regarding the plaintiff’s lost profits from licensed Cannabis production in rural Nevada County, including an opinion on the market value of Nevada County-grown Cannabis relative to the market in aggregate.

County of Franklin, State of Washington, September 2023–June 2024.—Topic: real-estate appraisal. Ice Harbor Properties, LLC and Certain Underwriters Subscribing to Certificate No. XLS0342717 v. Agri Control Technologies, Inc. d.b.a. BTU Ventilation and Parrish Stakkeland (case no. 20-2- 50118-11, Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Franklin). A dispute over the compensation due by the defendants for the fire loss of the plaintiff’s real property, a warehouse specialized for climate-controlled bulk storage of potatoes and onions. The plaintiffs retained and designated Mr. House as a rebuttal witness to opine on the fair market value of the lost building, the market for similar buildings, and other experts’ opinions.

County of Tulare, July 2023.—Topic: livestock economics · real-estate appraisal. Jones, et al. v. Pleasant Valley Canal Company, et al. (Tulare County Superior Court case no. VCU274417).

A dispute over a cattle-ranching and hay-growing operation which the plaintiffs alleged had been damaged by the operation of a canal crossing the plaintiffs’ property. The scope for which Mr. House was retained and designated by the defendants included analyzing the plaintiffs’ alleged diminution of value of real estate, analyzing the plaintiffs’ alleged economic loss from death of cattle, and opining on the water company’s standard of care in maintenance of its canal. Additionally, I assisted retaining counsel to engage an expert in veterinary pathology.

County of Minidoka, State of Idaho, March–August 2023.—Topic: standard of care for livestock fencing. Michael O. Ottley v. Hanssen et al. (case no. CV34-21-00168, District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for the County of Minidoka). An auto-accident case wherein the defendants’ cattle had escaped onto a public road and been struck by the plaintiff in rural Minidoka County, Idaho. The defendants retained and designated Mr. House to analyze the defendants’ standard of care in managing the cattle, to opine on the quality of the defendants’ fencing in comparison to locally accepted standards of adequacy, and for rebuttal of the plaintiff’s fencing expert.

County of Imperial, November 2022–February 2024.—Topic: agricultural economics · hay.

Freddi Abatti et al. v. James Davis, et al. (Imperial County Superior Court case no. ECU002597).

The defendants retained and designated Mr. House to evaluate the lost profits in hay crops in Imperial County resulting from a fire.

County of Merced, September 2022–January 2024.—Topic: agricultural economics · lost profits · almonds. Athwal Investments et al. v. San Luis Pump Co. et al. (case no. 20CV03787). A matter of almond trees in Merced County allegedly damaged consequent to lack of irrigation water.

Scope included analysis of the economic lost profits from orchard trees lost and replanted as well as from lost yield in service of two defendants.

See also.—Mr. House’s separately provided list of testimonies lists additional matters.

Partial list of management-consulting assignments:—
– Numerous consulting assignments for Leland Stanford Junior University on the management of its agricultural lands, which feature cattle, horses, and vegetable crops. Topics addressed have included livestock standard of care, carrying capacity of lands, safety of animals, safety of structures, and management of drainage and water quality.
– Consulting farm management for John and Marie Cronin Trust B, a landowner near Rio Vista, California. Lands were utilized for cattle grazing. – Numerous appraisal assignments of farmland and rangeland properties utilized for crops and livestock (cattle, sheep, and aquaculture).
– A list of additional management-consulting clients served available on request.

Memorandum · October 15, 2025 · On New Gen MND in Re Agriculture Matters 9 Experience:—
Agricultural consultant, appraiser, consulting agricultural economist.— House Agricultural Consultants, providing agricultural science, economics, management, and appraisal services. 2000– present.

Farmer.— Coco Ranch, a family farm growing organic apples, peaches, cherries, and field crops and raising sheep, poultry, and goats. 2000–present.

Education:—
– B.S., “Natural History”, University of California, Davis, 1999, with Honors. Coursework in agronomy, botany, ecology, entomology, geology, hydrology, nematology, plant pathology, soil biology, sustainable agriculture, statistics, and wildlife biology. – Numerous courses of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers (ASFMRA) regarding farm management, agricultural consulting, and appraisal. Recently completed: Livestock Ranch Seminar (February 15, 2024) and Appraisal of Water Rights Seminar (March 8, 2024), both in ASFMRA’s appraisal-education series.
– Numerous courses of the Appraisal Institute regarding real-estate appraisal. – Courses from Savory Institute regarding livestock management.

Appointments & activities:—
– Member, Solano County Farm Bureau.
– Member, American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers. – Board of Directors, Davis Media Access, Davis, California, 2014–2017. – Board of Directors, Davis Farmers Market Association, 2001–2003. – Assistant instructor, “Principles of Farm Management”, course M-10, an Internet course of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, 1999–2003. – Course proctor, “M-25: Enhanced Client Services”, an Internet course of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, 1999–2003.

Publications & speaking engagements:—
– Lecturer/instructor, “Farm Management”, course ARE 140, and “Appraisal of Farms & Rural Resources”, course ARE 145, University of California–Davis, 2015–2021. – Principles of Farm Management, Course M-10, a 40-hour professional credit Internet educational offering of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers – Educational speaker at the annual meeting of the California Chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, November 19, 2021, Coalinga, California. Topic: valuation of conservation easements.

5.2 Qualifications of Gregory A. House. Agricultural Consultant · Agronomist · Professional Farm Manager · Rural Appraiser · Farmer.

Experience:—
– Agricultural consultant, 1983–present—House Agricultural Consultants, providing agriculturalscience, economics, management, and appraisal services. – Farmer, 1987–present.—Growing organic apples, peaches, cherries, apricots, field and seed crops.
– Corporation secretary and consulting agronomist, 1977–1983—Hannesson, Riddle & Associates, Inc.

Professional affiliations:—
– American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers
– American Society of Agronomy
Memorandum · October 15, 2025 · On New Gen MND in Re Agriculture Matters 10 – Crop Science Society of America
– Soil Science Society of America
– California Certified Organic Farmers
– California Farm Bureau.

Accreditations:—
– Accredited Farm Manager (AFM), American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, certificate no. 501
– Certified Professional Agronomist (CPAg), American Registry of Certified Professionals in Agronomy, Crops. & Soils, Ltd., certificate no. 2319
– Certified Crop Advisor (CCA), American Registry of Certified Professionals in Agronomy, Crops. & Soils, Ltd.
– Formet Accredited Rural Appraiser (ARA), American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, certificate no. 749 (retired).
– Certified General Appraiser in the State of California, license no. AG-001999.

N.B.—These credentials have continuing-education requirements with which I am in compliance.

Education:—
– B.S., Crop Ecology, University of California, Davis, 1975, with Honors – Numerous courses from the University of California Extension in agricultural economics, crop management, real estate, & hazardous waste management
– Cornell University Certificate Program, Implementing Good Agricultural Practices: A Key to Produce Safety
– Courses of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers: Principles of Rural Appraisal · Advanced Rural Appraisal · Eminent Domain · Report Writing School · Economics of Farm Management · Principles of Farm Management · Standards and Ethics · Permanent Plantings Seminar · Standards and Ethics for Farm Managers · ASFMRA Code of Ethics National Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Courses of the Appraisal Institute: Basic Valuation Procedures · Real Estate Statistics and Valuation Modeling · Advanced Income Capitalization · Valuation of Conservation Easements Certificate Program · Condemnation Appraising: Principles and Applications · Appraising the Appraisal · How Tenants Create or Destroy Value: Leasehold Valuation and Its Impact on Value.

Expert-witness court testimony:—
– Superior Court Qualified Expert Witness in the following California counties: Alameda, Colusa, Kern, Fresno, Madera, Merced, Monterey, Orange, Riverside, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, Ventura, Yolo – United States Tax Court qualified expert witness
– United States Bankruptcy Court qualified expert witness.

A comprehensive listing of Mr. House’s depositions and trial appearances is available upon request. The list currently numbers seventy-two matters in which Mr. House gave sworn testimony (either deposition, trial or hearing appearance, or both), including thirty-two trial appearances.

Awards:—
– CCOF Presidential Award, California Certified Organic Farmers, February, 2001 – Meritorious Service in Communications, American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, November 2004 – H.E. Buck Stalcup Excellence in Education Award, American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, October, 2011.

Memorandum · October 15, 2025 · On New Gen MND in Re Agriculture Matters 11 Appointments & activities:—
– Adjunct Lecturer, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, current; Courses ARE 140 Farm Management; ARE 145 Appraisal of Farms & Rural Resources, 2015–2021.
– Instructor, “Principles of Farm Management”, an Internet course of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, 1996–2007.
– President, California Chapter American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers 1994– 1995; Secretary–Treasurer, 1984–1990.
– Board of Directors, Yolo Land Trust, 1993–2001.
– Board of Directors, American Red Cross, Yolo County Chapter 1987–1989. – Member, Yolo County Right to Farm Grievance Committee 1992–1995. – Vice Chairman, Management Education Committee, American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, 1998–2000 (committee member since 1986). – Yolo County LAFCo Agricultural Forum LESA subcommittee, 1999. – California Certified Organic Farmers: Treasurer of the Board of Directors, 1998–2003; Executive Director, 1999–2000; Member of the Finance Committee, 1998–current. – CCOF Foundation Going Organic Program, Management Team member, 2006–2012. – USDA Organic Grant Panel member, Washington, DC, 2002. – City of Davis Open Space and Habitat Commission, 2006–2016, Chairman, 2007–2009. – Member, Fruit Orchard Technical Advisory Group, Filoli Gardens, Woodside, California. – Member, Organic and Sustainable Agriculture Program Steering Committee, University of California Cooperative Extension, Yolo and Solano Counties, California, 2008–2013. – Member, Solano County Right to Farm Grievance Committee 2022–present.

Speaking engagements:—
– Guest lecturer, University of Florida at Gainesville–Vegetable Crops Department. Seminar on transition to organic agriculture, November 1994.
– Featured program speaker, 1995 annual Eco-Farm Conference. Lecture on economics of organic-apple production, Asilomar, California, 1995.
– Guest speaker, multiple events of Community Alliance with Family Farmers. Presentations on farm management and agricultural economics, 1996 and 1997. – Instructor, American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers. Course “M-12”, Standards and Ethics for Professional Farm Managers, March 1997. – Guest speaker, American Horticultural Society. Lecture entitled Challenges of Organic Stone Fruit Production, Sacramento, California, July 2001.
– Organizer and presenter, Going Organic Kickoff Meetings. A program of California Certified Organic Farmers, November 2005 and December 2006.
– Master of ceremonies, annual meeting of California Certified Organic Farmers. Sacramento, California, February 2006.
– Featured program speaker, 2012 annual Eco-Farm Conference. Lecture entitled Imitating Natural Systems: Towards an Indigenous Agro-forestry, Asilomar, California, 2012. – Seminar presentation, American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers. Rapid Fire Seminar: What Makes for Comparable Sales in Condemnation Appraisal —Reno, Nevada, October 2013.
– Featured program speaker, 2014 annual Eco-Farm Conference. Lecture entitled Food Safety Regulatory Compliance in Fruit Orchards, Asilomar, California, 2014.

Publications:—
– Principles of Farm Management, course “M-10”, a forty-hour professional-credit online educational offering of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers.

Memorandum · October 15, 2025 · On New Gen MND in Re Agriculture Matters 12 – Conservation Issues in Agriculture, a unit of course “M-25”, a fifteen-hour professional-credit online educational offering of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers. – A Primer on Organic Agriculture, an article in 2006 Trends in Agricultural Land and Lease Values, a publication of the California Chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers.
– Case Study: Using Indigenous Agroforestry Management Techniques to Support Sustainability in Production Agriculture, a paper-poster presented at Harlan II, An International Symposium on Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution and Sustainability, September 14–18, 2008, University of California–Davis.

COMMENT
LETTER

GPA 21-0424/WAC 25-001
•General Plan Amendment
21-0424
•Williamson Act Cancellation
25-0001
• Located in southwest
Bakersfield
•Appeal of Planning
Commission’s approval
Agenda Item 9.a
GPA 21-0424/WAC 25-001
• Change in land use from A (Agriculture) to LMR (low-Medium Residential) • Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
o Tentative Cancellation pending the applicant meets the required mitigation measures
• Exclusion from Agriculture Preserve No. 10
• Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
Agenda Item 9.a
Agenda Item 9.a
• Planning Commission Approval
o September 18, 2025
•Appeal
o September 29, 2025
Agenda Item 9.a
•Additional SAFER Correspondence
oNovember 18, 2025
•Applicant’s Legal Response
o January 8, 2026
Agenda Item 9.a
City Council Options

1. Deny the Appeal and Approve General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424 and Williamson Act Cancellation No. 25-0001
 Uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve GPA 21-0424/WAC 25-001

2. Approve the Appeal and Deny Vesting General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424 and Williamson Act Cancellation No. 25-0001
 Overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to approve GPA 21-0424/WAC 25-001 Agenda Item 9.a
Questions

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Reports
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Darin Budak, Recreation and Parks Director
DATE: February 23, 2026
SUBJECT: Recreation and Parks Department Tree Advisory Group Update All Wards
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend acceptance and file of report and presentation BACKGROUND: Established at the direction of the City Council, the Tree Advisory Group (TAG) serves as a strategic partner in expanding Bakersfield’s urban forest. TAG’s mission is to enhance the city’s environmental and community health through the proactive planting, maintenance, and preservation of our urban forest. This report details the specific recommendations TAG has developed and the Recreation and Parks Department has successfully adopted since the group’s inception.

FISCAL IMPACT: Funds have been appropriated in the Recreation and Parks Operating Budget within the General Fund and within the Recreation and Parks Capital Improvement Program within the Public Safety and Vital Services Fund. There are no additional funds required at this time.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Community Character & Quality of Life
ATTACHMENTS:

TREE ADVISORY

GROUP UPDATE

TAG MISSION STATEMENT
The Tree Advisory Group’s (TAG) mission is to foster a thriving urban forest in Bakersfield by promoting the planting, care, and preservation of trees for the benefit of the environment, community, and generations to come.

TAG MEMBERS: CMO Selected Members
Antje Lauer
John Karlik
Marcos Rodriguez
Melissa Iger
Peter Wollesen
Rich Oneil

URBAN TREE MANAGEMENT
At the request of TAG: Improve contract oversite and trimming standards Coordinated planning and maintenance to reduce risk and support sustainable urban infrastructure.
 Facilitated meetings with industry professionals and TAG members to discuss city-focused urban tree management.
 Evaluate the urban tree population.
 Establish maintenance standards.
 Key operational challenges:
 Business District
 Safety for citizens traveling on roadways
 Citizen complaints

TREE CONTRACT
At the request of TAG: Improve contract
language and contractor oversight.

TAG prioritized improved contractor
oversight and standards.

TAG reviewed previous contract and
recommended changes.

New contract was awarded with TAG
recommendations included.

TREE TRIMMING SCHEDULE
At the request of TAG: Trim during non nesting season
 According to California Department of Fish and Wildlife nesting season is typically February 1st through August 31st.
 Five (5) month trimming schedule (September through
January).
 2024 trimming during nesting season - 9,474.
 2025 trimming during nesting season - 173 Palms.
 Hazards and clearance issues addressed year-round.

TREE REMOVALS
At the request of TAG: Requested
all trees be reviewed by a certified
arborist.
 704 trees were removed in
2025.
 Each tree was inspected by a
TRAQ certified arborist and a
city certified arborist.

CITY APPROVED RECOMMENDED TREE LIST
At the request of TAG: Dedicated a list of trees to be used in public spaces throughout Bakersfield
 TAG created a sub-committee to establish a recommended tree list.  Director approved TAG recommended tree list on 12/11/2025.  Recommended tree list consists of 3 categories:
 Kern River Parkway
 City Streetscapes
 City Parks

TREE INVENTORY
At the request of TAG: Develop a tree inventory to better understand our urban forest size and needs
 Allocated funds
 Tree inventory and risk assessment contract awarded
 Phase 1: Parks
 Spring 2026 inventory begins

TREES PLANTED
At the request of TAG: Increase tree
plantings across the City.
 Demonstrates sustained year over
year planting increases.
 Obtained Transformative Climate
Communities (TCC) Grant for Lowell
Park.
 “Tree for Tree” Good across city-wide
inventory.

Calendar Year Tree Count
2022 797
2023 705
2024 818
2025 1222
2026 TREE PLANTINGS
At the request of TAG:
 Evaluated planting locations with
prioritization of underserved areas.
 15 gallon and 24” box trees will be
planted where appropriate.
 Recreation and Parks received $150,000
from City Council to increase urban
canopy.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ADOPTED

TAG RECOMMENDATIONS
(Past 11 Months)
 City approved recommended
tree list.
 Implemented new trimming
schedule.
 Tree inventory and risk
assessment awarded.
 PSA for trimming locations.
 Website notifications.
 Recognized Tree City USA 2025.
 Heritage tree framework.
 Public education and outreach.
 Development and healthy tree standards.
2026

PRIORITIZATION

FRAMEWORK
QUESTIONS?
 Arbor Day 2026 Tree planting is on March 7, 2026, at Beale Park.  Celebrating Earth Day on April 25th at San Miguel Park in partnership with the Breakfast Rotary Club. We would like to invite the community, Mayor, and Council to join us.

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Deferred Business TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Virginia Gennaro, City Attorney
DATE: March 4, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021 to Revise the Council Policy for Conducting City Council Meetings to Adjust The Order of Agendas and Public Comment Procedures (SB 707 Updates).

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the amendment.

BACKGROUND:

At the February 25, 2026 City Council meeting, the City Attorney’s Office provided an overview of the major operational changes required by Senate Bill 707, which made numerous changes to the Brown Act.

Among other things, the City must allow the public to participate and provide public statements remotely via two-way audio at City Council meetings by July 1, 2026. Incorporating remote participation requires an operational change to existing practice, as well as an amendment of Council policy set forth in Resolution No. 206(1).

Based on Council feedback and direction, a proposed Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021 has been prepared for Council adoption. The policy has been revised to expressly delineate the agenda order for regular 3:30 and 5:15 City Council meetings, including moving Appointments up to the 3:30 meeting and incorporating remote public statements at both meetings. Total time limits for Non-Agenda and Agenda Item Public Statements will remain the same, but will be divided equally between those participating remotely and those participating in-person. Total time limits for Hearings will be increased to 20 minutes per side for argument, 10 minutes per side for rebuttal, to be divided equally between remote and in-person participants.

The proposed Resolution will take effect on April 1, 2026, with remote participation provisions taking effect when the requisite technology is implemented, on or before July 1, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This action will result in minimal costs to provide these expanded services. This is a State unfunded mandate as a result of a new state law so the minimal cost will need to absorbed within its Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget and future years budgets.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Innovative and Efficient City Government
ATTACHMENTS:

Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021 (Redline and Final version)

REDLINE
Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
1 RESOLUTION NO. 206-2021(2)
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO RESOLUTION NO. 206-2021 TO

REVISE THE COUNCIL POLICY FOR CONDUCTING CITY

COUNCIL MEETINGS TO ADJUST THE ORDER OF
AGENDAS AND PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES.

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 206-2021 in November 2021 to establish an updated policy for conducting City Council meetings, including the general order of the agenda for public meetings and the rules governing public statements; and WHEREAS, the Council amended the policy in February 2024 to revise the manner and order that members of the public provide public statements for certain items listed on a City Council meeting agenda; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to further amend the policy to incorporate changes made by Senate Bill 707, which among other things requires that members of the public be provided an opportunity to participate and provide public statements through twoway audio or audiovisual platforms; and WHEREAS, in light of the potential for delays and present challenges of incorporating new technological needs, the City Council also desires to amend the order and time of certain agenda items to provide greater flexibility and efficiency.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows:
1) The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. 2) The City Council hereby adopts the Policy for Conducting City Council Meetings as set forth in the revised Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
3) This Resolution shall become effective on April 1, 2026; provided, however, that provisions of the Council Policy governing remote public participation shall only take effect when remote participation is implemented, which shall occur on or before July 1, 2026.
--------oo000oo--------

REDLINE
Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on ___________________, by the following vote:

YES: COUNCIL MEMBER ARIAS, GONZALES, WEIR, SMITH, KOMAN, BASHIRTASH, KAUR NOES: COUNCIL MEMBER ___________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBER ___________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER ___________________________________________________________________ __________________________________

JULIE DRIMAKIS, CPMC, MMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED __________________
By___________________________

KAREN GOH
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By___________________________
ASHLEY E. ZAMBRANO
Deputy City Attorney
AZ/vlg

REDLINE
Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
3 Attachment: Exhibit A
S:\COUNCIL\Resos\25-26\Amend No. 2 to Reso 206-2021_Council Policy_Council Procedures(SB707updates).Rdln.docx

REDLINE
Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
4 EXHIBIT A

POLICY FOR CONDUCTING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
SECTION 1. RULES OF ORDER.

Except as otherwise provided in this policy, the city charter, or other Council policy, the City Council shall generally follow Robert’s Rules of Order, current edition.

SECTION 2. DUTIES OF PRESIDING OFFICER.

The duties of the presiding officer shall be:

A. To call the meeting to order;
B. To recognize the members entitled to the floor;
C. To preserve and enforce order and decorum;
D. To consider and decide, in the presiding officer’s sole discretion, requests for extensions of time during public statements and public hearings; E. To reorder items of business on the agenda to promote meeting efficiency, if determined appropriate in the presiding officer’s sole discretion; F. To decide all points of order, unless when in doubt the presiding officer prefers to submit the question to the decision of the body;
G. Generally to guide and direct the proceedings of the body, subject to the control and will of the body;
H. To carry out any other duties as specified in the city charter.

SECTION 3. SERGEANT AT ARMS.

A. There shall be a sergeant at arms, who shall be the Chief of Police or designee.

B. The sergeant at arms shall attend all regular sessions, and shall, under the direction of the presiding officer, maintain order on the floor of the Council chambers.

SECTION 4. ORDER OF BUSINESS.

A. Except as may otherwise be set by resolution of the City Council, regular meetings of the Council shall generally be noticed for 3:30 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. on biweekly Wednesdays.

REDLINE
Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
5 B. The order of business set forth below may be changed by the city manager prior to the posting of the agenda to allow for a smooth and orderly flow of business during the meeting.

C. At the time set for regular 3:30 meetings of the City Council, the business of the Council shall be taken up for consideration and generally discussed in the following order:

1. Roll Call;

2. Public Statements;
a. Non-Agenda Item Public Statements:
i. Remote Participant Statements
ii. In-person Participant Statements
b. Agenda Item Public Statements:
i. Remote Participant Statements
ii. In-person Participant Statements

3. Appointments;

4. Reports;

5. Closed Session;

6. Closed Session Action;

7. Adjournment.

D. At the time set for regular 5:15 meetings of the City Council, the business of the Council shall be taken up for consideration and generally discussed in the following order:

1. Roll Call;

2. Invocation;

3. Pledge of Allegiance;

4. Presentations;

5. Public Statements;
a. Non-Agenda Item Public Statements:

REDLINE
Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
6 i. Remote Participant Statements
ii. In-person Participant Statements
b. Agenda Item Public Statements:
i. Remote Participant Statements
ii. In-person Participant Statements

6. Consent Calendar;

7. Consent Calendar Public Hearings;

8. Hearings;

9. Reports;

10.Deferred Business;

11.New Business;

12.Council and Mayor Statements;

13.Closed Session (if continued from 3:30 p.m.);

14.Closed Session Action;

15.Adjournment.

SECTION 5. CONSENT CALENDAR.

A. The consent calendar is comprised of one or more items of routine nature which may be approved at one time by affirmative roll call vote.

B. Only a Councilmember may remove an item(s) from the consent calendar which shall be voted upon separately from all other items on said consent calendar.

C. Any Councilmember may declare a conflict of interest, indicate the cause of the conflict and request the city clerk to record their abstention from the vote on any item or items on the consent calendar. That Councilmember’s vote on the consent calendar shall be recorded only for those items for which that Councilmember did not declare a conflict and the city clerk shall record the abstention of the remaining issues.

D. The minutes of the previous Council meeting, which shall be action-style minutes, may be approved as part of the consent calendar.

REDLINE
Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
7 SECTION 6. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

A. Consent calendar public hearings are those matters which shall be set for public hearing but are considered routine and non-controversial. Consent calendar public hearings may be simultaneously opened and closed by the presiding officer and approved at one time by affirmative roll call vote.

B. Prior to opening the hearing, the presiding officer shall inquire as to whether any member of the public or Council wishes to remove a matter from the consent calendar public hearings. Any such item so removed shall be placed at the end of the Hearings portion of the meeting.

SECTION 7. PUBLIC STATEMENTS.

A. Any person may address the Council on any item of interest to the public that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council as follows:

1. Non-Agenda Items. All persons desiring to address the Council on a general item of interest within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council that is not listed on the agenda shall speak during the Non-Agenda Item Public Statements portion of the meeting. Speakers shall be limited to two (2) minutes per person, twenty (20) minutes total. The total time limit shall be divided equally between those speakers participating remotely (via telephonic or other audio service) and those speakers participating inperson. Speakers who do not identify the topic on which they wish to speak will be presumed speakers for Non-Agenda Item Public Statements and called during that portion of the meeting.

2. Agenda Items. All persons desiring to address the Council on an item listed on the agenda shall speak during the Agenda Item Public Statements portion of the meeting. Speakers shall be limited to two (2) minutes per person, twenty (20) minutes per agenda item. Note: The Consent Calendar as a whole constitutes one agenda item.

3. Public Hearings. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding a matter set for public hearing at that meeting shall make their comments during the open public hearing on that matter, pursuant to the public hearing procedures set forth in Section 8.

B. All persons wishing to address the Council during a meeting will be asked to fill out and return to the city clerk a speaker’s card provided by the city clerk. The purpose of the speaker’s cards is to facilitate orderly and relevant public statements during the appropriate portions of the meeting; however, filling out a speaker’s card is voluntary and shall not be a prerequisite to providing a public statement. The speaker’s cards shall provide a place for speakers to identify which item on the agenda they wish to speak, or alternatively, whether they wish to provide a Non-Agenda Item Public Statement.

REDLINE
Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
8 C. No person shall address the Council until recognized by the mayor or presiding officer. Councilmembers who wish to allow a member of the audience to speak at times other than the time designated for the public statement, or after a public hearing has been closed, may do so only with the permission of the presiding officer.

D. Unless otherwise determined by the Council, the presiding officer shall determine whether a speaker’s statement is a matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council.

SECTION 8. HEARINGS.

A. Hearings. Scheduled public hearings are to be conducted in the following order:

1. Presentation by staff and recommendation;

2. Public hearing is opened by the presiding officer;

3. Presentation by opponents, limited to twenty (20) minutes total for all speakers, to be divided equally between those participating remotely and those participating in-person; provided, however, additional time may be granted by the presiding officer;

4. Presentation by proponents, with the time limits specified in subsection (A)(3), and such equivalent additional time as may have been granted to opponents;

5. Where a hearing is the result of an appeal, the order of presentation shall be reversed and the appellant shall proceed first; the time limits provisions of subsection (A)(3) shall apply;

6. Rebuttal by both sides limited to ten (10) minutes each to be divided equally between those participating remotely and those participating in-person; provided, however, both sides may be granted additional time by the presiding officer;

7. Public hearing is closed by the presiding officer;

8. Council discussion and Council decision.

B. Spokesperson for Group of Persons. In order to expedite matters and avoid repetitious presentations, whether any group of persons wishes to address the Council on the same subject matter, it shall be proper for the presiding officer to request that a spokesperson be chosen by the group to address the Council, and in the event additional matters are to be presented at the time by any other member having like views as the group, to limit the number of such persons addressing the Council and limit the time for each person.

REDLINE
Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
9 SECTION 9. RULES OF DEBATE.

A. Presiding Officer May Debate and Vote. In the absence of the mayor, the vicemayor or such other member of the Council as may be presiding may move, second and debate from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are by these rules imposed on all members and shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges as a Councilmember by reason of their acting as the presiding officer.

B. Getting the Floor—Improper References to be Avoided. Every member desiring to speak shall address the chair, and upon recognition by the presiding officer, shall discuss only the question under debate, avoiding all personalities and indecorous language.

C. Interruptions. A member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless called to order, or as otherwise provided in this section. If a member, while speaking, is called to order, said member shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined, and, if in order, shall be permitted to proceed.

D. Remarks of Mayor. The mayor may express views on any subject for consideration by the Council and may file any written recommendations with the clerk.

SECTION 10. COUNCILMEMBER DISSENT AGAINST COUNCIL ACTION.

Any Councilmember may state the reason for dissent from or protest against any action of the Council.

SECTION 11. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, MOTIONS AND CONTRACTS.

A. Preparation of Ordinances. All ordinances shall be reviewed by the city attorney.

No ordinance shall be prepared for presentation to the Council unless ordered by a majority vote of the Council, or referred by a Council committee, or prepared or recommended by the city attorney on her or his own initiative (e.g., “ordinance clean-ups” to reflect current practice or correct typographical and grammatical errors, or to comply with new rules and regulations).

B. Prior Approval by Administrative Staff. All ordinances, resolutions and contract documents shall, before presentation to the Council, have been approved as to form and legality by the city attorney or authorized representative, and shall have been examined and approved for the administration by the city manager or authorized representative, where there are substantive matters of administration involved.

REDLINE
Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
10 SECTION 12. ADJOURNMENT.

A motion to adjourn shall always be in order and decided without debate.

SECTION 13. COMPLIANCE.

Failure to strictly adhere to this policy shall not be grounds for setting aside any action or vote of the City Council.

Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
1 RESOLUTION NO. 206-2021(2)
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO RESOLUTION NO. 206-2021 TO

REVISE THE COUNCIL POLICY FOR CONDUCTING CITY

COUNCIL MEETINGS TO ADJUST THE ORDER OF
AGENDAS AND PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES.

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 206-2021 in November 2021 to establish an updated policy for conducting City Council meetings, including the general order of the agenda for public meetings and the rules governing public statements; and WHEREAS, the Council amended the policy in February 2024 to revise the manner and order that members of the public provide public statements for certain items listed on a City Council meeting agenda; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to further amend the policy to incorporate changes made by Senate Bill 707, which among other things requires that members of the public be provided an opportunity to participate and provide public statements through twoway audio or audiovisual platforms; and WHEREAS, in light of the potential for delays and present challenges of incorporating new technological needs, the City Council also desires to amend the order and time of certain agenda items to provide greater flexibility and efficiency.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows:
1) The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. 2) The City Council hereby adopts the Policy for Conducting City Council Meetings as set forth in the revised Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
3) This Resolution shall become effective on April 1, 2026; provided, however, that provisions of the Council Policy governing remote public participation shall only take effect when remote participation is implemented, which shall occur on or before July 1, 2026.
--------oo000oo--------
Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on ___________________, by the following vote:

YES: COUNCIL MEMBER ARIAS, GONZALES, WEIR, SMITH, KOMAN, BASHIRTASH, KAUR NOES: COUNCIL MEMBER ___________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBER ___________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER ___________________________________________________________________ __________________________________

JULIE DRIMAKIS, CPMC, MMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED __________________
By___________________________

KAREN GOH
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By___________________________
ASHLEY E. ZAMBRANO
Deputy City Attorney
AZ/vlg
Attachment: Exhibit A
S:\COUNCIL\Resos\25-26\Amend No. 2 to Reso 206-2021_Council Policy_Council Procedures(SB707updates).Final.docx Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
3 EXHIBIT A

POLICY FOR CONDUCTING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
SECTION 1. RULES OF ORDER.

Except as otherwise provided in this policy, the city charter, or other Council policy, the City Council shall generally follow Robert’s Rules of Order, current edition.

SECTION 2. DUTIES OF PRESIDING OFFICER.

The duties of the presiding officer shall be:

A. To call the meeting to order;
B. To recognize the members entitled to the floor;
C. To preserve and enforce order and decorum;
D. To consider and decide, in the presiding officer’s sole discretion, requests for extensions of time during public statements and public hearings; E. To reorder items of business on the agenda to promote meeting efficiency, if determined appropriate in the presiding officer’s sole discretion; F. To decide all points of order, unless when in doubt the presiding officer prefers to submit the question to the decision of the body;
G. Generally to guide and direct the proceedings of the body, subject to the control and will of the body;
H. To carry out any other duties as specified in the city charter.

SECTION 3. SERGEANT AT ARMS.

A. There shall be a sergeant at arms, who shall be the Chief of Police or designee.

B. The sergeant at arms shall attend all regular sessions, and shall, under the direction of the presiding officer, maintain order on the floor of the Council chambers.

SECTION 4. ORDER OF BUSINESS.

A. Except as may otherwise be set by resolution of the City Council, regular meetings of the Council shall generally be noticed for 3:30 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. on biweekly Wednesdays.

B. The order of business set forth below may be changed by the city manager prior to the posting of the agenda to allow for a smooth and orderly flow of business during the meeting.

C. At the time set for regular 3:30 meetings of the City Council, the business of the Council shall be taken up for consideration and generally discussed in the following order:

1. Roll Call;

2. Public Statements;
a. Non-Agenda Item Public Statements:
i. Remote Participant Statements
Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
4 ii. In-person Participant Statements
b. Agenda Item Public Statements:
i. Remote Participant Statements
ii. In-person Participant Statements

3. Appointments;

4. Reports;

5. Closed Session;

6. Closed Session Action;

7. Adjournment.

D. At the time set for regular 5:15 meetings of the City Council, the business of the Council shall be taken up for consideration and generally discussed in the following order:

1. Roll Call;

2. Invocation;

3. Pledge of Allegiance;

4. Presentations;

5. Public Statements;
a. Non-Agenda Item Public Statements:
i. Remote Participant Statements
ii. In-person Participant Statements
b. Agenda Item Public Statements:
i. Remote Participant Statements
ii. In-person Participant Statements

6. Consent Calendar;

7. Consent Calendar Public Hearings;

8. Hearings;

9. Reports;

10.Deferred Business;

11.New Business;

12.Council and Mayor Statements;

13.Closed Session (if continued from 3:30 p.m.);

14.Closed Session Action;

15.Adjournment.

Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
5 SECTION 5. CONSENT CALENDAR.

A. The consent calendar is comprised of one or more items of routine nature which may be approved at one time by affirmative roll call vote.

B. Only a Councilmember may remove an item(s) from the consent calendar which shall be voted upon separately from all other items on said consent calendar.

C. Any Councilmember may declare a conflict of interest, indicate the cause of the conflict and request the city clerk to record their abstention from the vote on any item or items on the consent calendar. That Councilmember’s vote on the consent calendar shall be recorded only for those items for which that Councilmember did not declare a conflict and the city clerk shall record the abstention of the remaining issues.

D. The minutes of the previous Council meeting, which shall be action-style minutes, may be approved as part of the consent calendar.

SECTION 6. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

A. Consent calendar public hearings are those matters which shall be set for public hearing but are considered routine and non-controversial. Consent calendar public hearings may be simultaneously opened and closed by the presiding officer and approved at one time by affirmative roll call vote.

B. Prior to opening the hearing, the presiding officer shall inquire as to whether any member of the public or Council wishes to remove a matter from the consent calendar public hearings. Any such item so removed shall be placed at the end of the Hearings portion of the meeting.

SECTION 7. PUBLIC STATEMENTS.

A. Any person may address the Council on any item of interest to the public that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council as follows:

1. Non-Agenda Items. All persons desiring to address the Council on a general item of interest within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council that is not listed on the agenda shall speak during the Non-Agenda Item Public Statements portion of the meeting. Speakers shall be limited to two (2) minutes per person, twenty (20) minutes total. The total time limit shall be divided equally between those speakers participating remotely (via telephonic or other audio service) and those speakers participating inperson. Speakers who do not identify the topic on which they wish to speak will be presumed speakers for Non-Agenda Item Public Statements and called during that portion of the meeting.

2. Agenda Items. All persons desiring to address the Council on an item listed on the agenda shall speak during the Agenda Item Public Statements portion of the meeting. Speakers shall be limited to two (2) minutes per person, twenty (20) minutes per agenda item. Note: The Consent Calendar as a whole constitutes one agenda item.

3. Public Hearings. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding a matter set for public hearing at that meeting shall make their comments Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
6 during the open public hearing on that matter, pursuant to the public hearing procedures set forth in Section 8.

B. All persons wishing to address the Council during a meeting will be asked to fill out and return to the city clerk a speaker’s card provided by the city clerk. The purpose of the speaker’s cards is to facilitate orderly and relevant public statements during the appropriate portions of the meeting; however, filling out a speaker’s card is voluntary and shall not be a prerequisite to providing a public statement. The speaker’s cards shall provide a place for speakers to identify which item on the agenda they wish to speak, or alternatively, whether they wish to provide a Non-Agenda Item Public Statement.

C. No person shall address the Council until recognized by the mayor or presiding officer. Councilmembers who wish to allow a member of the audience to speak at times other than the time designated for the public statement, or after a public hearing has been closed, may do so only with the permission of the presiding officer.

D. Unless otherwise determined by the Council, the presiding officer shall determine whether a speaker’s statement is a matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council.

SECTION 8. HEARINGS.

A. Hearings. Scheduled public hearings are to be conducted in the following order:

1. Presentation by staff and recommendation;

2. Public hearing is opened by the presiding officer;

3. Presentation by opponents, limited to twenty (20) minutes total for all speakers, to be divided equally between those participating remotely and those participating in-person; provided, however, additional time may be granted by the presiding officer;

4. Presentation by proponents, with the time limits specified in subsection (A)(3), and such equivalent additional time as may have been granted to opponents;

5. Where a hearing is the result of an appeal, the order of presentation shall be reversed and the appellant shall proceed first; the time limits provisions of subsection (A)(3) shall apply;

6. Rebuttal by both sides limited to ten (10) minutes each to be divided equally between those participating remotely and those participating in-person; provided, however, both sides may be granted additional time by the presiding officer;

7. Public hearing is closed by the presiding officer;

8. Council discussion and Council decision.

B. Spokesperson for Group of Persons. In order to expedite matters and avoid repetitious presentations, whether any group of persons wishes to address the Council on the same subject matter, it shall be proper for the presiding officer to request that a spokesperson be chosen by the group to address the Council, and Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
7 in the event additional matters are to be presented at the time by any other member having like views as the group, to limit the number of such persons addressing the Council and limit the time for each person.

SECTION 9. RULES OF DEBATE.

A. Presiding Officer May Debate and Vote. In the absence of the mayor, the vicemayor or such other member of the Council as may be presiding may move, second and debate from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are by these rules imposed on all members and shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges as a Councilmember by reason of their acting as the presiding officer.

B. Getting the Floor—Improper References to be Avoided. Every member desiring to speak shall address the chair, and upon recognition by the presiding officer, shall discuss only the question under debate, avoiding all personalities and indecorous language.

C. Interruptions. A member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless called to order, or as otherwise provided in this section. If a member, while speaking, is called to order, said member shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined, and, if in order, shall be permitted to proceed.

D. Remarks of Mayor. The mayor may express views on any subject for consideration by the Council and may file any written recommendations with the clerk.

SECTION 10. COUNCILMEMBER DISSENT AGAINST COUNCIL ACTION.

Any Councilmember may state the reason for dissent from or protest against any action of the Council.

SECTION 11. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, MOTIONS AND CONTRACTS.

A. Preparation of Ordinances. All ordinances shall be reviewed by the city attorney.

No ordinance shall be prepared for presentation to the Council unless ordered by a majority vote of the Council, or referred by a Council committee, or prepared or recommended by the city attorney on her or his own initiative (e.g., “ordinance clean-ups” to reflect current practice or correct typographical and grammatical errors, or to comply with new rules and regulations).

B. Prior Approval by Administrative Staff. All ordinances, resolutions and contract documents shall, before presentation to the Council, have been approved as to form and legality by the city attorney or authorized representative, and shall have been examined and approved for the administration by the city manager or authorized representative, where there are substantive matters of administration involved.

SECTION 12. ADJOURNMENT.

A motion to adjourn shall always be in order and decided without debate.

SECTION 13. COMPLIANCE.

Failure to strictly adhere to this policy shall not be grounds for setting aside any action or vote of the City Council.

Revised Council Policy (SB 707)
Resolution No. 206-2021(2)
Bakersfield City Council5:15 p.m. – Deferred Business March 11, 2026 Ashley Zambrano
Deputy City Attorney
Deferred Business Item 11.a
Council Direction
• February 25, 2026 3:30 City Council meeting: CAO provided overview and options for incorporating remote public participation imposed by SB 707 • Council gave direction:
• Move “Appointments” up to 3:30 regular meetings• Keep time limits for Non-Agenda & Agenda Item Public Statements the same, divided equally between remote & in-person participants, heard at beginning of meetings • Increase time limits for Public Hearings to be 20 mins per side for argument, 10 mins per side for rebuttal, divided equally between remote & in-person Proposed
Regular 3:30
Agenda

1. Roll Call2. Public Statements
a. Non-Agenda Item Public Statements (2 mins/speaker,
20 mins total):
i. Remote Participant Statements (10 mins)ii. In-person Participant Statements (10 mins) a. Agenda Item Public Statements (2 mins/speaker,
20 mins total per agenda item):
i. Remote Participant Statements (10 mins)ii. In-person Participant Statements (10 mins)

3. Appointments4. Reports5. Closed Session6. Closed Session Action7. Adjournment Proposed
Regular 5:15
Agenda

1. Roll Call2. Invocation3. Pledge of Allegiance4. Presentations5. Public Statements a. Non-Agenda Item Public Statements (20 mins total):
i. Remote Participant Statements (10 mins)ii. In-person Participant Statements (10 mins) b. Agenda Item Public Statements (20 mins per Agenda Item):
i. Remote Participant Statements (10 mins)ii. In-person Participant Statements (10 mins)

6. Consent Calendar7. Consent Calendar Public Hearings8. Hearings*9. Reports10. Deferred Business11. New Business12. Council & Mayor Statements13. Closed Session (if continued from 3:30 p.m.)14. Closed Session Action15. Adjournment Proposed
Public
Hearing
Procedures
(5:15 mtgs)

1. Presentation by staff and recommendation2. Open Public Hearing3. Presentation by Proponents/Appellants (20 mins total) a. Remote Participants – 10 minsb. In-Person Participants – 10 mins

4. Presentation by Opponents (20 mins total)
a. Remote Participants – 10 minsb. In-Person Participants – 10 mins

5. Rebuttal by Proponents (10 minutes total)
a. Remote Participants – 5 minsb. In-Person Participants – 5 mins

6. Rebuttal by Opponents (10 minutes total)
a. Remote Participants – 5 minsb. In-Person Participants – 5 mins

NEXT STEPS
• Motion to adopt proposed Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 206-2021
• Resolution effective April 1, 2026
• Remote participation provisions to take effect when implemented, on or before July 1, 2026 anticipate tech implementation by May

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: New Business TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christain Clegg, City Manager
DATE: March 5, 2026
SUBJECT: Consideration to Execute a Lease Agreement with an Option to Purchase Property located at 1430 & 1440 Truxtun Avenue with Erwin LLC a California Limited Liability Company and appropriation(Ward 2)
[Document Description]

1. Agreement with Erwin LLC. for the lease with option to purchase of office space located at 1430 and 1440 Truxtun Ave. The lease term is for five years with an initial monthly base lease rate at $34,600 per month plus utilities and CAM charges.

Included in the lease is an option to purchase the site with a sales price of $13,600,000 if we close by August 15, 2026 or $14,150,000, if we exercise the option by January 15, 2027.

2. Appropriate and transfer $400,000 from the Capital Facility Reserve for expenditure on the due diligence to effectuate the purchase of the building.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends Council approve the agreement
BACKGROUND:

On January 7, 2026, City Council provided direction to staff to facilitate the negotiation of the lease and option to purchase the Real Property located at 1430 and 1440 Truxtun Avenue. The property consists of a 10-story office building with approximately 127,504 sq feet with a parking garage located on 2.3 acres of land on a prime corner in downtown Bakersfield in near proximity to City Hall.

Agreement Points:

The City has negotiated an agreement to lease approximately 41,871 sq feet of office space in the building beginning October 1, 2026 for a five (5) year term. The lease allows the City to have first right of refusal to lease an additional 28,188 sq feet if needed in the future.

The lease has a built in option to purchase with two different price points depending on timing. If the City completes due diligence and exercises the first option to close escrow by August 15, 2026, the purchase price is $13,600,000. This sales price is only valid if we complete all due diligence and close escrow prior to August 15, 2026. Alternatively, if City needs additional time but still desires to purchase the property, and closes on or before January 15, 2027, the purchase price is $14,150,000. The agreement allows the City to cancel the agreement in its entirety if the building is not suitable for a purchase or any deficits can not be easible cured.

Building background:

The building is currently occupied by multiple tenants. City Staff intends to continue with the current tenancies to help offset the costs of the purchase and operations of the building. The building already has a long standing property management company employed who is willing to continue servicing the building as to not impact City staffing.

Staff analysis:

City Staff evaluated the potential lease of this location and other locations before determining that the property at 1430 and 1440 Truxtun Avenue can best serve the needs of the City. The benefits are its proximity to other City offices, the Courthouse and other government agencies downtown, plus its builtin parking lot with access to additional spaces in downtown . Additionally, the City could choose to partner with the existing building property management company to assist the City with the move prior to the end of 2026 and before the end of our existing lease for office space on California Avenue.

City staff is proposing Council approve the agreement with an initial appropriation to initiate the due diligence period.

Staff also recommend City Council approve appropriation adjustments in the Capital Reserve fund which have available unallocated fund balances. The City would use those sources of funds to pay for costs to properly examine the building during due diligence.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City already spends significant funds on an ongoing lease for office space. If the purchase option is not feasible, the City is also proposing a lease of a few floors in the building for $47,284 per year with a small increase over five year lase term.. The lease rate is lower than the current lease the City is charged at other facilities. Current estimates show that entering into this lease could generate over $900,000 in savings over the next five years comparing this current lease and future need to lease space .

The Purchase agreement is also structured so the City can pay off the purchase price of the building over a 20-year period. The payback rates would also be structured and sized not to exceed the current annual lease rate, versus the rate to pay back the internal loan of the funds borrowed at the time of the building purchase. The loan payback will be over a 20-year period starting in 2026 and ending 2046. Due to the fact this is internal borrowing the City can payback the loan sooner if the Council directs staff to do so.

The impact to the General Fund is favorable in both a lease or purchase option to supply the needs for the long-term office space for the City and considering cost savings paid out over the next 20 year for the needed space.

The favorable side for the potential ownership of this building is other private tenants in the Truxtun Avenue facility pay rent and produce revenue to the City. The potential revenue from the lease payments from the tenants will help pay for the ongoing maintenance and property management of the building. Currently, it covers most of the cost to run the building, with the potential of vacant space in the building to produce net operating revenue that could result in a net gain for the City COUNCIL GOAL:

Safety and Resilience
Innovative and Efficient City Government
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Agreements with Exhibits

Formal Lease Agreement
with Option to Purchase
Truxtun Tower
1430-1440 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
1 Background
2 Background
3 4
1430-1440 Truxtun
Built: 1974
Lot Size: 2.31 Acres
Total Property Size:
• 122,502 SF rentable space
Proposed Lease:
• Ground Floor (former Bank of America),
22,244 SF • Second Floor, 9,231 SF • Third Floor, 9,396 SF • Total Lease Space: 40,871 SF Parking Structure Stalls:
• City’s Lease Option: 94 • Other Parking: 198 • Total: 292 Zoning: C-B
Property Details
Rationale
6 Deal Points for
Lease & Purchase
• Leveraged lease option to improve purchase
price
• 2026-2031 with a five-year options to
extend
• Lease structure has max flexibility with
reduced initial costs in the first two years
• Lease start date and purchase option date
follow a due diligence period
• Due Diligence period from March 16 to July
15, 2026 (~ approximately 120 days)
7 Open Area to Move into
• Ground floor
• Second floor
• Third floor
• 94 parking stalls, no additional cost
• Right of First Refusal to lease 4th, 6th
and 10th floors
Comparative Savings: Transitioning from Current
Lease (California Ave) to Truxtun Tower
California Ave – Tenant Since 2021, Current Lease Ends
1/31/2027
• Lease has been on a steady increase over the past 6 years • In 2025, total annual cost for lease is $935K
• Preliminary estimate for potential new negotiated lease is $1.1M annually
Truxtun Tower – Lease Begins 10/1/2026
• Proposed Lease: First two years; $682K and $795K
respectively
• Increases to market rates in the last three years of the fiveyear lease • Real value is not the lease but more to own this building as a long-term asset; reduces ongoing operational costs in out years by more than $1 million annually
Lease Option
Revenue & Operating Expenses
Operating Expenses
• Taxes & Insurance
• Utilities
• Security
• Parking Lot Sweeping
• Janitorial
• Management Fees
• Building Personnel
• HVAC
• Landscaping
• Other Repairs &
Maintenance
Revenue
• 2025 Revenues -
$1,892,717
• 37 separated tenants
or Units in the building
• All have varying lease
agreements
• Current Long-term
Tenants include –
Clifford & Brown, Kern
Co. Sup. Int. of School,
Judicial Council, and
Marderosian and
Cohen
Purchase Option
• Low-risk due diligence period, 120 days with ability to exit • Minimal upfront financial commitment, 3% deposit
• Opportunity to secure downtown asset at today’s pricing 10 Early-Exercise Option Extended Timeline Option
• Discounted purchase price:
$13.6M
• Savings of $550,000
• Due diligence period completed
by 7/15/2026
• Escrow must close by
8/15/2026
• Purchase price: $14.15M
• Extended timeline to exercise
purchase option, thru 1/15/2027
• Due diligence period completed
by 5/15/2027
• Escrow must close by
6/15/2027
Recommended Action
• Authorize and Approve Agreement with Erwin LLC. for the lease with option to purchase of office space located at 1430 and 1440 Truxtun Ave. The lease term is for five years with an initial monthly base lease rate at $34,600 per month plus utilities and CAM charges. Included in the lease is an option to purchase the site with a sales price of $13,600,000 if we close by August 15, 2026 or $14,150,000, if we exercise the option by January 15, 2027. • Appropriate and transfer $400,000 from the Capital Facility Reserve for expenditure on the due diligence to effectuate the purchase of the building. 11 Questions & Discussion
12