Bakersfield City Council
May 27, 2026

0RIGlNA.L
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2025, thirty- three ( 33) firms responded to the City' s solicitation by formally submitting staff and firm qualifications and experience, numerous project references, and their hourly billing rate schedule, for consideration; and
WHEREAS, the City assembled an evaluation committee made up of the Recreation and Parks Department, Water Resources, Public Works Department to review submittals and qualifying firms by professional discipline; and WHEREAS, the evaluation committee met on November 21, 2025, and established recommendation criteria for the final Library, as listed in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein; and
WHEREAS, the qualified firms in the Library have agreed to the Rate Schedule provided in their proposals and the terms of the Sample Agreement provided in the original RFQ;- and
WHEREAS, funding for agreements will be paid for through project budgets as approved or amended by City Council.

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

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

2. This Resolution designates an on -call Library of Professional Firms ( Exhibit A) that have been competitively selected, deemed qualified by experience and expertise, and approved to enter into professional service agreements with the City.

3. The City Manager and/ or designee( s) are authorized to enter into agreements with qualified firms listed in the Library.

4. Agreements authorized between the City and firms in the Library shall comply with the Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 3. 20. 105.

5. The City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and it shall become effective immediately upon its approval. 000----------

rn
REGI Vt".LQ
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 IAN 2 1 2026 , by the following vote:

V t-1

YE COUNCIL MEMBER ARIAS, GONZALEZ, WEIR SMITH, KOMAN, BASHIRTASH, KAUR NOES: COUNCIL MEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBER
COUNCIL MEMBER VJ. Q,)- no
APPROVED IAN 2 12026
By

KAREN GOH
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By Gwr O

ASHL AMBRANO
Depu y City Attorney
AWA ftko

J LIE DRAMAKIS, MMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield

OOMG!'; AIC° '
4ct p
CC

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Library of Qualified Professional
Program Management
Enterris Associates 5701 Truxtun Ave Suite 220 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Anh Case 714-423- 8171 anh. case@enterrisassociates. com Vanir Construction Management, Inc. 2444 Main St Suite 130 Fresno, CA 93721 Scott Murphy 559- 496- 0536 Scott. murphy@vanir. com Ardurra Group, Inc. 9100 Ming Ave Suite 202 Bakersfield, CA 93311 Dolores Salgado 661- 529- 2190 dsalgado@ardurra. com Construction Management & Inspections (roadway, structural, materials testing, etc.) CCME 6445 N Palm Ave Suite 106 Fresno, CA 93704 Bryan Kroeger 559- 367- 6262 bryan@ccmeusa. com Enterris Associates 5701 Truxtun Ave Suite 220 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Anh Case 714- 423- 8171 anh. case@enterrisassociates. com Vanir Construction Management, Inc. 2444 Main St Suite 130 Fresno, CA 93721 Scott Murphy 559- 496- 0536 scott. murphy@vanir. com 4 Creeks, Inc 324 S. Santa Fe Street Suite A Visalia, CA 93292 Lisa Wallis- Dutra 559- 802- 3052 lisawd@4- creeks. com Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group Inc. 1518 Mill Rock Way Suite 100 Bakersfield CA 93311 Ian Parks 661- 616- 5900 iparks@ppeng. com NV5, Inc. 2109 West Bullard Ave Suite 145 Fresno CA 93711 Jeff Pallesen 559- 661- 5220 Jeff.Pallesen@nv5. com Building Commissioning Services
Ordiz- Melby, Inc 5500 Ming Ave Suite 280 Bakersfield CA 93309 Jeannie Bertolaccini 661- 832- 5258 jbertolaccini@ordizmelby. com Journey Engineering, Inc. 872 Higuera St San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ian Journey 661- 331- 7520 irj@journey- eng. com AP Architects 3434 Truxtun Ave Suite 240 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Jose Vargas 661- 327- 1690 x101 jvargas@aparchitects. net Inland Architects 140119th St Suite 130 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Mike Hernandez 661- 321- 3440 x3 mike@inlandarchitects. com Ethosphere Studio 1800 21st St Suite B Bakersfield, CA 93301 Elizabeth Omelchenko 661- 344- 9016 ehernandez@ethospherestudio. com Urban Planning and Design
Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. ( MIG) 537 S. Raymond Ave Pasadena, CA 91105 Cindy Mendoza 626- 744- 9872 x2100 cindym@migcom. com Ordiz- Melby, Inc 5500 Ming Ave Suite 280 Bakersfield CA 93309 Jeannie Bertolaccini 661- 832- 5258 jbertolaccini@ordizmelby. com 4 Creeks, Inc 324 S. Santa Fe Street Suite A Visalia, CA 93292 Lisa Wallis- Dutra 559- 802- 3052 lisawd@4- creeks. com Enterris Associates 5701 Truxtun Ave Suite 220 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Anh Case 714- 423- 8171 anh. case@enterrisassociates. com Toole Design Group 742 South Hill St Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Daniel David 213- 257- 8680 ddavid@tooledesign. com Alta 617 W 7th St Suite 1103 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Vincent Hellens 310- 756- 4055 vincenthellens@altago. com Kimley Horn 660 South Figueroa St Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Nicole Dias 213- 261- 4061 nicole. dias@kimley- horn. com DPSI 5351 Olive Dr Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Scott Radsick 661- 371- 2800 sradsick@dpsiinc. com Inland Architects 140119th St Suite 130 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Mike Hernandez 661- 321- 3440 x3 mike@inlandarchitects. com Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group Inc. 1518 Mill Rock Way Suite 100 Bakersfield CA 93311 Ian Parks 661- 616- 5900 iparks@ppeng. com Civil Engineering
4 Creeks, Inc 324 S. Santa Fe Street Suite A Visalia, CA 93292 Lisa Wallis- Dutra 559- 802- 3052 lisawd@4- creeks. com Enterris Associates 5701 Truxtun Ave Suite 220 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Anh Case 714- 423- 8171 anh. case@enterrisassociates. com Toole Design Group 742 South Hill St Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Daniel David 213- 257- 8680 ddavid@tooledesign. com Alta 617 W 7th St Suite 1103 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Vincent Hellens 310- 756- 4055 vincenthellens@altago. com Kimley Horn 660 South Figueroa St Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Nicole Dias 213- 261- 4061 nicole. dias@kimley- horn. com Meyer Civil Engineering, Inc. 11200 River Run Blvd Suite 102 Bakersfield CA 93311 Aaron Meyer 661- 836- 9834 ameyer@meyerce. com MKN & Associates 1800 21st St Suite C Bakersfield, CA 93301 Josh Nord 661- 873- 4262 jnord@mknassociates. us Quad Knopf Inc. 5080 California Ave Suite 220 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Cathy Williams 661- 616- 2600 cathy. s. williams@qkinc. com DPSI 5351 Olive Dr Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Scott Radsick 661- 371- 2800 sradsick@dpsiinc. com Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group Inc. 1518 Mill Rock Way Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93311 Ian Parks 661- 616- 5900 iparks@ppeng. com AECOM 5001 E. Commercenter Dr Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Daniel Cronquist 661- 283- 2331 daniel. cronquist@aecom. com Ardurra Group, Inc. 9100 Ming Ave Suite 202 Bakersfield, CA 93311 Dolores Salgado 661- 529- 2190 dsalgado@ardurra. com Bedrock Engineering 10878 Highway 41 Madera, CA 93636 Michael Hartley 559- 645- 4849 michael@bedrockeng. com NV5, Inc. 2109 West Bullard Ave Suite 145 Fresno CA 93711 Jeff Pallesen 559- 661- 5220 Jeff.Pallesen@nv5. com Electrical Engineering
AECOM 5001 E. Commercenter Dr Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Daniel Cronquist 661- 283- 2331 daniel. cronquist@aecom. com Ardurra Group, Inc.
4 Creeks, Inc
9100 Ming Ave Suite 202
Structural
324 S. Santa Fe Street Suite A
Bakersfield, CA
Engineering
Visalia, CA
93311 Dolores Salgado
93292 Lisa Wallis- Dutra
661- 529- 2190 dsalgado@ardurra. com
559- 802- 3052 lisawd@4- creeks. com
Structural Engineering Group_ Cornerstone 986 W. AI_luvial A_ve Suite 201. Fresno, CA_ 93711 Shawn Cullers 559- 320- 3200 scullers@cseg. com Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group Inc. 1518 Mill Rock Way Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93311 Ian Parks 661- 616- 5900 iparks@ppeng. com AECOM 5001 E. Commercenter Or Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Daniel Cronquist 661- 283- 2331 daniel. cronquist@aecom. com Ardurra Group, Inc. 9100 Ming Ave Suite 202 Bakersfield, CA 93311 Dolores Salgado 661- 529- 2190 dsalgado@ardurra. com NV5, Inc. 2109 West Bullard Ave Suite 145 Fresno CA 93711 Jeff Pallesen 559- 661- 5220 Jeff. Pallesen@nv5. com Transportation Engineering
4 Creeks, Inc 324 S. Santa Fe Street Suite A Visalia, CA 93292 Lisa Wallis- Dutra 559- 802- 3052 lisawd@4- creeks. com Enterris Associates 5701 Truxtun Ave Suite 220 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Anh Case 714- 423- 8171 anh. case@enterrisassociates. com Toole Design Group 742 South Hill St Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Daniel David 213- 257- 8680 ddavid@tooledesign. com TJKM 4305 Hacienda Dr Suite 550 Pleasanton, CA 93301 Michael Todd Wood 661- 323- 4600 twood@dewaltcorp. com Alta 617 W 7th St Suite 1103 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Vincent Hellens 310- 756- 4055 vincenthellens@altago. com Kimley Horn 660 South Figueroa St Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Nicole Dias 213- 261- 4061 nicole. dias@kimley- horn. com DPSI 5351 Olive Dr Suite 100 1 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Scott Radsick 661- 371- 2800 sradsick@dpsiinc. com Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group Inc. 1518 Mill Rock Way Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93311 Ian Parks 661- 616- 5900 iparks@ppeng. com AECOM 5001 E. Commercenter Dr Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Daniel Cronquist 661- 283- 2331 daniel. cronquist@aecom. com Ardurra Group, Inc. 9100 Ming Ave Suite 202 Bakersfield, CA 93311 Dolores Salgado 661- 529- 2190 dsalgado@ardurra. com Mechanical Engineering ( e.g. HVAC, pumps, plumbing, etc.) Journey Engineering, Inc. 872 Higuera St I San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ian Journey 661- 331- 7520 irj@journey- eng. com Meyer Civil Engineering, Inc. 11200 River Run Blvd Suite 102 1 Bakersfield CA 93311 Aaron Meyer 661- 836- 9834 ameyer@meyerce. com DPSI 5351 Olive Dr Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Scott Radsick 661- 371- 2800 sradsick@dpsiinc. com AECOM 5001 E. Commercenter Or
Quad Knopf Inc. 5080 California Ave
Suite 100
Suite 220
Bakersfield, CA
Bakersfield, CA
93309
93309
Daniel Cronquist
Cathy Williams
661- 283- 2331
661- 616- 2600
daniel. cronquist@aecom. com
cathy. s. williams@gkinc. com
DPSI 5351 Olive Or Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Scott Radsick 661- 371- 2800 sradsick@dpsiinc. com Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group Inc. 1518 Mill Rock Way Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93311 Ian Parks 661- 616- 5900 iparks@ppeng. com Ardurra Group, Inc. 9100 Ming Ave
4 Creeks, Inc 324 S. Santa Fe Street
Suite 202
Suite A
Bakersfield, CA
Visalia, CA
93311
93292
Dolores Salgado
Lisa Wallis- Dutra
661- 529- 2190
559-802- 3052
dsalgado@ardurra. com
lisawd@4- creeks. com
Meyer Civil Engineering, Inc. 11200 River Run Blvd Suite 102 Bakersfield CA 93311 Aaron Meyer 661- 836- 9834 ameyer@meyerce. com MKN & Associates 1800 21st St Suite C Bakersfield, CA 93301 Josh Nord 661- 873- 4262 jnord@mknassociates. us Quad Knopf Inc. 5080 California Ave Suite 220 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Cathy Williams 661- 616- 2600 cathy. s. williams@qkinc. com Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group Inc. 1518 Mill Rock Way Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93311 Ian Parks 661- 616- 5900 iparks@ppeng. com AECOM 5001 E. Commercenter Dr Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Daniel Cronquist 661- 283- 2331 daniel. cronquist@aecom. com Geotechnical Services
Salem Engineering Group, Inc. 2809 Unicorn Rd Suite 103 Bakersfield, CA 93308 Jason Starnes 559- 271- 9700 jason@salem. net BSK Associates 4820 New Rosedale Ln Bakersfield, CA 93314 Adam Terronez 661- 327- 0671 aterronez@bskassociates. com SOILS Engineering, Inc. 4400 Yeager way Bakersfield, CA 93313 On Man Lau 661- 831- 5100 onman@soilsengineering. com DPSI 5351 Olive Dr Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Scott Radsick 661- 371- 2800 sradsick@dpsiinc. com Landscape Architecture ( Design, Planning, Studies)
Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. ( MIG) 537 S. Raymond Ave Pasadena, CA 91105 Cindy Mendoza 626- 744- 9872 x2100 cindym@migcom. com Alta 617 W 7th St Suite 1103 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Vincent Hellens 310- 756- 4055 vincenthellens@altago. com Kimley Horn 660 South Figueroa St Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Nicole Dias 213- 261- 4061 nicole. dias@kimley- horn. com Meyer Civil Engineering Inc 11200 River Run Blvd Ste 102 Bakersfield CA 93311 Richard Meyer 661- 836- 9834 rmeyer@meyerce. net Quad Knopf Inc. 5080 California Ave Suite 220 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Cathy Williams 661- 616- 2600 cathy. s. williams@qkinc. com NV5, Inc. 2109 West Bullard Ave Suite 145 Fresno CA 93711 Jeff Pallesen 559- 661- 5220 Jeff.Pallesen@nv5. com Survey & Mapping Services ( Geographic Information Systems) 4 Creeks, Inc 324 S. Santa Fe Street Suite A Visalia, CA 93292 Lisa Wallis- Dutra 559- 802- 3052 lisawd@4- creeks. com Meyer Civil Engineering, Inc. 11200 River Run Blvd Suite 102 Bakersfield CA 93311 Aaron Meyer 661- 836- 9834 ameyer@meyerce. com KSI Engineering, Inc. 6205 District Blvd Bakersfield, CA 93313 Mathew Lanzer 661- 619- 0144 mlanzer@ksilp. com Quad Knopf Inc. 5080 California Ave Suite 220 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Cathy Williams 661- 616- 2600 cathy. s. williams@qkinc. com DPSI 5351 Olive Dr Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Scott Radsick 661- 371- 2800 sradsick@dpsiinc. com Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group Inc. 1518 Mill Rock Way Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93311 Ian Parks 661- 616- 5900 iparks@ppeng. com Bedrock Engineering 10878 Highway 41 Madera, CA 93636 Michael Hartle 559- 645- 4849 michael@bedrockeng. com April 29, 2026
Mr. Daniel Maldonado, Assistant Water Resources Director City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Regarding: Proposal for Design Services for City of Bakersfield Carrier Canal Headgate Reconstruction Project
Dear Mr. Maldonado,
I am pleased to provide this proposal for professional engineering services. Meyer Civil Engineering, Inc. is to provide consulting engineering services for Design, Bid Assistance, and Construction Services for City of Bakersfield Carrier Canal Headgate Reconstruction Project.

All contractual items are to be in accordance with our Professional Services listing with the City of Bakersfield. The following text details this proposal.

PROJECT PURPOSE:

The project goal is to remove the existing Carrier Canal Headgate structure and reconstruct a new reinforced concrete headgate structure which is capable of passing the design flow. Our work will be directed to:

Parts 1A & 1B, Preliminary Design and Final Design
o Design flow is 650 CFS,
o The minimum and maximum water surfaces will be as governed by the Rocky Point River Weir,
o The existing fourteen, 5-foot-wide bay combination concrete and steel weir board check structure in the City’s Carrier Canal will be replaced with a new headgate structure prototypical of the new Pioneer Headgate recently reconstructed by the City. o An operational deck (21 feet clear) is to be included with full H-20 truck and maintenance equipment loading, bays will alternate between radial gated and weir board control,
o Facilities are to be designed to obtain at least 50 years of effective life, o Initial geometry studies are to be performed to the purpose of smooth and directed flow and a stable earthen canal cross-section,
o Geotechnical investigation will be provided,
o Hydraulic investigations,
o Safety items such as handrailing and fencing will be applied for maintenance and operation safety,
o Preliminary plans will be to the purpose of a preliminary cost estimate and understanding of the project,
Proposal – Engineering Services for Carrier Canal Headgate Reconstruction Project Page 2 of 4 N:\COB\Carrier Headgate\MeyerProposal-CarrierCanalHG.docx o Final plans and specifications will be prepared in full detail purposed for the successful construction and continued operation of the turnout.

Parts 2A & 2B, Bid and Construction Assistance – Meyer Civil Engineering will submit these costs prior to the construction of the project
Perhaps our most challenging aspect of the project is the very short shut-down time frame of the Carrier Canal. In addition to this, the land use restrictions surrounding the canal are seriously exclusive of any encroachment. Nonetheless, Meyer Civil Engineering accepts this challenge and will develop a proposed bypass plan for the City’s consideration as part of this proposal.

SCOPE OF ENGINEERING SERVICES:

Meyer Civil Engineering, Inc. will perform the following items of work to provide a completed project to the Water Resources Department:

1. A. PRELIMINARY PHASE – Preliminary Plans and Estimate purposed to establish design requirements and budgetary costs of construction (30% completion):
a. Attend design kick-off meeting;
b. Attend design status meetings;
c. Perform continued site visits;
d. Perform utility research;
e. Perform geotechnical investigations and prepare and submit geotechnical reports;
f. Perform hydraulic calculations and studies and submit reports; g. Prepare and submit 30% design plans for City review; and h. Prepare and submit preliminary construction cost estimate.

B. DESIGN PHASE - Construction Documents (Plans, Specifications and Estimate):
a. Attend design status meetings;
b. Prepare and submit 70% design plans for City review and comment; c. Prepare and submit 90% design plans, specifications, special provisions, engineer's estimate, and bid documents per City's template and formatting for City review and comment; and
d. Prepare and submit the above-mentioned items signed and at 100% completion along with the engineer's estimate to City for bidding and construction.

Meyer Civil Engineering will pursue project alternatives purposed to determine the most economic and practical design. Meyer Civil Engineering will also employ quality control of the progressed engineering work and project document review in order assure final quality of the construction documents.

It is the intention of this proposal that all engineering items necessary for the successful completion of the project will be accomplished by Meyer Civil Engineering, Inc. within the following schedule and for the below specified amounts.

Proposal – Engineering Services for Carrier Canal Headgate Reconstruction Project Page 3 of 4 N:\COB\Carrier Headgate\MeyerProposal-CarrierCanalHG.docx SCHEDULE:

It is understood that the City’s target for beginning construction is for late 2027 and into 2028, which allows for a very reasonable design timeline. Based on the construction time goal, Meyer Civil Engineering proposes the following design schedule:

TABLE A - DESIGN SCHEDULE
Item Duration Start Finish
Part 1.A. Preliminary Design Phase
Job setup and Mobilization 1.0 wks 1-Jul-26 8-Jul
Site Topography & Mapping 1.0 wks 9-Jul 16-Jul
Geotechnical Investigation & Report 4.0 wks 17-Jul 14-Aug Hydraulic Study 1.0 wks 17-Jul 24-Jul
30% Preliminary Design Plans 3.0 wks 25-Jul 15-Aug
Prepare Preliminary Construction Cost
Estimate 0.5 wks 16-Aug 19-Aug
Allowance for City Review 2.0 wks 20-Aug 3-Sep
Part 1.B. Design Phase
70% Design Plans 4.0 wks 3-Sep 1-Oct
Allowance for City Review 2.0 wks 2-Oct 16-Oct
90% Design Plans 2.0 wks 17-Oct 31-Oct
Technical Specifications 1.0 wks 1-Nov 8-Nov
Bid Documents 1.0 wks 9-Nov 16-Nov
Pre-bid Construction Cost Estimate 0.5 wks 17-Nov 21-Nov In-house Project Document Review and
Revisions 1.0 wks 22-Nov 29-Nov
City Review of Project Documents 1.0 wks 30-Nov 7-Dec
Revisions and Submittal for Signature 1.0 wks 8-Dec 15-Dec26 FEES FOR SERVICES:

Meyer Civil Engineering proposes the following engineering service fees:

TABLE B – ENGINEERING SERVICE FEES
Service Type of Fee Fee Amount
Preliminary Design Fixed $ 69,200.00
Final Design (PS&E) Fixed $ 187,810.00
TOTAL: $257,010.00
*Please also refer to the attached Work Breakdown Schedule and Rate Schedule as applicable to the T&M, NTE fees.

Proposal – Engineering Services for Carrier Canal Headgate Reconstruction Project Page 4 of 4 N:\COB\Carrier Headgate\MeyerProposal-CarrierCanalHG.docx The above fees were developed based on actual work effort with the estimated value of the project being in the range of $3.5M to $4M. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this proposal. I very much look forward to working with you and your staff.

Sincerely,
Meyer Civil Engineering, Inc.

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: May 11, 2026
SUBJECT: Median Fee Reimbursement Agreement with Summit Capital Ventures, Inc. (not to exceed $86,518.70) for median construction on East Panama Lane along the frontage of Tract Map 6712 Phases 1 & 2.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the agreement.

BACKGROUND:

The City Municipal Code requires that medians be constructed on arterial streets. Therefore, Tentative Tract Map 6712 includes a condition of approval for the Developer to construct 1,342 linear feet of median along the tract frontage on East Panama Lane, between South Union Avenue and Cottonwood Road. In accordance with this condition, the Developer expended $238,850.00 to construct the new median.

Median fees of $86,518.70 have been received from the developer of Tract 6865 located on the north side of East Panama Lane to cover its proportionate share of the cost of 1,342 linear feet of the median improvements.

The City will reimburse Summit Capital Ventures, Inc. $86,518.70 for its proportionate share of the costs of median construction.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Median fees collected are deposited into a separate trust account where they are held until a developer constructs the median. There is no impact to the General Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Median Fee Reimbursement Agreement with Summit Capital Ventures, Inc.

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: May 6, 2026
SUBJECT: Transportation Impact Fee credit agreement with Summit Capital Ventures, Inc (not to exceed $89,143.35) with Summit Capital Ventures, Inc. for improvements constructed on East Panama Lane. (Ward 1)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the agreement.

BACKGROUND:

The Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee program assures that new development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital expenditures necessary to provide a regional transportation system consistent with the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Funds collected from transportation impact fees are used for the purpose of capital improvements to the transportation facilities contained within the Regional Transportation Facilities (RTIF) List. The Phase III RTIF list was adopted December 17, 2008 (Resolution 218-08). Such improvements shall be of the type as are made necessary by new development, including, but not limited to widening of roadways or installation of a traffic signal. No funds generated by the program are used for periodic or routine maintenance.

When a developer is required to construct an improvement that is on the Regional Transportation Facilities List, the developer is eligible to receive a credit against the traffic impact fees for that project.

The developer must submit a credit request, project description, and a complete cost estimate consistent with the unit costs established by the facilities list.

As a requirement of development of Tract Map 6712, Summit Capital Ventures, Inc. has constructed East Panama Lane to full 1/2 width on the eastbound lane between the west tract boundary of Tract 6712 and the east tract boundary of Tract 6712. The City has listed these improvements on the Phase IV Regional Facilities List as required facilities for the orderly development of the transportation infrastructure required by the expected development of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The City has budgeted $89,143.35 for the construction of these improvements. Summit Capital Ventures, Inc. wishes to receive a transportation impact fee credit (not to exceed $89,143.35) for the construction of the above-listed improvement. The credit will be applied to Tract 7405 Phase 2 and Tract 7405 Phase 3 as listed on Exhibit C.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The credit is given to cover future transportation impact fees in exchange for work completed by the developer that is on the Regional Transportation List. There is no impact to the City’s General Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

TIF Credit Agreement with Summit Capital Ventures, Inc.

RTIF REIMBURSEMENT ESTIMATE
for City of Bakersfield Date: 5-13-2026
Job No: 3286
Prepared By: LGH
Item No. Item Description Qty Unit Contractor Unit $ Item $ Street Improvements East Panama Lane Sta 10+00 to Sta 26+13.80 12' Wide Eastbound Lane (19,356 sf)

1. A.C. Paving (0.45') 655 tns $82.00 $53,710

2. Aggregate Base (0.75') 538 cy $40.00 $21,520

3. Compacted Native (1.00') 717 cy $11.75 $8,425
Right Turn Lane (3,300 sf)

4. A.C. Paving (0.45') 112 tns $82.00 $9,184

5. Aggregate Base (0.75') 92 cy $40.00 $3,680

6. Compacted Native (1.00') 132 cy $11.75 $1,551
Dual Left Turn Lane (12,573 sf)

7. A.C. Paving (0.45') 424 tns $82.00 $34,768

8. Aggregate Base (.75') 349 cy $40.00 $13,960

9. Compacted Native (1.00') 466 cy $11.75 $5,476
Miscellaneous

10. Median Curb 1226 lf $18.97 $23,257
SUBTOTAL COSTS $175,530
Fees

11. Engineering Fees (5% Costs) $8,777

12. Construction Admin, Staking, Testing (8% Costs) $14,042 SUBTOTAL FEES $22,819
TOTAL $198,349
RTIF FEE CREDIT AVAILABLE B258 Panama Lane
From South Union Avenue to Cottonwood Road 1.00 miles, 2 lanes funded, 2 Lane Miles, $291,657.50 per Lane Mile Tract 6712 Phases 1 & 2 from Sta 10+00.00 to Sta 26+13.80 = 0.306 Lane Miles * $291,657.50/Lane Mile = $89,143.35
NOTES: 1. This is an Estimate for RTIF Reimbursement Agreement

2. Contractor Unit Costs Provided By Bowman Asphalt and CVC Construction Prepared by Porter & Associates, Inc.
4733 Centennial Plaza Way, Suite A
Bakersfield, CA 93312
TRACT NO. 6712 Phases 1 & 2 - Summit Capital Ventures, Inc.

EXHIBIT "A"

5/13/2026

Exhibit C
G:\GROUPDAT\TIF\Credit Agreements\T6712\EXHIBIT C.docx
The following tracts will receive a Transportation Impact Fee credit (not to exceed $89,143.35) for improvements constructed on East Panama Lane to full ½ width on the eastbound lane between west tract boundary of Tract 6712 and east tract boundary of Tract 6712:

Tract 7405 Phase 2
Tract 7405 Phase 3

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Agreements
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jennifer M. Byers, Economic & Community Development Director DATE: May 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 5 to Agreement No. 2020-178 with Housing Authority of the County of Kern
(extend term to December 31, 2026) for HHAP-4 Youth Rental Assistance RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the amendment.

BACKGROUND:

On September 23, 2020, the City of Bakersfield entered into Agreement No. 2020-178 with the Housing Authority of the County of Kern (“Housing Authority”), in which the City granted $261,258.93 in Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program Round 1 (HHAP-1) funding to provide Youth Rental Assistance services, including financial assistance and the delivery of permanent supportive housing solutions, to include landlord incentives, security deposits, rent, and utility arrears to homeless transitional age youth (18-24 years) who have aged out of the foster care system within the City of Bakersfield with a Term set to expire September 30, 2022.

On September 21, 2022, the parties entered into Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 2020- 178 to extend the Term expiration date from October 1, 2020, to September 30, 2023.

On May 24, 2023, the parties entered into Amendment No. 2 to Agreement 2020-178 to extend the Term expiration date from September 30, 2023, to March 30, 2024, to allow for the Housing Authority to successfully expend the remaining HHAP-1 grant funding.

On January 24, 2024, the parties entered into Amendment No. 3 to Agreement 2020- 178, in which the City granted $200,413.64 in Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Program Round 3 (HHAP3) and $394,972.03 in Round 4 (HHAP-4) funding to continue providing Youth Rental Assistance with a term ending on January 24, 2026, for a total of $856,644.60. This amendment also extended the term from March 30, 2024, to January 24, 2026.

On January 21, 2026, the parties entered into Amendment No. 4 to Agreement 2020- 178 to extend the term to June 30, 2026.

Staff recommends City Council approve Amendment No. 5 to Agreement 2020-178 to extend the Term expiration to December 31, 2026. This will allow for the Housing Authority to successfully expend the remaining HHAP-4 funding.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The action to approve the amended contract uses Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program State Grant funds to provide services, therefore there is no impact on the City’s General Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Safety and Resilience
ATTACHMENTS:

Amendment No. 5 to Agreement 2020-178

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Gregory Pronovost
DATE: May 13, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 2022-136 with Info-Tech Research Group (increasing compensation by $367,451.99 and extend term 2 years) to include their “Technical Counselor Membership”
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of this Amendment
BACKGROUND:

On August 18, 2022, the City entered into Agreement No. 2022-136 with Info-Tech Research Group for membership and consulting for a five-year term for IT research and advisory purposes. The city wishes to amend that agreement to include their “Technical Counselor Membership” and extend the term of the agreement for an additional (2) years. Increasing compensation by $367,451.99 for a total compensation amount of $897,894.35 and extending the term to (7) years. The annual cost for the services is listed below:
 $70,863.86 in July 2022
 $85,029.61 in July 2023
 $124,849.63 in July 2024
 $124,849.63 in July 2025
 $164,100.54 in July 2026
 $164,100.54 in July 2027
 $164,100.54 in July 2028
FISCAL IMPACT:

Funding is available through the Equipment Fund
COUNCIL GOAL:

Innovative and Efficient City Government
ATTACHMENTS:

Amendment.pdf
AGREEMENT NO. __________________
AMENDMENT NO. [2] TO
AGREEMENT NO. 2022-136
This AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT NO. 2022-136 is made and entered into on ________________, by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation (referred to herein as “CITY”), and INFO-TECH RESEARCH GROUP INC. a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in California (referred to herein as “CONTRACTOR”).

R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into Agreement No. 2022-136 on August 18, 2022, in the amount of $463,334.55 to provide various memberships and consulting services over a five (5) year term for IT Research and Advisory Purposes; and
WHEREAS, CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into Agreement No. 2022-136(1) on May 22, 2024, for the purchase of an additional Advisory Membership for the remainder of the term increasing compensation to a total not to exceed amount of $530,442.36; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend Agreement No. 2022-136 to include CONTRACTOR’s Technical Counselor membership and extend the term an additional two (2) years increasing the total compensation by $367,451.99; and WHEREAS, CITY and CONTRACTOR have agreed to extend the term an additional two (2) years including a Technical Counselor membership and to increase the total compensation amount to $897,894.35,
NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and CONTRACTOR mutually agree as follows:

1. Section 1 of Agreement No. 2022-136 entitled “SCOPE OF WORK.” is hereby amended to read as follows:

1. SCOPE OF WORK. In exchange for the Compensation (defined below), CONTRACTOR shall perform the following: Provide various memberships and consulting services, including but not limited to one (1) Yearly Leadership Summit Event Pass, one (1) Technical Counselor Membership, one (1) Counselor Membership, two (2) Advisory Memberships, six (6) Reference Memberships, one (1) Yearly Onsite Workshop Membership, one (1) Concierge Service, one (1) Industry/MLE service and Annual Training & Development programs, as set forth in more detail and subject to Exhibit A, Docusign Envelope ID: B21E7EBD-5520-85E0-83D2-D3BB125A51A5 Exhibit B and Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein (“Scope of Work”). The Scope of Work shall include all items and procedures necessary to properly complete the task CONTRACTOR has been hired to perform, whether specifically included in the Scope of Work or not.

2. Section 2 of Agreement No. 2022-136 entitled
“COMPENSATION/PAYMENT PROCEDURE.” is hereby amended to read as follows:

2. COMPENSATION/PAYMENT PROCEDURE. Subject to the conditions of this section, CITY will pay CONTRACTOR as follows for performing the Scope of Work (“Compensation”):

A total payment of $897,894.35 which shall be paid, subject to Exhibit A, Exhibit B and Exhibit C which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as follows:
• $70,863.86 in July 2022
• $85,029.61 in July 2023
• $124,849.63 in July 2024
• $124,849.63 in July 2025
• $164,100.54 in July 2026
• $164,100.54 in July 2027
• $164,100.54 in July 2028
CITY will pay CONTRACTOR within 30 days after CONTRACTOR submits an itemized invoice for the portions of the Scope of Work completed and that invoice is approved by CITY. The
Compensation will be the total amount paid to CONTRACTOR for performing the Scope of Work and includes, but is not limited to, all out-of-pocket costs and taxes. The CITY will pay no other compensation to CONTRACTOR. In no case will CITY compensate CONTRACTOR more than $971,970.63 for performing the Scope of Work.

3. Section 1 of Agreement No. 2022-136 entitled “TERM.” is hereby amended to read as follows:

3. TERM. Unless terminated sooner, as set forth herein, this Agreement shall terminate on July 24, 2029.

2. Except as amended herein, all provisions of Agreement No. 2022-136 shall remain in full force and effect.
-- o0o –
Docusign Envelope ID: B21E7EBD-5520-85E0-83D2-D3BB125A51A5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 2022-136 to be executed the day and year first above written. “CITY” “CONTRACTOR”
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD INFO-TECH RESEARCH GROUP INC.

By:____________________________ By:_________________________________

KAREN GOH
Mayor Print Name: ________________________
Title:___________________________
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

TECHNOLOGY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
By:____________________________

GREGORY PRONOVOST
Technology Services Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTERSIGNED:
(Deputy) City Attorney:_______________________ Finance Director: _____________________

ASHLEY ZAMBRANO RANDY MCKEEGAN
Insurance:____________
Attachment:

Exhibit C- City of Bakersfield Service Proposal 2026
Docusign Envelope ID: B21E7EBD-5520-85E0-83D2-D3BB125A51A5 Senior Legal Counsel
Shalome Andrade
City Of Bakersfield
Service Proposal
Amelia Spiers
Regional Director
[email protected]
1-888-670-8889 ext.3432
April 17, 2026

EXHIBIT C
Docusign Envelope ID: B21E7EBD-5520-85E0-83D2-D3BB125A51A5 Hi Gregory,
On behalf of our entire team at Info-Tech Research Group, I am pleased to present this proposal for IT Research and Advisory services to you and your IT department at City Of Bakersfield.

Info-Tech's IT Research and Advisory membership provides you with access to our powerful diagnostic tools and key research to help you systematically improve your IT department’s performance.

To help you maximize the impact of your membership, we also provide an unmatched level of member service.

I welcome the opportunity to work with you and your IT executives at City Of Bakersfield. Should you have questions at any time, please contact me directly at your convenience.

Sincerely,
Amelia Spiers
Regional Director
[email protected]
1-888-670-8889 ext.3432
Info-Tech Research Group Inc
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 500, Las Vegas, NV, USA
89169
infotech.com
Proposal prepared for:

Gregory Pronovost
City Of Bakersfield
1600 Truxtun Ave, Bakersfield, California,
United States  93301-5141

EXHIBIT C
Docusign Envelope ID: B21E7EBD-5520-85E0-83D2-D3BB125A51A5

SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH INFO-TECH RESEARCH GROUP INC
Service Start Date: July 3, 2026 || Contract Length: 3-year Contact: Gregory Pronovost
City Of Bakersfield
Product Bundle Options Description Quantity Subtotal Discount Total Core Membership - 4-Seat See below for your selected
bundle products
Includes Base Core Membership
Features, Leadership Summit Pass,
Leadership Summit Membership (or
Annual IT Department Assessment),
Select up to 2 of add-on's, Unlimited
IT Vendor Price Benchmarking and IT
Vendor Negotiation Assistance for 4
Contracts

1.00 Counselor Membership Designated Executive Counselor, Unlimited IT Contract Review
Service, Unlimited Software Selection
Engagements, One Info-Tech LIVE
Ticket, and all Features of the Advisory
Membership

1.00 $56,952.14 $13,053.43 $43,898.71
Advisory Membership Key Initiative Plan, Unlimited Analyst Calls, Full Access to all Diagnostic
Benchmarking Programs, Access to
Virtual Industry Roundtable Meetings,
One Info-Tech LIVE Ticket, One
Annual Software Selection, and all
Features of the Team Membership

2.00 $61,259.44 $14,094.66 $47,164.78
Technical Counselor
Membership
Designated Technical Counselor, 2
Onsite/Virtual Counselor Working
Sessions, Unlimited Access to
Concierge Services, One Info-Tech
LIVE Ticket, and all Features of the
Counselor Membership

1.00 $72,267.00 $14,525.67 $57,741.33
Concierge Services Over 20 high-impact, consulting
engagements designed to be delivered
online or onsite

1.00 Reference Membership Access to core research content - project blueprints, Info-Tech Academy,
software selection content, tools and
templates library

6.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

EXHIBIT C
Docusign Envelope ID: B21E7EBD-5520-85E0-83D2-D3BB125A51A5 Product Bundle Options Description Quantity Subtotal Discount Total Leadership Summit Pass One-time Leadership Summit
event pass, a three-day immersive
experience to develop a
comprehensive enterprise IT Key
Initiative Plan

1.00 $5,264.48 $5,264.48 $0.00
Onsite Workshop
Membership
5-Day Onsite Workshop to solve your
most pressing problem

1.00 $32,544.08 $17,248.36 $15,295.72
Annual Training &
Development - Standard
Team
Annual access to one training &
development program for a standardsized team's needs; selection available from a variety of offerings from a robust
Info-Tech catalog of online training and
development programs

1.00 $27,758.19 $27,758.19 $0.00
Industry /MLE Deep Insights Tailored To Your
Industry

1.00 $27,758.19 $27,758.19 $0.00
Total Discounts: $119,702.98
Total: $164,100.54
All items stated on this document are in USD and is subject to applicable taxes.

Docusign Envelope ID: B21E7EBD-5520-85E0-83D2-D3BB125A51A5 EXHIBIT C Federal Acquisition Service Authorized Federal Supply Schedule FSS Price List (GSA) - GS-35F-298GA Payment Terms: Prompt payment terms 0%, Net 30 days
Unless otherwise stated, consulting and workshop engagements do not include travel and expenses, which will be charged in addition to the fees listed. Workshops purchased as part of membership expire without refund or credit at the end of the membership period covered by the purchase. Workshops purchased outside membership expire without refund or credit 1-year after purchase. Please work with your member services representative to select and schedule workshops prior to expiration.

Subject to applicable taxes. If your company is tax exempt, please provide a valid tax exemption certificate with the signed proposal. This Service Agreement is subject to the terms of the Federal Supply Schedule for Info-Tech, available online, including s 552.238-114 (Use of Federal Supply Schedule Contracts by Non-Federal Entities) of the GS-35F-298GA Contract Clause
Unless agreed to in writing, any customer terms, including purchase order terms and conditions, are of no force or effect. By signing this Service Agreement, you agree to pay the fees set out herein annually for the term indicated.

This proposal has a definite expiry date of July 27, 2026.

Please return this signed Service Agreement to Info-Tech by DocuSign, email [email protected] or fax (1-519-432-2506). Please include PO if required. Thank you for your business!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The signature below affirms your commitment to pay for the services ordered in accordance with the terms of this Service Agreement and the GSA Approved Terms of Use.

If you are tax exempt, please provide tax exemption certificate.

Term Number Invoice Date Invoice
Amount Term Start Date Term End Date Notes
1 July 1, 2026 $164,100.54 July 24, 2026 July 24, 2027
2 July 1, 2027 $164,100.54 July 24, 2027 July 24, 2028
3 July 1, 2028 $164,100.54 July 24, 2028 July 24, 2029
Name _______________________________ Signature _____________________________ Title _________________________________ Date _________________________________

EXHIBIT C
Docusign Envelope ID: B21E7EBD-5520-85E0-83D2-D3BB125A51A5

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Gregory Pronovost, Director of Technology Services DATE: May 13, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2024-110 with Southstar Engineering & Consulting Inc
(to extended term date to May 15 2027) for professional and virtual webmaster and content management services.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the Amendment
BACKGROUND:

The Technology Services Department maintains the City's website for all city departments. The website provides information and access to the City's services, programs, and opportunities. It is imperative that access to city services and information is up-to-date and regularly enhanced to provide value to the community.

On May 8, 2024, the City entered into Agreement No. 2024-110 with Southstar Engineering & Consulting, Inc. for the purchase of professional and virtual webmaster and content management services to maintain the City's existing website to drive traffic, enhance user experience, and promote the City's services, events and brand;. Southstar Engineering & Consulting, Inc. ("Southstar"). Southstar conducted an assessment of CivicPlus and the City website, identifying both the strengths and weaknesses of the system. Southstar has been providing support to departmental web liaisons with changes, content creation, including but not limited to page and navigation link updates, updating calendar and agenda items, and troubleshooting. The City desires to amend Agreement No. 2024-110 to extend the term date to May 15, 2027, to continue these services.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Technology Services Department has allocated funds in the current and next years budgets from its equipment fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Innovative and Efficient City Government
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Agreement
AGREEMENT NO. __________________
AMENDMENT NO. [2] TO
AGREEMENT NO. _______________
This AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT NO. 2024-110 is made and entered into on ________________, by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation (referred to herein as “CITY”), and SOUTHSTAR ENGINEERING & CONSULTING INC a corporation authorized to do business in California (referred to herein as “CONTRACTOR”).

R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, On May 8th, 2024, CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into Agreement No. 2024-110 for the purchase of professional and virtual webmaster and content management services to assist in maintaining the CITY’s existing website; and
WHEREAS, On May 14th, 2025, CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into Agreement No. 2024-110(1) to extend the term date to May 8th, 2026, to allow for continued professional and virtual webmaster and content management services; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend Agreement No. 2024-110 to further extend the term for one (1) additional year, to allow for continued professional and virtual webmaster and content management services subject to and in accordance with the Southstar Term Renewal attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, CITY and CONTRACTOR have agreed to solely extend the term for an additional one (1) year, while continuing to provide their webmaster services as needed per CITY’s request,
NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and CONTRACTOR mutually agree as follows:

1. Section 3 of Agreement No. 2024-110 entitled “TERM” is hereby amended to read as follows:

2. TERM. Unless terminated sooner, as set forth herein, this Agreement shall terminate on May 15th, 2027.

2. Except as amended herein, all provisions of Agreement No. 2024-110 shall remain in full force and effect.
-- o0o –
Docusign Envelope ID: E48802CD-9A00-82D7-81CE-FF9A9CD00991 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 2024-110 to be executed the day and year first above written. “CITY” “CONTRACTOR”

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD SOUTHSTAR ENGINEERING &

CONSULTING, INC
By:____________________________ By:_________________________________

KAREN GOH
Mayor Print Name: ________________________
Title:___________________________
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

TECHNOLOGY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Attachments:

Exhibit D- Southstar Term Renewal
By:____________________________

GREGORY PRONOVOST
Technology Services Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTERSIGNED:
(Deputy) City Attorney:_______________________ Finance Director: _____________________

ASHLEY ZAMBRANO RANDY MCKEEGAN
Insurance:____________
Docusign Envelope ID: E48802CD-9A00-82D7-81CE-FF9A9CD00991 Yvette Kirrin
President

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

VIRTUAL WEBMASTER AND

CONTENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES
APRIL 20, 2026 Renewal quote for an additional one-year term.

May 2, 2026 through May 2, 2027
Website Maintenance Scope of Work
Docusign Envelope ID: E48802CD-9A00-82D7-81CE-FF9A9CD00991 EXHIBIT D 1945 Chicago Ave., Unit C-2, Riverside, Ca. 92507. (951) 342-3120 April 20, 2026
City of Bakersfield
City Manager’s Office
ATTN: Scott Andrews, Assistant City Manager
1600 Truxtun Avenue, 5th Floor
Bakersfield, CA 93301
RE: Renewal Proposal for Virtual Webmaster and Content Management Services Term: May 2, 2026 - May 2, 2027 - Original Scope of Work Dear Mr. Andrews and Selection Committee,
DCCM (formerly Southstar | DCCM), a distinguished leader with nearly two decades of experience delivering high-quality public works and web presence solutions, is pleased to submit this proposal and quotation to renew our contract to provide Virtual Webmaster and Content Management Services for the City of Bakersfield for another year.

For the last two years, DCCM has successfully provided Virtual Webmaster and Content Management Services to the City of Bakersfield. We are committed to upholding our standards by ensuring consistency in site design and functionality, content quality, and thorough monitoring to maintain brand compliance and accuracy.

In conclusion, DCCM is well-equipped to continue as your trusted partner in enhancing the City of Bakersfield’s online presence. We look forward to the opportunity to maintain our collaboration and deliver exceptional results that improve the quality of life for your residents and constituents.

As the President of DCCM, I am authorized to commit the company to a contractual agreement or renewal with the City. Should you have any questions, please feel free to reach out at [email protected] or (626) 644-8058 or Vanessa Barrientos, Project Manager at [email protected].

Sincerely,
DCCM
Yvette Kirrin, PE
Principal-in-Charge / President, Southern California
[email protected]
Docusign Envelope ID: E48802CD-9A00-82D7-81CE-FF9A9CD00991 EXHIBIT D 1945 Chicago Ave., Unit C-2, Riverside, Ca. 92507. (951) 342-3120

ORGANIZATION CHART

CITY OF PICO RIVERA CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

P R O J E C T M A N A G E R

VANESSA

BARRIENTOS

A D A S P E C I A L I S T

W E B P R O J E C T M A N A G E R

O V E R S I G H T

D E S I G N

W E B D E V E L O P M E N T A N A L Y S T

B A C K E N D W E B S U P P O R T

INFINITY TECHNOLOGIES
P I C
YVETTE
KIRRIN

S A N G A R G A N G J I

S A R A I Q B A L

S H E E T A L

S A R A H S A N T O S

V I N C E N T W O N

H A W A D E S A I
This team has been collaborating closely with the City staff, fostering a strong relationship.

In accordance with the City’s rigorous standards for staffing quality and consistency, DCCM unequivocally assures that all project tasks will be carried out solely by highly skilled professionals who possess the necessary training, educational credentials, and significant experience.

Docusign Envelope ID: E48802CD-9A00-82D7-81CE-FF9A9CD00991 EXHIBIT D

SCOPE OF WORK /

DELIVERABLES
Docusign Envelope ID: E48802CD-9A00-82D7-81CE-FF9A9CD00991 EXHIBIT D 1945 Chicago Ave., Unit C-2, Riverside, Ca. 92507. (951) 342-3120 Task Task Description Deliverable
1 CivicPlus Assessment (Internal): DCCM will
systematically perform an assessment of
CivicPlus to identify the strengths and gaps
of the system. The assessment will focus on
the scope of services.

Coordinate with Joe for access.

Assessment Report of Findings and
Suggestions. Present to the City and
discuss changes.
2 Website Assessment (External)
Aesthetic refers to the look and feel of a
website's or web application's front end.

Website aesthetics can be based on
elements such as white space, broken links,
missing content, alignment, navigation,
menus, imagery, interactivity, and more. The
assessment will focus on the scope of
services.

Assessment Report of Findings and
Suggestions.

Department reports will be
presented at the one-on-one
meetings.
3 Department Meetings:

Coordinate with the City departments to
develop “web pages.”
Provide guidance and develop a
webpage for departments.
4 Request for Change Process: Coordinate
with Adam and Megan for assistance.

Receive request from Adam and
follow the change process.

SCOPE OF WORK OVERVIEW
Docusign Envelope ID: E48802CD-9A00-82D7-81CE-FF9A9CD00991 EXHIBIT D

COST PROPOSAL
Docusign Envelope ID: E48802CD-9A00-82D7-81CE-FF9A9CD00991 EXHIBIT D 1945 Chicago Ave., Unit C-2, Riverside, Ca. 92507. (951) 342-3120

MONTHLY ESTIMATE BURN RATE AND RATES
Title/Role and rates are effective May 2026 through May 2027.

Time and material invoicing.

Docusign Envelope ID: E48802CD-9A00-82D7-81CE-FF9A9CD00991 EXHIBIT D

THANK YOU
Docusign Envelope ID: E48802CD-9A00-82D7-81CE-FF9A9CD00991 EXHIBIT D

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Gregory Pronovost, Technology Services Director
DATE: May 13, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 8 to Agreement No. 2020-004 with Superion, LLC (increase compensation $363,552.18, revised not to exceed $2,264,722; extend term to July 31, 2027) for ongoing software maintenance services for the city’s licensed programs as well as the development, installation, and staff training of various supporting applications.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of this agreement
BACKGROUND:

The City continues to use select Superion, LLC products for various municipal automation systems. The City first entered into Agreement No. 2020-004. Systems and processes included within this suite of tools include, but are not limited to, cash receipts, asset management, fleet management, land management, accounts receivable, purchasing/inventory, payroll and other programs.

In July of 2025, the City entered into Amendment 7 to Agreement No. 2020-004 to increase compensation to allow for an additional year of maintenance for various supporting applications. The City desires to further amend Agreement 2020-004 to increase compensation by $363,552.18, revised not to exceed $2,264,722, and extend the term to July 31, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Technology Services has sufficient funding within its budget for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 COUNCIL GOAL:

Innovative and Efficient City Government
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment

2. Certificate
AGREEMENT NO. __________________
AMENDMENT NO. [8] TO
AGREEMENT NO. 2020-004
This AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO AGREEMENT NO. 2020-004 is made and entered into on ________________, by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation (referred to herein as “CITY”), and SUPERION LLC dba CENTRALSQUARE TECHNOLOGIES LLC an LLC authorized to do business in California (referred to herein as “CONTRACTOR”).

R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, On January 8, 2020, the CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into Agreement No. 2020-004 in an amount not to exceed $300,000 for ongoing software maintenance services for the CITY’s licensed programs as well as the development, installation, and staff training of various supporting applications; and
WHEREAS, On August 12, 2020, the CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into Agreement No. 2020-004(1) in an amount not to exceed $572,000.00 to allow for additional maintenance and development, installation, and staff training of various supporting applications; and
WHEREAS, On June 2, 2021, the CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into Agreement No. 2020 (02) in an amount not to exceed $586,000.00 to allow for the purchase of Naviline Building Permits Electronic Plan Review and additional maintenance services; and
WHEREAS, On March 16, 2022, the CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into Agreement No. 2020-004 (3) in an amount not to exceed $880,000 to allow for an additional year of maintenance and development, installation, and staff training of various supporting applications; and
WHEREAS, On May 24, 2023, the CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into Agreement No. 2020-004(4) in an amount not to exceed $895,500.00 to allow for an additional year of maintenance and development, installation, and staff training of various supporting applications; and
WHEREAS, On August 23, 2023, the CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into Agreement No. 2020-004(5) in an amount not to exceed $1,209,363.00 to allow for an additional year of maintenance of various supporting applications; and Docusign Envelope ID: AE7C89FB-336D-4CF3-94CA-4E81DE9FF3DA WHEREAS, On September 11, 2024, the CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into Agreement No. 2020-004(6) in an amount not to exceed $1,539,722 to allow for an additional year of maintenance of various supporting applications; and WHEREAS, On July 23, 2025, the CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into Agreement No. 2020-004(7) in an amount not to exceed $1,889,722 to allow for an additional year of maintenance of various supporting applications; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to further amend Agreement No. 2020-004 to allow for an additional one (1) year of maintenance for various supporting applications, subject to and in accordance with the Central Square Budget Report attached hereto as Exhibit K and incorporated herein; and NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and CONTRACTOR mutually agree as follows:

1. Section 1 of Agreement No. 2020-004 entitled “SCOPE OF WORK” is hereby amended to read as follows:

1. SCOPE OF WORK. In exchange for Compensation (defined below), CONTRACTOR shall provide the following: Ongoing Software maintenance services for the Licensed Programs as set forth in Exhibit A, and Development, Installation, and training as set forth in Exhibits B and C, Naviline Building Permits Electronic Plan Review Interface License fee, development, installation, and staff training as set forth in Exhibit D, and Naviline Web Enablement License fee as set forth in Exhibit E, and Transaction Manager Emergency Extension as set forth in Exhibit F, and Public Administration Development Services and Project Management Services as set forth in Exhibit G. Exhibits A through G, and Exhibit K attached hereto and incorporated herein shall collectively comprise the Scope of Work.

2. Section 2 of Agreement No. 2020-004 entitled “COMPENSATION/ PAYMENT” is hereby amended to read as follows:

2. COMPENSATION/PAYMENT PROCEDURE. Compensation for
all work, services or products called for under this Agreement shall consist of a total payment not to exceed Two Million, Two Hundred Sixty-Four Thousand, Seven Hundred, Twenty-Two Dollars
($2,264,722). Costs for annual maintenance shall be paid in accordance with the rates in Exhibit K. CITY will pay CONTRACTOR within 30 days after CONTRACTOR submits an itemized invoice for the portions of the Scope of Work completed and that invoice is approved by CITY. The Compensation will be the total amount paid Docusign Envelope ID: AE7C89FB-336D-4CF3-94CA-4E81DE9FF3DA to CONTRACTOR for performing the Scope of Work and includes, but is not limited to, all out-of-pocket costs and taxes. CITY will pay no other compensation to CONTRACTOR.

3. Section 3 of Agreement No. 2020-004 entitled “TERM” is hereby amended to read as follows:

3. TERM. Unless terminated sooner, as set forth herein, this Agreement shall terminate on July 31, 2027.

4. Except as amended herein, all provisions of Agreement No. 2020-004 shall remain in full force and effect.
-- o0o –
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 8 to Agreement No. 2020-004 to be executed the day and year first above written.
“CITY” “CONTRACTOR”
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD SUPERION LLC dba CENTRALSQUARE

TECHNOLOGIES LLC
By:____________________________ By:_________________________________

KAREN GOH
Mayor Print Name: ________________________
Title:___________________________
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

TECHNOLOGY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ATTACHMENTS:

Exhibit K - CentralSquare Budget Report
By:____________________________

GREGORY PRONOVOST
Technology Services Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTERSIGNED:
(Deputy) City Attorney:_______________________ Finance Director: _____________________

ASHLEY ZAMBRANO RANDY MCKEEGAN
Insurance:____________
Docusign Envelope ID: AE7C89FB-336D-4CF3-94CA-4E81DE9FF3DA Ron A. Anderson
5/12/2026
Chief Revenue Officer
Budget Report - Bakersfield, CA
As of 2025-11-05 14:40:36 Eastern Standard Time/EST • Generated by Shanteal Marcks Primary
Product Name Start Date End Date QTY Net Total
NaviLine Click2Gov3 Wireless Building Permits Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $3,366.53 LG Work Orders Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $4,121.67 NaviLine Click2Gov3 Wireless Code Inspections Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $7,436.85 Modifications Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $5,000.00 Fusion Proprietary Annual Subscription Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $5,476.31 NaviLine Global Financials Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $0.00 Distribution Services 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $0.00
Technical Services - TS 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $0.00
NaviLine User Interface Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $0.00 NaviLine Click2Gov3 Core Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $2,291.91 NaviLine Human Resources Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $9,631.94 NaviLine Click2Gov3 Employee Self Service Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $2,109.18 NaviLine Standard Interface to GMBA Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $3,014.64 NaviLine Click2Gov3 Building Permits Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $5,344.61 NaviLine Utilities Imaging Interface Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $2,339.46 LG Viewer Annual Maintenance 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 10 $5,149.27 LG Address Manager Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $4,123.78 LG Web Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 20 $6,865.69 NaviLine Community Imaging Interface Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $2,339.46 NaviLine GMBA w/Extended Reporting Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $32,096.10 NaviLine Purchasing/Inventory-Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $18,896.28 NaviLine Accounts Receivable-Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $11,640.17 NaviLine Payroll/Personnel-Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $18,801.18 NaviLine Land/Parcel Mgmt-Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $11,392.94 NaviLine Business Licenses Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $11,193.21 NaviLine Work Orders/Facility Management Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $19,609.53 NaviLine Customer Information System Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $11,801.85 NaviLine Document Management Services Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $1,930.52 NaviLine RecTrac Interface to CR Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $665.69 NaviLine RecTrac Interface to GM Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $665.69 NaviLine Cash Receipts-Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $8,169.06 NaviLine Fixed Assets-Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $7,151.49 NaviLine Planning & Engineering Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $18,382.72 NaviLine Code Enforcement Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $8,387.78 NaviLine Community Imaging Interface Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $2,339.46 NaviLine Building Permits Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $13,351.97 NaviLine Financials Imaging Interface Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $2,339.46 NaviLine Time & Attendance Interface-Generic Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $921.50 Cognos BI: Administrator Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $3,093.46 NaviLine Click2Gov3 Business Licenses Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $4,973.69 NaviLine Click2Gov3 Customer Information System Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $3,366.53 NaviLine P-Card Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $1,776.30 NaviLine Building Permits Electronic Plan Review Interface Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $450.70 Fusion APIs Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $6,037.64 NaviLine Web Enablement Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $875.90 NaviLine Web Enablement Annual Maintenance Fee 8/1/2026 7/31/2027 1 $875.90 $289,798.02
Product Name Start Date End Date QTY Net Total
NaviLine Remote Service Processing Annual Access Fee 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 1 $0.00 NaviLine High Availability Annual Maintenance Fee 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 1 $6,249.40 NaviLine High Availability Annual Maintenance Fee 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 1 $3,023.91 NaviLine High Availability Managed Annual Subscription Fee 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 1 $64,480.85 $73,754.16
Note: The below budget is an estimate as of 11.5.25 and subject to change. You will receive a renewal order document closer to the renewal start date.

EXHIBIT K
Docusign Envelope ID: AE7C89FB-336D-4CF3-94CA-4E81DE9FF3DA Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: AE7C89FB-336D-4CF3-94CA-4E81DE9FF3DA Status: Completed Subject: Complete with Docusign: Bakersfield, CA_Amendment #8 to Agmt 2020-004-Renewal 2026-27 (TBE) 5.1...

Source Envelope:

Document Pages: 4 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator:

Certificate Pages: 4 Initials: 0 Claire Thompson
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
1000 Business Center Drive
Lake Mary, FL 32746
[email protected]
IP Address: 162.10.154.122
Record Tracking
Status: Original
05/12/2026 | 11:06
Holder: Claire Thompson
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Ron A. Anderson
[email protected]
Chief Revenue Officer
Central square
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 162.10.159.82
Sent: 05/12/2026 | 11:07
Viewed: 05/12/2026 | 11:21
Signed: 05/12/2026 | 11:21
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Accepted: 05/12/2026 | 11:21
ID: 97e79c16-7ed4-4a12-88c0-e3fbdce675cd
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 05/12/2026 | 11:07
Certified Delivered Security Checked 05/12/2026 | 11:21 Signing Complete Security Checked 05/12/2026 | 11:21
Completed Security Checked 05/12/2026 | 11:21
Payment Events Status Timestamps
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure

ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE
From time to time, CentralSquare Technologies, LLC (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc. (DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of this document.

Getting paper copies
At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below.

Withdrawing your consent
If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below.

Consequences of changing your mind
If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us.

All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us.

How to contact CentralSquare Technologies, LLC:

Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 12/05/2018 | 09:33 Parties agreed to: Ron A. Anderson
You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows:

To contact us by email send messages to: [email protected] To advise CentralSquare Technologies, LLC of your new e-mail address To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state: your previous e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address..

In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign.

To request paper copies from CentralSquare Technologies, LLC To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any.

To withdraw your consent with CentralSquare Technologies, LLC To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may:
i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an e-mail to [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process..

Required hardware and software
Operating Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP?
Browsers (for
SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above
Browsers (for
SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0, NetScape 7.2 (or above) Email: Access to a valid email account
Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum
Enabled Security
Settings:  Allow per session cookies
 Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy Server must enable HTTP

1.1 settings via proxy connection
** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will have the right to withdraw your consent.

Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above, please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below.

By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that:
 I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURES document; and  I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can print it, for future reference and access; and
 Until or unless I notify CentralSquare Technologies, LLC as described above, I consent to receive from exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to me by CentralSquare Technologies, LLC during the course of my relationship with you.

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brent Stratton, Chief of Police
DATE: May 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2024-320
with Zencity Technologies US, Inc. (increase compensation $50,000; not to exceed $225,000) for reporting and analysis of community satisfaction with local law enforcement agencies.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of this Amendment
BACKGROUND:

One of the main goals of the Bakersfield Police Department (BPD) is to build trust and improve its relationship with its community members. The BPD desires to use multi-medium platforms to gather and analyze data from every neighborhood within the community. Using the information the BPD can make real time improvements and monitor how the community’s sentiment changes over time, making the BPD more adaptable to changes as they arise.

Zencity Technologies US, Inc., specifically its Blockwise software has the ability to survey local community members through social media outlets and provides the results in real time. This aligns with the goals of the BPD and provides the resources needed to reach that goal.

On December 18, 2024, City and Contractor entered into Agreement No. 2024-320 with Zencity Technologies US, Inc., for a total compensation of $175,000 and a term date of July 1, 2027, for reporting and analytical services.

The City now desires to amend Agreement No. 2024-320 to increase compensation by $50,000, for a new not to exceed amount of $225,000, to expand services to include additional community engagement, data processing, and reporting capabilities, including enhanced survey frequency and analysis tools FISCAL IMPACT:

Funding for this project will come from the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services (SLESF) Grant funds.

Therefore, no impact to the City’s General Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Safety and Resilience
Innovative and Efficient City Government
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2024-320
Docusign Envelope ID: FD473879-BA44-87C8-82DE-BC1D189E75B8 Docusign Envelope ID: FD473879-BA44-87C8-82DE-BC1D189E75B8 Docusign Envelope ID: FD473879-BA44-87C8-82DE-BC1D189E75B8 Docusign Envelope ID: FD473879-BA44-87C8-82DE-BC1D189E75B8 Docusign Envelope ID: FD473879-BA44-87C8-82DE-BC1D189E75B8 Docusign Envelope ID: FD473879-BA44-87C8-82DE-BC1D189E75B8

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Randy McKeegan, Finance Director
DATE: May 13, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-095
with Rancho Tree Service (incorporating a contract price increase of five percent (5%), increase compensation by $900,000; revised not to exceed $1,400,000; and extend the term by one year) to continue the supply of tree trimming services.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the amendment
BACKGROUND:

On June 11, 2025, the City Council approved the annual contract for the supply of tree trimming services with Rancho Tree Service, in the amount of $500,000; renewable annually thereafter for four consecutive one-year periods. The City may exercise the option to allow price adjustments due to increases in the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau, Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wages for classification code 37-3013 Tree Trimmers and Pruners.

This contract is primarily utilized by the Recreation and Parks Department. The intent of this contract is to provide tree trimming services including pruning, removal, and other related service at various City locations on an on-call as needed basis.

Rancho Tree Services has agreed to extend its bid pricing with a five percent (5%) contract price increase, consistent with increases reflected in the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage data for classification code 37-3013, Tree Trimmers and Pruners. Staff have previously reviewed and approved the request in full accordance with the terms and conditions of the original bid specifications.

Currently, approximately $15,000 remains available under the contract. If approved, Amendment No. 1 will incorporate a 5% contract price increase, extend the term by one year, and increase compensation by $900,000 to allow the continued provision of tree trimming services to the term date of June 10, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funds are budgeted in the Recreation and Parks Department’s General Fund account.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-095

2. Exhibit A

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Randy McKeegan, Finance Director
DATE: May 13, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-096
with General Tree Service, Inc. (decrease compensation by $400,000; revised not to exceed $100,000; and extend the term by one year) to continue the supply of tree trimming services.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of the amendment.

BACKGROUND:

On June 11, 2025, the City Council approved the annual contract for the supply of tree trimming services with General Tree Service, Inc., in the amount of $500,000; renewable annually thereafter for four consecutive oneyear periods.

This contract is primarily utilized by the Recreation and Parks Department. The intent of this contract is to provide tree trimming services including pruning, removal, and other related service at various City locations on an on-call as needed basis.

The City and contractor have mutually agreed to reduce the overall agreement amount to better align with current service utilization and anticipated contract activity. Service requests under the contract have been distributed between two awarded contractors, with the lowest responsive and responsible bidder being utilized as the primary service provider whenever feasible. As a result, expenditures under this agreement have been lower than originally projected.

If approved, Amendment No. 1 will decrease compensation by $400,000 and extend the term by one year to allow the continued provision of tree trimming services on an on-call as-needed basis to the term date of June 10, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funds are budgeted in the Recreation and Parks Department’s General Fund account.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-096

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: CONSENT- Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Darin Budak, Recreation and Parks Director
DATE: May 11, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 2023-148 with McCormick Landscape Service, Inc. DBA Venable’s Tree Service
($100,000; not to exceed $393,928.52) for continued streetscape and median landscape maintenance and extend agreement by one year. (Ward 2)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the amendment.

BACKGROUND:

On June 28, 2023, the City and McCormick Landscape Service, Inc. DBA Venable’s Tree Service (Contractor) entered into Agreement No. 2023-148 to provide streetscape and median landscape maintenance in designated public areas for an initial three (3) year period for a not to exceed amount of $293,928.52. The area encompassed by this agreement is along 24th Street, from Oak Street to D Street.

The initial three (3) year period is coming to end on June 28, 2026. The original agreement has two (2) optional consecutive one year renewal periods. The City and Contractor have agreed to extend the streetscape and median landscape maintenance by one year and increase compensation by $100,000.00 to a new not to exceed amount of $393,928.52.

FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement is funded by Recreation and Parks Department annual operating budget within the General Fund. No additional funds are needed.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Community Character & Quality of Life
Innovative and Efficient City Government
ATTACHMENTS:

McCormick Landscape Amend No. to AGRMT 2023-148_Signed

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent- Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Darin Budak, Recreation and Parks Director
DATE: May 11, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 2023-147 with San Diego Landsystems, LLC. (extend term to June 28, 2027 and increase compensation $286,456; revised not to exceed $901,256) for continued streetscape and median landscape maintenance and extend agreement by one year. (Ward 4 & 5)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the amendment.

BACKGROUND:

On June 28, 2023, the City and San Diego Landsystems, LLC. (Contractor) entered into Agreement No. 2023-147 to provide streetscape and median landscape maintenance at designated public landscape areas for an initial three (3) year period for a not to exceed amount of $543,600.00. The public area encompassed Brimhall Road between Allen Road and Coffee Road and portions of Coffee Road from Rosedale Highway to Stockdale Highway and other arterial and collector streets within the area.

On March 12, 2025, Council approved Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 2023-147 for expanded streetscape and median landscape maintenance area in public areas by increasing compensation by $71,200.00 with a new not to exceed amount of $614,800.00.

The original Agreement was for a three (3) year period with optional two (2) consecutive one-year renewals. The current agreement is set to expire on June 28, 2026. The City and Contractor have agreed to extend the streetscape and median maintenance by one (1) year and increase compensation by $286,456.00 to a new not to exceed amount of $901,256.00.

FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement is funded by Recreation and Parks Department annual operating budget within the General Fund. No additional funds are needed.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Community Character & Quality of Life
Innovative and Efficient City Government
ATTACHMENTS:

1. San Diego Landsystems Amend No. 2 to AGRMT 2023-147_Final

2. DocuSign Summary
____________________________________________________

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
S:\ADMINISTRATION DIVISION\Agreements\2026\Landscape Maintenance Agreement\Zone 4\Amendment No 2 San Diego\San Diego Land Systems Amend No. 2 to AGRMT 2023-147.doc
- April 23, 2026_rmistry
-- Page 1 of 3 Pages --
AGREEMENT NO.

AMENDMENT NO. TWO [2] TO
AGREEMENT NO. 2023-147
THIS AMENDMENT NO. TWO (2) TO AGREEMENT NO. 2023-147 is made and entered into on ________________, by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a charter city and a municipal corporation (referred to herein as “CITY”), and SAN DIEGO LANDSYSTEMS, LLC. a Corporation authorized to do business in California (referred to herein as “CONTRACTOR”).

R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2023, the CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into Agreement No. 2023-147, wherein CONTRACTOR would provide maintenance at designated public landscape areas in the form of streetscape and median landscape maintenance for a not to exceed amount of $543,600.00 for an initial 3- year period; and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2025, Council approved Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2023-147 for expanded streetscape and median landscape maintenance area and increased compensation by $71,200.00, with a new not to exceed amount of $614,800.00; and
WHEREAS, the initial three-year period will end on June 28, 2026; and WHEREAS, CITY and CONTRACTOR have agreed to extend the streetscape and median maintenance by one year and increase compensation by $286,456.00, to a new not to exceed amount of $901,256.00.

NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and CONTRACTOR mutually agree to amend Agreement No. 2023-147 as follows:

1. Section 2 of Agreement No. 2023-147 entitled “COMPENSATION” is hereby amended to read as follows:

2. COMPENSATION. Compensation for all work, services
or products called for under this Agreement shall consist of an increase of $286,456.00 for a new total NOT TO EXCEED $901,256.00. The compensation set forth in this section shall be the total compensation under this Agreement including, but not limited to, all out-of-pocket costs and taxes. CITY Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB ____________________________________________________

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
S:\ADMINISTRATION DIVISION\Agreements\2026\Landscape Maintenance Agreement\Zone 4\Amendment No 2 San Diego\San Diego Land Systems Amend No. 2 to AGRMT 2023-147.doc
- April 23, 2026_rmistry
-- Page 2 of 3 Pages --
shall pay only the compensation listed unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties.

2. Section 3 of Agreement No. 2023-147 entitled “TERM” is hereby amended to read as follows:

2. TERM. Unless terminated sooner, as set forth herein, this Agreement shall terminate on June 28, 2027 and shall be renewable annually thereafter for one (1) consecutive oneyear period. If either the CITY or CONTRACTOR elects not to extend the service contract, or upon expiration of the initial service contract or any renewal period, the CONTRACTOR
shall aid the CITY in continuing, without interruption, the requirements of the contract, by continuing to perform on a temporary basis, when specifically requested to do so by the Parks Superintendent in writing, for specified term not to exceed six (6) months. Such continuance shall be subject to all terms and conditions of the contract, as if the CITY exercised a renewal option.

3. Except as amended herein, all other provisions of Agreement No. 2023- 147 shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. Two [2] to Agreement No. 2023-147 to be executed the day and year first above written. “CITY” “CONTRACTOR”
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD SAN DIEGO LANDSYSTEMS, LLC.

By:____________________________ By:_____________________________

KAREN GOH
Mayor Title:

APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

RECREATION & PARKS DEPARTMENT
By:____________________________

DARIN BUDAK
Recreation & Parks Director
[SIGNATURES CONTINUE NEXT PAGE]
Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Branch manager
Sergio Hernandez
____________________________________________________

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
S:\ADMINISTRATION DIVISION\Agreements\2026\Landscape Maintenance Agreement\Zone 4\Amendment No 2 San Diego\San Diego Land Systems Amend No. 2 to AGRMT 2023-147.doc
- April 23, 2026_rmistry
-- Page 3 of 3 Pages --
APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTERSIGNED:
(Deputy) City Attorney:_______________________ Finance Director: _____________________

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING

RANDY MCKEEGAN
Insurance:____________
Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB DIR-PWC 100 (rev. 11/2025) successor to the DAS 13 form STATE OF CALIFORNIA – DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS TO: California Department of Industrial Relations
Division of Apprenticeship Standards
P.O. Box 420603
San Francisco, CA 94142

EXTRACT OF

PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT AWARD
A CONTRACT TO PERFORM PUBLIC WORKS UNDER LABOR CODE SECTION 1777.5 HAS BEEN AWARDED TO:

1. NAME OF GENERAL CONTRACTOR 2.CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE NUMBER/PWCR NUMBER

3. MAILING ADDRESS (STREET NUMBER OR P.O. BOX) 4. CITY

5. ZIP CODE 6. TELEPHONE NUMBER

7. GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS 8. ADDRESS/LOCATION OF PUBLIC WORKS SITE (INCLUDE CITY AND COUNTY):
8a. County9. . NAME OF PROJECT

10. CONTRACT NUMBER 11. PROJECT NUMBER 12. DOLLAR AMOUNT OF CONTRACT AWARD 13 . FIRST ADVERTISED BID DATE

MONTH DAY YEAR
14 CONTRACT AWARD DATE

MONTH DAY YEAR
12a ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COSTS, IF DIFFERENT FROM
ITEM 12 (see instructions).

15. WHICH STATUTE, IF ANY, APPLIES TO THIS PROJECT?

16. STATE CONSTRUCTION BONDS YES NO
SOURCE(S):

DOLLAR AMOUNT (IF DIFFERENT FROM CONTRACT AWARD AMOUNT):

17. WILL YOU OPERATE A DIR-APPROVED LABOR COMPLIANCE
PROGRAM (LCP) FOR THIS PROJECT?
N/A

18. IS THERE A PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (PLA) ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT? If yes, please email a copy to [email protected] N/A

19. STARTING DATE (ESTIMATED OR ACTUAL)
(MM/DD/YYYY)

20. COMPLETION DATE (ESTIMATED OR ACTUAL)
(MM/DD/YYYY)

21. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED 22.

NEW CONSTRUCTION REMODELING

ALTERATION, DEMOLITION, REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE

23. CLASSIFICATION OR TYPE OF WORKER (CARPENTER, PLUMBER, ETC.) THAT WILL BE EMPLOYED BY THE CONTRACTOR(S) Please list Sub-contractors and their worker classifications on page 2

24. Is language included in the Contract Award to effectuate the requirements of sections 1771, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1813, and 1815 of the Labor Code? YES NO COB Project Manager/Engineer contact information.

25.NAME 26. TITLE

27. E-MAIL ADDRESS 28. TELEPHONE NUMBER
Duplication of this form is permissible

PROJECT REGISTRATION ID NUMBER
TO BE COMPLETED BY FINANCE DEPARTMENT FROM:

Yellow- To be completed by Finance
Blue- To be completed by Engineer/COB Project Manager
Various Locations within City of Bakersfield 07/01/26 06/28/27 Street scape and median landscape maintenance
Rajan U. Mistry Fiscal and Admin Services Officer II [email protected] (661) 326-3011 Kern Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Docusign Envelope ID: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: A04F40B1-B456-88B3-8315-155113C20EAB Status: Completed Subject: Complete with Docusign: San Diego Land Systems Amend No. 2 to AGRMT 2023-147_Final.pdf Source Envelope:

Document Pages: 24 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator:

Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 1 City Clerk's Office
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
[email protected]
IP Address: 174.46.226.5
Record Tracking
Status: Original
5/5/2026 10:21:11 AM
Holder: City Clerk's Office
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Sergio Hernandez
[email protected]
Branch manager
monarch landscape
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 76.53.104.226
Sent: 5/5/2026 10:26:32 AM
Viewed: 5/6/2026 5:55:38 AM
Signed: 5/6/2026 5:56:43 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Accepted: 6/2/2023 2:29:18 PM
ID: 5f96e5f8-e65e-4196-af85-10cc807c75a8
Darin Budak
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 174.46.226.5
Sent: 5/6/2026 5:56:44 AM
Viewed: 5/6/2026 6:54:03 AM
Signed: 5/6/2026 6:54:26 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Accepted: 6/5/2023 7:39:14 AM
ID: 01d698b6-f5fb-414b-956e-40fe3bf3fa68
Jena Covey
[email protected]

RISK MANAGER
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 174.46.226.5
Sent: 5/6/2026 6:54:27 AM
Viewed: 5/6/2026 7:11:16 AM
Signed: 5/6/2026 7:12:29 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Accepted: 5/6/2026 7:11:16 AM
ID: 77eb01e3-1d80-4ca2-921c-f4bc88b4738c
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 5/5/2026 10:26:32 AM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 5/6/2026 7:11:16 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 5/6/2026 7:12:29 AM
Completed Security Checked 5/6/2026 7:12:29 AM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure

ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE
From time to time, City of Bakersfield (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through the DocuSign system.

Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure (ERSD), please confirm your agreement by selecting the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’ before clicking ‘CONTINUE’ within the DocuSign system.

Getting paper copies
At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. You will have the ability to download and print documents we send to you through the DocuSign system during and immediately after the signing session and, if you elect to create a DocuSign account, you may access the documents for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below.

Withdrawing your consent
If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below.

Consequences of changing your mind
If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. Further, you will no longer be able to use the DocuSign system to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us.

All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 6/28/2022 10:51:05 AM Parties agreed to: Sergio Hernandez, Darin Budak, Jena Covey Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through the DocuSign system all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us.

How to contact City of Bakersfield:

You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows:

To contact us by email send messages to: [email protected] To advise City of Bakersfield of your new email address To let us know of a change in your email address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state: your previous email address, your new email address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.

If you created a DocuSign account, you may update it with your new email address through your account preferences.

To request paper copies from City of Bakersfield
To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an email to [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state your email address, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any.

To withdraw your consent with City of Bakersfield
To inform us that you no longer wish to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may:
i. decline to sign a document from within your signing session, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an email to [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state your email, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process..

Required hardware and software
The minimum system requirements for using the DocuSign system may change over time. The current system requirements are found here: https://support.docusign.com/guides/signer-guidesigning-system-requirements.

Acknowledging your access and consent to receive and sign documents electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please confirm that you have read this ERSD, and (i) that you are able to print on paper or electronically save this ERSD for your future reference and access; or (ii) that you are able to email this ERSD to an email address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format as described herein, then select the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’ before clicking ‘CONTINUE’ within the DocuSign system.

By selecting the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’, you confirm that:
 You can access and read this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure; and  You can print on paper this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure, or save or send this Electronic Record and Disclosure to a location where you can print it, for future reference and access; and
 Until or unless you notify City of Bakersfield as described above, you consent to receive exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you by City of Bakersfield during the course of your relationship with City of Bakersfield.

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreement TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kristina Budak, Water Director
DATE: May 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to Agreement 2024-124 with Advanced Industrial Services (extend the term by one year) to provide On-Call Industrial cleaning services for the Wastewater Division of the Water Department.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of amendment.

BACKGROUND:

The Water Department - Wastewater Division requires industrial cleaning services beyond the expertise of City Staff. These services include, but are not limited to, cleaning out vessels and tanks in confined spaces such as dissolved air flotation thickener units, aeration basins, septage pits; flushing grease tanks and grease receiving equipment; changing granular media in Sulfatreat vessels; and jetting centrate and sewer pipelines.

On May 22, 2024, City entered into Agreement No. 2024-124 for On-Call Industrial Cleaning Services for the Wastewater Division. The agreement had an initial term of one year and provided for the option to renew for three consecutive one-year terms.

On May 28, 2025, the City executed Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2024-124, extending the term by one year. Since the execution of the agreement, the contractor has completed a variety of industrial cleaning services, including cleaning of the septage pit, grease tank, primary scum pit, and the decant pit.

At this time, based on the anticipated industrial cleaning services requirements, staff recommend exercising the option to extend the contract for one year through May 31, 2027. No additional compensation will be added as part of this extension, and all other terms and conditions of the agreement will remain unchanged.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are budgeted in the Sewer Enterprise Fund for this amendment, therefore, there is no impact to the City General Fund associated with this amendment.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 2

2. Exhibit B

PERSONNEL
S/T=Standard Time O/T=Over Time P/T=Premium Time
Senior Area Manager $125.00 $125.00 $125.00
Project Manager $100.00 $100.00 $100.00
Equipment Operator $120.11 $152.45 $184.79
Lead Technician $112.64 $147.50 $182.36
Lead Technician $117.14 $154.25 $191.36
Exposed Raw Sewage
Safety Manager $95.00 $95.00 $95.00
Customer Reports Specialist $35.00 $52.50 $70.00
S/T=Standard Time O/T=Over Time P/T=Premium Time
Guzzler/ Non-Operated $115.00 per hour
Guzzler - Sludge Pump / Non-Operated $125.00 per hour
Jetter Truck/ Non-Operated $150.00 per hour
Winch Truck / Operated $173.61 $206.32 $239.04
High Pressure Pump Truck/ Non-Operated $150.00 per hour Vacuum Truck - 130 BBL/ Operated $190.44 $236.16 $281.88 Vacuum Truck w/ Roper Pump - 130 BBL/ Operated $200.44 $246.16 $291.88 Water Truck 2K $70.00 per hour
Supplemental Items
6" Flex Hose $4.50 per linier foot
Canaflex 10' Hose $35.00 ea per day
6" Hard Pipe $25.00 ea per day
Mirco Tip (Mikey Tip) $25.00 per day

5.5 Rotary Nozzle $40.00 per day
Dome Lid Adapter $2.50 ea per day
Advanced Cleaning Head $500.00 per day
Trolly System $100.00 per day
19227 Flightpath Way Phone: 661. 837.0477
Bakersfield, CA 93308 Fax: 661. 837.0497
Public Works Department, Wastewater Division
Hourly Billing Rate Sheet -2026
Equipment
Port-to-Port Charges Apply to Equipment Listed Below
Industrial Services
May 5, 2026
Reducers 8-6 / 6-4 $2.50 ea per day
Decontamination Wash Out Fee Off Site Quote per Job
Hydroblaster / 15,000 psi / 11-21 GPM $200.00 per hour
Hydroblaster / 20,000 psi / 10 GPM $250.00 per hour
Hydroblaster / Ultra High
Shotgunning Quote per Job
Lancing Quote per Job
Water Jet Cutting Quote per Job
Supplemental Items
High Pressure Items - 15,000 psi
High Pressure Hose $25.00 ea per day
High Pressure Coupling $5.00 ea per day
High Pressure Tank Cleaning Head $450.00 per day
High Pressure Trolly System $200.00 per day
High Pressure Cleaning Head - Spinner Tip $30.00 per hour Straight Tip $15.00 per day
Fan Tip $15.00 per day
Polish Tip $20.00 per hour
Custom Tip Quote per Job
High Pressure Gun $20.00 per hour
High Pressure Wand Extensions $60.00 per day
Foot Valve $20.00 per hour
I.D. Tube Lancer Quote per Job
Stinger $25.00 per day
Lance Guide $10.00 per day
Hobbles $20.00 per day
High Pressure Items - 20,000 psi
High Pressure Hose $45.00 ea per day
High Pressure Coupling $10.00 ea per day
High Pressure Tank Cleaning Head Quote per Job
High Pressure Trolly System Quote per Job

HYDROBLAST EQUIPMENT
Equipment Below Requires A Clean Water Source, And Cannot Operate On Produced Water.

High Pressure Cleaning Head - Spinner Tip $45.00 per hour Straight Tip $50.00 per day
Fan Tip $50.00 per day
Polish Tip Quote per Job
Custom Tip Quote per Job
High Pressure Gun $40.00 per hour
Foot Valve $40.00 per hour
I.D. Tube Lancer Quote per Job
Stinger $35.00 per day
High Pressure Suit /Turtle Suit $150.00 per day
Hobbles $30.00 per day
Steam Cleaner w/500 gal. Water tank-4000 psi unit $30.00 per hour Steam Cleaner - Dual Wand Unit $45.00 per hour
Steam Cleaner - 10 GPM Unit $45.00 per hour
Steam Cleaner w/ Chemical Sprayer $45.00 per hour
Supplemental Items
Extenda Wand $50.00 per day
Tri-Pod Extenda Wand Holder $200.00 per day
Water/Sand Blasting Attachment $100.00 ea per day
45 Degree Tip $2.50 ea per day
Zero Degree Tip $2.50 ea per day
Oscilating Tip $30.00 ea per day
Steam Cleaner Hose - Extension $20.00 per day
Hobbles $5.00 per day
Manager/Supervisor/Safety Truck $20.00 per hour
Crew Truck $25.00 per hour
Utility Truck $40.00 per hour
150-185 CFM Compressor $30.00 per hour
25 KW Generator $30.00 per hour

CREW TRUCKS

TOWABLE EQUIPMENT

STEAM CLEANERS
Light Plant $200.00 per day
Water Wagon $150.00 per day
Ditch Witch $55.00 per hour
Eye Wash Station $250.00 per day
Pneumatic Chemical Pump Trailer $250.00 per day
Safety/Office/Cooling Trailer $250.00 per day
$1,000.00 per month
Trash Trailer $75.00 per day
6" Pump Quote per Job
HV Pump $100.00 per hour
Tank Trailer $350.00 per day
Spill Response Trailer $350.00 per day
*additional charges for material used
Pigging Trailer $100.00 per hour
Rescue Trailer $250.00 per day
Air Trailer $150.00 per day
Supplemental Items
Tripod/ Winch $150.00 per day
Quad Gas Monitor $25.00 ea per day
Personal H2S Monitor $10.00 ea per day
Motorized Sampling Pump/Wand $20.00 ea per day
Personal Protective Equipment
Raingear $18.00 ea
Chemical Suits Cost Plus
Acid Suits Cost Plus
Tyvek Disposable Coveralls $12.00 ea
FR Tyvek Disposable Coveralls $15.00 ea
PVC Gloves, Light Duty $8.00 ea
Impact Gloves $25.00 ea per day
Face Shields $1.50 ea
Goggles $1.50 ea
Harness $10.00 ea per day
Leggings $10.00 ea

RESCUE/SAFETY EQUIPMENT
Snake Guards $10.00 ea
Level D PPE $75.00 ea per day
Respiratory Protection
Respirator - Half Face $30.00 ea per day
Respirator - Full Face $80.00 ea per day
Cartridges Cost Plus
NON-HAZ/ Storage Yard for Cleaning (Off site) $75.00 per day Frac Tanks Cost Plus
Roll Off Bin Cost Plus
Bin Liner $45.00 ea per day
Plastic Sheeting / Visqueen $250.00 per roll
Snow Fencing/ Stakes Cost Plus
Stake Driver $15.00 per day
Hole Covers Cost Plus
Portable Containments Cost Plus
Work Platform $50.00 per day
Portable Generator $125.00 per day
Jack Hammer $75.00 per day
Pnuematic Saw Zaw $200.00 per day
Blades Cost Plus
Pnuematic Scraper $50.00 per day
Vacuum Tester $25.00 per hour
Rubber Test Plugs Cost Plus
Explosion Proof Lights $130.00 per day
All Pro Underground Utility Locator $100.00 per day
30" Electric Misting Fans $75.00 per day
SandBlasting Package $250.00 per day
Abrasive Material Cost Plus
Personnal Manlift $250.00 per day

EQUIPMENT STORAGE

MISCELLANIOUS
Water Cannon $2.50 per hour
24" Electric Blower 9500cfm $100.00 per day
20" Electric Fan $50.00 per day
Pnuematic Copus Fan $50.00 per day
0-1200 Torque Wrench $100.00 per day
Torque Multiplier $125.00 per day
Chicago Hose (25') $10.00 per day
Pig Launcher $25.00 ea per day
Receiver $25.00 ea per day
Each Chargeable Hour

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: April 27, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-035

1. Approve Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-035 with Bejac Corporation (to increase compensation $116,122.72, total not to exceed $546,898.52, and extend term to September 30, 2026) for rental of slow-speed shredder for the Mt Vernon Organics Recycling and Composting Facility.

2. Approve appropriation $116,122.72 from Refuse Enterprise Fund Balance for a total not to exceed $546,898.52.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the amendment and appropriation of funds.

BACKGROUND:

The Mt Vernon Organics Recycling and Composting Facility (Facility) had one rental slow speed shredder to process organic waste and food waste materials. Slow-speed shredders are very large machines that shred green waste and food waste that help convert this material into compost, mulch, and soil amendments. Slow-speed shredders play a vital role in optimizing production and handle all the curbside organic waste and commercial food waste recycling for Bakersfield and most of Kern County.

A long-term rental of a slow speed shredder was necessary to process the daily flow of organic waste and food waste material to avoid a backlog of materials that, if left unprocessed, could ignite and cause fires.

This would create an unsafe working environment for staff, and for other contractors who visit the site daily. The long-term rental of the slow speed shredder concluded in March 2026, and final rental and repair/maintenance costs were provided to Public Works Solid Waste Division.

Staff recommends approving Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 2025-035 to increase compensation by $116,122.72, total not to exceed $546,898.52, and extend term to September 30, 2026 with Bejac Corporation for final payments related to the long-term rental of the slow speed shredder for the Mt Vernon Organics Recycling and Composting Facility.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funds in the amount of $116,122.72 will be made from the Refuse Enterprise Fund Balance into the Refuse Enterprise Operating Fund; therefore, there is no impact to the City’s General Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
Innovative and Efficient City Government
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kristina Budak, Water Director
DATE: May 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-151 with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (increase compensation by $101,550; revised not to exceed $1,154,612) to provide engineering services for Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2 and No.3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of amendment.

BACKGROUND:

The Wastewater Division of the Water Department operates and maintains Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) No. 2 and No. 3. In order to properly plan for continued service and future treatment needs for City, the WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations project was proposed and adopted in the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program. The goal of this project is to provide thorough assessments of both treatment plants, identify factors that limit each plant’s ability to provide continued service, and make recommendations to address each factor identified.

On August 13, 2025, City entered into Agreement No. 2025-151 with AECOM Technical Services (AECOM) to provide engineering services for WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations project.

AECOM was selected for the project through a competitive Request for Qualifications process.

After the initial site evaluations were conducted at both treatment plants, it was determined that the plants also required Arc Flash Studies. These studies will provide a comprehensive analysis of each facility’s electrical system and identify and mitigate high risk areas in order to facilitate worker safety. At the request of City, AECOM provided a proposal to conduct the additional scope of work.

The proposed amendment would add $101,550 to cover the cost of the Arc Flash Studies, bringing the total compensation to $1,154,612.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are budgeted in the Sewer Enterprise Fund capital improvement program for this amendment, therefore, there is no impact to the City General Fund associated with this amendment.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 1

2. Exhibit A

3. Exhibit B

4. Exhibit C
AGREEMENT NO. _
AMENDMENT NO. [1] TO
AGREEMENT NO. 2025-151
This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 2025-151 is made and entered into On,Dy and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation (referred to herein as "CITY"), and AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. a Corporation authorized to do business in California (referred to herein as "DESIGN CONSULTANT").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on August 13, 2025, CITY and DESIGN CONSULTANT entered into Agreement No. 2025-151 to develop the Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the CITY has requested that Arc Flash Hazardous studies for both plants be added to the Scope of Work; and
WHEREAS, the DESIGN CONSULTANT has submitted proposal for the Arc Flash Hazardous studies, as detailed in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 2025-151 to increase compensation by one hundred one thousand five hundred fifty ($101,550).

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

1. Section 1 of Agreement No. 2025-151 entitled "SCOPE OF WORK" is hereby amended to read as follows:

1. SCOPE OF WORK. In exchange for the Compensation
(defined below), DESIGN CONSULTANT must competently and thoroughly design and engineer the Project as more specifically described in the Request, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, and in DESIGN CONSULTANT's scope of work, attached hereto as Exhibit B and Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference (collectively, the project description in the Request

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
S:\Projects\WWTP 2 and 3 Evaluations\100-Administration\120-Council Documents\Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 2025-151.d0c Updated - August 2025
-- Page 1 of 3 Pages --
and DESIGN CONSULTANT's scope of work are referred to as "Scope of Work"). DESIGN CONSULTANT's services shall include all the procedures necessary to properly complete the Scope of Work, whether specifically included in the Scope of Work or not.

2. Section 2 of Agreement No. 2025-151 entitled
"COMPENSATION/PAYMENT PROCEDURE" is hereby amended to
read as follows:

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

Actual Costs. CITY will reimburse DESIGN CONSULTANT's actual costs (including labor costs, employee benefits, overhead, and other direct costs) in an amount not to exceed ONE MILLION ONE

HUNDRED FIFTY-FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWELVE
($1,154,612.00) exclusive of any fixed fee. Actual costs shall not exceed the estimated wage rates and other costs set forth in DESIGN CONSULTANT's cost proposal.

CITY will pay DESIGN CONSULTANT within 30 days after DESIGN CONSULTANT submits an itemized invoice for the portions of the Scope of Work completed and that invoice is approved by CITY.

The Compensation will be the total amount paid to DESIGN CONSULTANT for performing the Scope of Work and includes, but is not limited to, all out-of-pocket costs and taxes. CITY will pay no other compensation to DESIGN CONSULTANT. In no case will CITY compensate DESIGN CONSULTANT more than ONE MILLION ONE

HUNDRED FIFTY-FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWELVE
($1,154,612.00) for performing the Scope of Work.

3. Except as amended herein, all provisions of Agreement No. 2025- 151 shall remain in full force and effect.
-- o0o -

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
S:\Projects\WWTP 2 and 3 Evaluations\100-Administration\120-Council Documents\Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 2025-151.d0c Updated - August 2025
-- Page 2 of 3 Pages --
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-151 to be executed the day and year first above written.
"CITY"

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
By: _

KAREN GOH
Mayor
"DESIGN CONSULTANT"
AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.

Print Name: DA)et co)au1sr
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

WATER DEPARTMENT
By:------------
Kristina Budak
Water Director
Title: DPATAeUT
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
(Deputy) City Attorney: _

MATTHEW COLLOM
Insurance: _
COUNTERSIGNED:

Finance Director: _

RANDY MCKEEGAN

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
S:Projects\WTP 2 and 3 Evaluations\100-Administration\120-Council Documents\Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 2025-151.d0c Updated - August 2025
-- Page 3 of 3 Pages --

Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations
City of Bakersfield – Water Department
Bakersfield, California
May 27, 2025
Consultants wishing to be considered for this project should thoroughly read this Request for Qualifications (RFQ). Information required to be provided in a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) is detailed in Section V. Consultants submitting a SOQ must do so in accordance with the requirements of Section VI. As required by section IX, a signed copy of the enclosed sample agreement must be submitted with a SOQ.

I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REQUIREMENTS
The City of Bakersfield (City) owns and operates Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2 (Plant 2) and Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 3 (Plant 3). The intent of this Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is to solicit qualifications from engineering firms qualified to conduct an assessment of the City’s two wastewater treatment plants and evaluate options to upgrade, replace, or expand each facility in order to continue providing sufficient capacity and treatment for the residents of Bakersfield. Responses to this RFQ shall describe the firms’ capability to assess wastewater treatment plants and make recommendations for long-term planning.

The primary objective of this RFQ is to select one or more engineering consultants to: fully assess Plant 2 and Plant 3, identify factors that limit each plant’s ability to provide continued service and make recommendations to address each factor. If more than one consultant is selected, the consultant selected to assess Plant 3, will also be tasked with providing a preliminary planning report for a future Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 4 (Plant 4).

Attached to this RFQ are overall descriptions of Plant 2 and Plant 3 (Attachment #4) which includes the staffing levels for each plant and plant infrastructure information. Below is a brief description of each plant as it pertains to this RFQ:
• Plant 2 is a 25 MGD trickling filter facility, producing secondary effluent that is stored in dams and used for agricultural irrigation. The solids are treated in anaerobic digesters and sent to drying beds, producing Class B biosolids that are land applied on Cityowned farmland. The last Plant 2 upgrade was designed in 1997, and construction was completed in 1999. The current influent flow is 12 MGD. • Plant 3 is a 32 MGD activated sludge facility, producing secondary and tertiary effluent.

Secondary effluent is sent to percolation ponds and used for agricultural irrigation.

Tertiary effluent is stored in an above-ground 3 MG tank and used for landscape irrigation and limited use within Plant 3. The solids are treated in anaerobic digesters and dewatered using centrifuges; producing Class B biosolids that are land applied on City-owned farmland. The last Plant 3 upgrade was designed in 2007, and construction was completed in 2010. The current influent flow is 21 MGD.

Interested firms may schedule a site visit to meet with City staff. Site visits must be scheduled at least two days in advance and can occur from June 2, 2025 through June 13, 2025. Visits will be limited to one visit per firm.

The selected firm will be responsible for providing technical memorandums that address treatment limitations at Plant 2 and Plant 3, propose upgrades, replacements, and expansions for individual treatment process, and a preliminary planning report for a future RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

Plant 4. The City may award one or two agreements depending on the qualifications and proposals submitted by each PROPOSER.

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

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

II. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CONSULTANT (SCOPE OF WORK) The Consultant shall have professional staff to provide all the services necessary for the project as defined in Section I of this RFQ. At a minimum, the Consultant 's team shall include a California registered civil engineer experienced in wastewater treatment plants and processes.

The services the Consultant shall be required to provide include, but are not limited to:
evaluate the condition of Plant 2 and Plant 3, identify all factors limiting each plant’s ability to provide continued treatment, propose appropriate solutions to each limiting factor, and prepare construction costs estimates for each recommendation; and provide a preliminary planning report for a future Plant 4.

The final deliverables shall be technical memorandums which, at minimum, should include the following:

1. Technical Memorandum #1 - Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2 Evaluation a. Hydraulic capacity analysis
b. Process analysis
c. Odor evaluation
d. Structural, mechanical, and plumbing assessment
e. Electrical assessment
f. Instrumentation and controls assessment
g. Recommendations and cost estimates to address deficiencies.

2. Technical Memorandum #2 - Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 3 Evaluation a. Hydraulic capacity analysis
b.Process analysis
c. Odor evaluation
d.Structural, mechanical, and plumbing assessment
RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

e.Electrical assessment
f. Instrumentation and controls assessment
g. Recommendations and cost estimates to address deficiencies.

3. Technical Memorandum #3: Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 4 Preliminary Planning Report:
a.Planning and design criteria
b.Service area
c. Regulatory requirements and considerations
d.Treatment technology
e.Effluent disposal
f. Biosolids management
g.Site requirements
h.Phasing and implementation plan
When the contracted work is accepted by the City, all completed reports, documents, studies, etc., used in the research and completion of the project shall become the property of the City, including their copyrights and any inherited interests.

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

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

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

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

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

4. The City will provide access to interview Wastewater Division personnel to better understand plant operations.

IV. ESTIMATED PROJECT AGREEMENT TIME SCHEDULE
The Consultant shall submit a project schedule with a number of hours estimated to complete the project work. The project schedule will assume a “notice to proceed” will be issued late August 2025, and will show an estimated end date to complete the scope of work(s). It is the City’s desire to have final reports completed by end of March 2026. The Consultant shall execute the work in a timely manner and in accordance with the submitted project schedule. The Consultant shall complete 60% and 90% submittals for City approval, followed by the completion of the 100% final submittal for the project.

Event Date
RFQ Released May 27, 2025
Optional Site-Visit* June 2 – 13, 2025
SOQs Due June 20, 2025 by 3:00 p.m.

Notification Letters Sent Out June 25, 2025
RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

Firms on Shortlist Interviewed and Submit Sealed
Proposal July 21, 2025
Final Results Sent Out / Selected Firm Notified July 23, 2025 Anticipated City Council Meeting August 13, 2025
*Site-Visit must be scheduled at least two days in advance.

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

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

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

1. Responding in a timely manner;

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

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

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

C. Name and relevant experience of Proposer’s principals.

D. Name and relevant experience of the Proposer’s key personnel. This list shall identify the individual who will be assigned to the role of Project Manager for the duration of this agreement.

E. A list of comparable public works or other projects on which Proposer has been involved during the past eight years. The list should include at least three different clients and should provide the following information for each project:

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

2. Nature of Proposer’s responsibility;

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

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

5. Total dollar amount of Proposer’s contract;

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

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

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

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

F. The Proposer shall specify whether it would like to be considered for the scope of work for Plant 2, Plant 3, or both. If interested in both plants, the Proposer shall identify the preferred plant out of the two.

G. A statement of why you believe your firm should be selected for assessing the City’s wastewater treatment plants and providing recommendations for future upgrades, replacements, and expansions.

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

RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

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

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

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

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

VI. SUBMITTAL OF STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
Consultants responding to this RFQ must include the following items in their submittal package:

A. Three (3) copies of Proposer’s SOQ;
B. One (1) copy of the completed “General Information Sheet” (Attachment #1) signed by a company official; and
C. One (1) signed copy of the Draft Design Consultant’s Agreement for this project (refer to Section X, “CONTRACT DOCUMENTS”, of this RFQ);
The submittal items must be placed into a sealed envelope bearing PROPOSER’s name and the words
Statement of Qualifications for
WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations
Water Department – Wastewater Division
Bakersfield, California
RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

Before 3:00 p.m. on Friday, June 20, 2025, the submittal package must be delivered to:

Evette Roldan, Assistant Water Director
Wastewater Division
6901 McCutchen Road
Bakersfield, California, 93313
The City assumes no responsibility for non-receipt of submittal packages due to any delay, including, but not limited to, carrier delay. It is the proposer’s responsibility to meet the deadline stated above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Related experience of the Proposer.

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

E. Proposer's submittal and subjective statements.

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

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

RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

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

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

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

IX. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
A sample copy of the City's DESIGN CONSULTANT AGREEMENT is included as Attachment #2. Please review the agreement carefully. This is the contract the Consultant will be expected to execute without alteration. If any changes are desired to be considered, the Proposer must submit a copy of the requested modifications to the City for approval at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the date that Statements of Qualifications are due. If approved, the City will then issue the changes to all prospective consultants prior to the due date.

An officer of Proposer must sign and return this sample contract with his submittal. The signature indicates that Proposer accepts the clauses of the contract, including the indemnity clause, as stated on the enclosed sample copy of the City’s agreement and any modifications thereto issued by the City during this solicitation of SOQ’s. That indemnity clause reads as follows:
“DESIGN CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents and employees against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, arising from DESIGN CONSULTANT’s negligence, fraud, willful misconduct, criminal conduct, errors and omissions, or breaches of contract, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, arising out of, connected with, or caused by DESIGN CONSULTANT, DESIGN CONSULTANT’s employees, agents, independent contractors, companies, or subcontractors in the performance of, or in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this Agreement whether or not caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct.”
An Acknowledgment Line, which reads as follows, will be found on the last page of the sample agreement. Proposer must review the sample agreement carefully prior to signing it.
“I have received and reviewed the sample DESIGN CONSULTANT’S AGREEMENT including the INDEMNITY clause which was sent to me with the City’s RFQ. My signature below shall signify our firm’s acceptance of said contract if our firm is selected for awarding a contract for the project as described in said RFQ. This acceptance is RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

made with the understanding that the Compensation and Time for Completion clauses will be modified to contain the amounts and dates established for this contract.” The Consultant shall not be allowed to alter or negotiate contract language after the submittal of Consultant’s Statement of Qualifications. Failure to execute the contract without alteration may result in the rejection of the Consultant’s proposal and the retaining of a different consultant by the City.

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

X. CONTACTS AT THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
All questions concerning the project, the submittal of a Statement of Qualifications, the City’s review and evaluation of the SOQ’s, and the City’s selection of a Consultant for this project should be directed to:

Evette Roldan, Assistant Water Director
Wastewater Division
6901 McCutchen Road
Bakersfield, CA 93313
Voice Phone: 661-326-3249
Email: [email protected]
Attachment #3 “Request for Information Form” should be used when submitting questions.

XI. ATTACHMENTS TO THIS RFQ
The following documents are attachments to this RFQ:

Attachment #1 – General Information Sheet
Attachment #2 – Sample Agreement
Attachment #3 – Request for Information Form
Attachment #4 – Plant Descriptions
Attachment #1

General Information Sheet
WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations
City of Bakersfield – Water Department
Bakersfield, California
Date: ______________________________
Legal Name of Firm: ___________________________________________________________ Type of Organization: __________________________________________________________ Individual, Partnership or Corporation
For corporations, the state in which the firm is incorporated: ____________________________ Federal Employer I.D. Number: __________________________________________________ Street Address: __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Mailing Address: __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Telephone Number: __________________________________________________________ Facsimile Number: __________________________________________________________ Contact Person: __________________________________________________________ Name
__________________________________________________________ Phone Number
__________________________________________________________ E-Mail
____________________________________________________________________________ Name of Principal-in-charge Title License Number
____________________________________________________________________________ Signature of an officer of the firm Title Date
Attachment #2

AGREEMENT NO._________________

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

R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, CITY is currently developing the _________________________ (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, since CITY does not have expertise currently on staff to design and engineer the Project, CITY has issued a Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposal (“Request”) for those services; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the Request, including the Technical Provisions dated __________________, and being satisfied that it understands the Project’s requirements, DESIGN CONSULTANT has submitted a response to the Request, which includes a scope of work and cost proposal; and
WHEREAS, DESIGN CONSULTANT represents that it is experienced in the fields of design and engineering as required for the Project and that all of its officers, partners, and/or principals are licensed professionals in engineering, design, or similar professional areas with the appropriate professional degrees; and
WHEREAS, DESIGN CONSULTANT also represents that it has an adequate number of properly licensed and experienced employees on its staff to accomplish the Scope of Work, as defined below, and that it is competent to undertake the Scope of Work; and
WHEREAS, based on these representations and all other representations made by DESIGN CONSULTANT to CITY, CITY desires to retain DESIGN CONSULTANT to perform the Scope of Work.

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

1. SCOPE OF WORK. In exchange for the Compensation (defined below), DESIGN CONSULTANT must competently and thoroughly design and RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

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

7. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR.

CITY’s Contract Administrator is:

Name:

City of Bakersfield
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Telephone: (661) 326-_______
DESIGN CONSULTANT’s Project Manager shall be designated as:

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

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

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

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

11. EQUIPMENT. DESIGN CONSULTANT will supply all equipment, tools, RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

materials and supplies necessary to perform the services under this Agreement.

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

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

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

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

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

15. SB 854 COMPLIANCE. To the extent Labor Code Section 1771.1 applies to this Agreement, a contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, be subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of Labor Code Section 1771.1 for an RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded. The prime contractor is required to post job site notices in compliance with Title 8 California Code of Regulations Section 16451. This project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.

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

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

18. INSURANCE.

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

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

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

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

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

18.1.3.2 Provide products and completed operations
RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

coverage;

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

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

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

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

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

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

18.2 General Provisions Applying to All Insurance Types.

18.2.1 All policies required of DESIGN CONSULTANT must be written on a first-dollar coverage basis, or contain a deductible provision. Subject to CITY’s advance approval, DESIGN
CONSULTANT may utilize a self-insured retention in any or all of the policies provided, but the policy or policies may not contain language, whether added by endorsement or
contained in the policy conditions, that prohibits
satisfaction of any self-insured provision or requirement by anyone other than the named insured or by any means
RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

including other insurance or which is intended to defeat the intent or protection of an additional insured.

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

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

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

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

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

18.2.7 Unless otherwise approved by CITY, if any part of the Scope of Work is subcontracted, the Basic Insurance
Requirements must be provided by, or on behalf of, all
subcontractors even if CITY has approved lesser insurance RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

requirements for DESIGN CONSULTANT, and all
subcontractors must agree in writing to be bound by the provisions of this section.

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

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

20. INDEMNITY.

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

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

21. ASSIGNMENT. Neither this Agreement nor any rights, interests, duties, liabilities, obligations or responsibilities arising out of, concerning or related RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

in any way to this Agreement (including, but not limited to, accounts, actions, causes of action, claims, damages, demands, liabilities, losses, obligations, or reckonings of any kind or nature whatsoever, for compensatory or exemplary and punitive damages, or declaratory, equitable or injunctive relief, whether based on contract, equity, tort or other theories of recovery provided for by the common or statutory law) may be assigned or transferred by any party. Any such assignment is prohibited, and shall be unenforceable and otherwise null and void without the need for further action by the non-assigning party or parties.

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

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

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

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

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

27. EXECUTION. This Agreement is effective upon execution. It is the product RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

of negotiation and all parties are equally responsible for authorship of this Agreement. Section 1654 of the California Civil Code shall not apply to the interpretation of this Agreement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CITY: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

CITY HALL
RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
DESIGN CONSULTANT: ____________________________

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

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

38. TAX NUMBERS.

DESIGN CONSULTANT’s Federal Tax ID Number
DESIGN CONSULTANT is a corporation? Yes No (Please check one.) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the Effective Date.
“CITY” “DESIGN CONSULTANT”

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD (COMPANY NAME)
By: By:_________________________________
KAREN GOH, Mayor
Type or Print Name:

Title:

APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

WATER DEPARTMENT
By:

KRISTINA BUDAK
Water Director
[Signatures on Following Page]
RFQ – WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:
(NAME & TITLE)
Insurance: __________
COUNTERSIGNED:

By:

RANDY MCKEEGAN
Finance Director
Attachments: Exhibits A, B, and C
“I have received and reviewed the sample DESIGN CONSULTANT’S AGREEMENT including the INDEMNITY clause which was sent to me with the City’s RFQ. My signature below shall signify our firm’s acceptance of said contract if our firm is selected for awarding a contract for the project as described in said RFQ. This acceptance is made with the understanding that the Compensation and Time for Completion clauses will be modified to contain the amounts and dates established for this contract.”
Signature: _____________________________________ Date: ____________________ Attachment #3

Request for Information Form
WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations
Water Department -Wastewater Division
BIDDING QUESTION TO: City of Bakersfield, Water Department 6901 McCutchen Road, Bakersfield, CA 93313
Attention: Evette Roldan, Assistant Water Director
E-Mail: [email protected]
NOTE: All questions must be received by the CITY in written form on the form provided no later than 10:00 A.M. ten calendar days prior to the scheduled RFQ due date. This will allow time to respond to the question and/or to issue an addendum to all consultants addressing the question.

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

Date Submitted: Submitted by: Consultant:

Contact Person:

Address:

Telephone Number:

E-Mail:

QUESTION:__________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ RESPONSE: Date:_________ Answered by: Name Company
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ City of Bakersfield Approval of Response by: Date:

Addendum Required: YES___________ NO ______________
Attachment #4

Wastewater Treatment Plant Descriptions
Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2
Plant 2 is a 25 MGD (million gallons per day) wastewater treatment plant. Its primary form of wastewater treatment is a trickling filter with settling tanks. Sludge removed in the settling tanks is treated via anaerobic digestion and is dewatered in drying beds. Dried sludge is then hauled offsite to City owned farm fields.

Staff:
1 Supervisor
1 Senior Certified Operator
5 Certified Operators
1 Lab Technician
1 Plant Mechanic
1 Plant Electrician
2 Service Maintenance Workers
Area and equipment:

Headworks, consisting of: 2 automatic bar screens, each with a screenings compactor and chute, and 4 raw influent pumps.

Grit chamber, consisting of: 2 bays, air diffusers, 2 pumps, and 1 grit classifier.

Primary clarifiers, consisting of: influent and effluent distribution boxes, 3 clarifiers each with sweeping and skimming mechanisms, 3 primary sludge pumps, 1 scum pit with submersible pumps.

Trickling filter stage, consisting of: 3 trickling filters with synthetic media, recirculation/transfer station, 5 recirculation pumps, and 4 transfer pumps.

Secondary clarifiers, consisting of: influent distribution box, 3 clarifiers each with sweeping and skimming mechanisms, 3 sludge pumps, and 2 scum pits each with 2 submersible pumps.

Anaerobic digestion system, consisting of: 4 anaerobic digesters, 2 mixing pumps, 2 boilers and heat loops, digester gas conveyance system, and 1 flare. 2 digesters and their components are currently offline. One of the offline digesters has a floating dome. Cogeneration system consisting of 2 internal combustion engines.

Septage and grease receiving station, consisting of: 6 rock traps, 2 septage screening units,

septage pit with 2 transfer pumps and aeration system, 1 grease holding tank with 2 recirculation pumps and two transfer pumps.

Foul air removal system, consisting of: 3 blower fans and wood chip media filtration. Treated areas include the headworks and the launder channels of the primary clarifiers.

Sludge drying beds, consisting of: 18 sludge drying beds(unlined) and sludge decanting system with 2 decant pumps.

Secondary effluent storage reservoirs, consisting of: 9 reservoirs, and pumping station with 4 pumps.
1 back-up generator for power outages.

Wastewater Treatment Plant
No. 3
Plant 3 is a 32 MGD (million gallons per day) wastewater treatment plant. Its primary form of wastewater treatment is activated sludge with settling tanks. Plant 3 is also capable of tertiary treatment via filtration and disinfection with sodium hypochlorite (2 MGD). Plant 3 is also capable of nitrogen removal. Sludge removed in the settling tanks is treated via anaerobic digestion and is dewatered with centrifuges. Dewatered sludge is then hauled offsite daily to City owned farm fields.

Staff:
2 Supervisors
1 Certified Senior Operator
10 Certified Operators
1 Lab Technician
1 Lab Assistant
2 Plant Mechanics
2 Plant Electricians
3 Service Maintenance Workers
1 Heavy Equipment Operator
1 Light Equipment Operator
Area and equipment:

Headworks, consisting of: 3 bar screens with automatic rake mechanisms, screenings compactor and conveyor, and 5 raw influent pumps.

Grit chamber, consisting: of 2 vortex channels, air diffusers, 2 pumps, and 2 grit classifiers.

Primary clarifiers, consisting of: 2 influent and 3 effluent distribution boxes, 8 primary clarifiers each with sweeping and skimming mechanisms, 6 primary sludge pumps, and 8 scum pits.

Aeration basins with activated sludge, consisting of: influent and effluent channels with air diffusers, 10 aeration basins, 10 return mixed liquor pumps for denitrification, 20 anoxic mixers, hundreds of fine bubble air diffusers, 2 agitation air blowers, and 5 aeration air blowers.

Secondary clarifiers, consisting of: 4 clarifiers each with sweeping and skimming mechanisms, 5 return activated sludge pumps, and 1 scum pit.

Dissolved air flotation thickener (DAFT): 2 DAFT’s, 2 sludge pumps, each DAFT has sweeping and skimming mechanisms, 2 polymer pumps and 2 air pressure regulators.

Anaerobic digestion system, consisting of: 8 anaerobic digesters, 6 mixing pumps, 6 boilers

and heat loops, digester gas conveyance system, 3 gas booster blowers, sludge transfer station with 2 pumps, 4 centrifuge feed pumps, gas treatment system and 1 flare. Gas treatment system removes hydrogen sulfide and has capability to remove silicon, but silicon removal system has operational deficiencies. 2 digesters are currently offline and their mixing and heating systems need to be replaced. One of the offline digesters has a floating dome.

Cogeneration system, consisting of: 2 internal combustion engines. There is a heat recovery system using the engines’ exhaust that is currently offline (would heat digesters when online).

Septage and grease receiving station, consisting of: 2 rock trap, 2 septage screening units, septage pit with 2 transfer pumps and aeration system, 1 grease holding tank with 2 recirculation pumps and 2 transfer pumps.

Foul air removal system, consisting of: 7 blower fans and 3 wood chip media filters.

Sludge dewatering facility, consisting of: 4 centrifuges, 4 inline grinders, 4 polymer pumps with mixing systems, 1 polymer storage tank, dewatered sludge conveyance system, and 2 truck scales. System is currently being upgraded to include a shade cover, polymer storage tank, and a day tank.

Secondary effluent percolation ponds, consisting of: 9 ponds, 2 pumping stations with 8 pumps. One station has 4 pumps that are offline.
1 mega-watt solar energy generation system, consisting of: single axis tracking system, combiner boxes, 4 inverters, and 1 step-up transformer. Limited in the number of inverters that can remain online during cogeneration engine runtime.

Cannot export excess power produced onsite.

Tertiary treatment system, consisting of: 1 poly-aluminum storage tank, 1 sodium hypochlorite storage tank, 3 feed pumps, 2 chemical feed pumps, 1 cloth media filter, 2 chlorine contact chambers, 4 return/transfer pumps, and 1 three-million-gallon storage tank with distribution and conveyance system.

Several back-up generators used to run the liquid processing systems of the plant during a power outage.
_______ ...,. ..

ProJec F-ee Pr posa fo VWVTP No '- a'l .... No
Upg,.ade ard E pa s1 Evaluations
July 21, 2025
Evette Roldan, Assistant Water Director
City of Bakersfield
Water Department - Wastewater Division
6901 Mccutchen Road
Bakersfield, CA 93313
Subject: Project Fee Proposal
A:COM
5001 E. Commercenter Drive, Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93309
T 661.283.2331
www.aecom.com
WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations
Dear Evette,
Enclosed is the AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) Project Fee Proposal for the WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations. The budget and schedule is per the requirements of the City's request for proposal. The Project Fee Proposal is for work at both WWTP No. 2 and No. 3 with the following proposed budget:

Task 1 - Project Administration
Task 2 - Tech Memo #1 -WWTP No. 2 Evaluation
Task 3 - Tech Memo #2 - WWTP No. 3 Evaluation
Task 4 - Tech Memo #3 - WWTP No. 4 Preliminary Planning Report $ 41,572
$ 373,397
$ 377,301
$ 260)92
Total $1,053,062
We appreciate the invitation to provide our fee proposal to the City and look forward to demonstrating that AECOM can again offer outstanding service to you. If you have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
lll_,h� F��·L- A/41d�r Fortin, PE
Principal-in-Charge and WaterWastewater Pacific West Division Manager [email protected]
925.537.2673
3�'"'[.,,("'7r(,,C7�'-
Daniel Cronq , PE, PLS
Project Manager and Central
California Department Manager
[email protected]
661.283.2331

AECOM
5001 E. Commercenter Dr., Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93309
January 20, 2026
Evette Roldan, PE
Department of Water Resources, Wastewater Division
City of Bakersfield
6901 McCutchen Road
Bakersfield, CA 93313
Subject: Proposal for Arc Flash Hazard Studies at Plant 2 and Plant 3 Dear Evette,
AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) is pleased to submit this scope of work, fee proposal, and schedule to the City of Bakersfield (City) for the preparation of Arc Flash Hazard Studies for Wastewater Treatment Plants 2 and 3.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The City is requesting Arc Flash studies for the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant 2 and Plant 3.

To complete the studies, AECOM will perform a site field investigation, develop a power system model in SKM, conduct short-circuit, protective device coordination, and arc flash analyses, and prepare a comprehensive report.

SCOPE OF WORK
TASK 1 – PLANT 2 STUDY

1. Kickoff Meeting. AECOM will conduct a kickoff meeting via MS Team at the commencement of the work. Expected duration, one (1) hour.

2. Field Investigation. AECOM electrical engineers will conduct an in-person field investigation at Plant 2. Record documents, including site plan, floor plans, one-line diagram and motor control diagrams, will be reviewed. In addition, customized data collection templates will be customized to capture the equipment information needed to update the one-line diagram and develop the power system model. The field investigation will collect updates to the one-line diagram, equipment manufacturers, model, rating, sizes, quantifies, breaker settings, fuse sizes, kAIC rating and field notes.

AECOM will coordinate with on-site electricians to de-energize equipment as necessary to safely collect required data. If energized equipment cannot be shutdown during the field investigation, AECOM will advise the City and provide a list of said equipment (particularly medium and high-voltage equipment) for the City to obtain when the equipment is available.

3. Create Power System Model. AECOM will model the electrical power system in SKM software based on the updated data collected during the field investigation. The model will include system topology, one-line diagrams, utility service, generators, transformers, switchboards, MCCs, panelboards, disconnects, VFDs, combination starters, control panels, feeders, breakers, relays, and fuses.

The City will be responsible for providing utility short-circuit data (three-phase and single-phase fault levels and X/R ratios) at the service connection.

AECOM 2

4. Performed Short Circuit, Coordination, Arc Flash Studies. AECOM will sequentially perform the short-circuit, protective device coordination, and arc flash analyses required to produce the final arc flash results and equipment labels.

Short-circuit study will calculate maximum available short-circuit currents with all equipment installed and determine whether equipment interrupting (kAIC) ratings are adequate. Analyses will include at least two scenarios: Under normal utility power and under generator power. Both three-phase and single-line-to-ground fault conditions and associated X/R ratios will be evaluated.

5. Prepare Report. AECOM will prepare a comprehensive Arc Flash Hazard Study. Study will include time current curve (TC) drawings with zone coordination strategies to maximize plant operation and lower the incident energy. Existing protective device settings will be evaluated and revised where needed to improve plant operations and minimize potential Arc flash incident energy and thus PPE clothing requirements.

Deliverables
• Draft Arc Flash Hazard Study for Plant 2
• Final Arc Flash Hazard Study for Plant 2
TASK 2 – PLANT 3 STUDY

1. Kickoff Meeting. AECOM will conduct an abbreviated kickoff meeting via MS Team should plant specific attendees attend.

2. Field Investigation. AECOM electrical engineers will perform an in-person investigation at Plant 3 with the same approach, requirements, and data collection procedures described in Task 1.

3. Create Power System Model. AECOM will develop an SKM power system model incorporating updated Plant 3 field data, similar to the approach for Plant 2. Utility short-circuit data (threephase and single-phase fault levels and X/R ratios) will be provided by the City.

4. Performed Studies (Short Circuit, Coordination, Arc Flash). Short-circuit, coordination, and arc flash analyses will be conducted for Plant 3 consistent with the methodology described under Task 1.

5. Prepare Report. A full Arc Flash Hazard Study will be prepared, including TCCs, protective device evaluation and optimization, incident energy calculations, and PPE recommendations.

Deliverables
• Draft Arc Flash Hazard Study for Plant 3
• Final Arc Flash Hazard Study for Plant 3

ASSUMPTIONS
• AECOM staff will be escorted by City’s electricians during the field investigation. • City-provided records will be used for the studies and will not be independently verified. • AECOM staff are not trained electricians and will not access, activate, or deactivate energized equipment.

AECOM 3
• For inaccessible labels, AECOM will provide a list for the City’s electricians to investigate. • City will provide data and component ratings for medium and high voltage equipment not visible during field investigation.

SCHEDULE
AECOM’s proposed schedule is as follows and can be adjusted to meet the City’s needs:

Task Completion Date
Field Investigation 2 months from NTP
Draft Studies 2 months after Field Investigation
FEE
Task 1 – Arc Flash Hazard Study for Plant 2 $ 44,525
Task 1 – Arc Flash Hazard Study for Plant 3 $ 57,025
Total $101,550
We appreciate the opportunity to assist the City with this important project.

Yours sincerely,
Daniel Cronquist, PE, PLS Patrick Tsang, PE
Department Manager Project Manager
Project Budget
Arc Flash Hazard Study for Plants 2 and 3 City of Bakersfield Budget
Task Description
Principal Engineer IISenior Engineer IIProject Engineer IVProject Engineer IIIAdmin SpecialistTotal HoursLaborNon-Labor FeeTotal Task 0001 - Plant 2 Study
Kickoff Meeting for Plant 2 1 1 2 $ 575 $ 575
Field Investigation 30 16 16 62 $ 14,950 $ 1,800 $ 16,750 Create Power System Model 8 22 30 $ 6,450 $ 6,450
Performed Studies (Short Circuit, Coordination, Arc Flash) 20 10 30 $ 8,250 $ 8,250 Write Report 10 20 30 $ 6,750 $ 6,750
Project Management and Quality Control 10 8 4 22 $ 5,750 $ 5,750 Subtotal 79 9 68 16 4 176 $ 42,725 $ 1,800 $ 44,525
Task 0002 - Plant 3 Study
Kickoff Meeting for Plant 3 1 1 2 $ 575 $ 575
Field Investigation 48 36 16 100 $ 24,300 $ 2,900 $ 27,200 Create Power System Model 10 30 40 $ 8,500 $ 8,500
Performed Studies (Short Circuit, Coordination, Arc Flash) 20 10 30 $ 8,250 $ 8,250 Write Report 10 20 30 $ 6,750 $ 6,750
Project Management and Quality Control 10 8 4 22 $ 5,750 $ 5,750 Subtotal 99 9 96 16 4 224 $ 54,125 $ 2,900 $ 57,025
Total 178 18 164 32 8 400 $ 96,850 $ 4,700 $ 101,550
Personnel Hours
1/20/2026 Page 1 of 1
Project Fee Proposal for WWTP No. 2 and No. 3
Upgrade and Expansion Evaluations
Prepared for City of Bakersfield AECOM | 11
Hourly Billing Schedule
Effective January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2026
Engineers, Planners, Architects, Scientists:

Project Engineer I $ 100.00 per hour
Project Engineer II $ 125.00 per hour
Project Engineer III $ 150.00 per hour
Project Engineer IV $ 175.00 per hour
Project Engineer V $ 200.00 per hour
Senior Engineer I $ 225.00 per hour
Senior Engineer II $ 250.00 per hour
Senior Engineer III $ 275.00 per hour
Principal Engineer I $ 300.00 per hour
Principal Engineer II $ 325.00 per hour
Principal Engineer III $ 350.00 per hour
Technical Support Staff:

Clerical/General Office $ 100.00 per hour
Administrative Specialist $ 125.00 per hour
Drafter/CADD Technician $ 100.00 per hour
Assistant CADD Operator $ 125.00 per hour
Designer/CADD Operator $ 150.00 per hour
Senior Designer/Design CADD Operator $ 175.00 per hour
Design/CADD Supervisor $ 200.00 per hour
Direct Project Expenses
Subcontracted or Subconsultant Services Cost + 10%
Mileage IRS mileage reimbursement
Other Direct Costs Cost + 10%

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent – Agreement TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kristina Budak, Water Director
DATE: May 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2023-118 with Power Solutions Group LLC (extend the term by one year) to provide On-Call Equipment Maintenance services for the Wastewater Division of Water Department.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of amendment.

BACKGROUND:

The Wastewater Division requires equipment maintenance and repair services beyond the expertise of City Staff. These services include troubleshooting, repairing, maintaining, and servicing various equipment and systems throughout the Wastewater Division, including, but not limited to, centrifuges used for sludge dewatering, anaerobic digester mixing and heating systems, aeration and foul air blowers, digester gas flares, various pumps, emergency backup generators, cogeneration systems, solar field equipment, and various instrumentation and electrical systems.

On May 24, 2023, City entered into Agreement No. 2023-118 with Power Solutions Group LLC. Power Solutions Group LLC was selected after responding to the City’s Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for OnCall Wastewater Equipment Maintenance. Agreement No. 2023-118 had an initial three-year term and provided for renewal of the Agreement for up to two consecutive one-year periods upon mutually agreeable terms.

Since the award of the agreement, Power Solutions Group LLC has supported Wastewater Division operations through a variety of control systems and instrumentation services at Plant 2 and Plant 3. Work performed has included, but is not limited to, rebuilding feeder breakers for Plant 3, developing a maintenance program for the testing and certification of all breakers and switchgear equipment at Plant 3, and troubleshooting and repairing a DC battery bank fault associated with the main incoming switchgear. These services have supported the continued reliability, safety, and operation of critical wastewater treatment infrastructure and electrical systems. These services have supported improved system operational efficiency and reliability of critical process control systems.

At this time, based on the anticipated maintenance and repair needs, staff recommends exercising the option to extend the contract for one year through May 31, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are budgeted within the Sewer Enterprise Fund to fund this amendment. There is no General Fund Impact associated with this amendment.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 1

2. Exhibit B

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
S:\Engineering\Annual Contract & Request For Proposal\RFP On Call Equipment Maintenance\2023\Titan - Power Solutions - Amendment\Titan - 2023-118(1) - MSC Editsa.doc
Updated – August 2025
-- Page 1 of 3 Pages --
AGREEMENT NO. __________________
AMENDMENT NO. [1] TO
AGREEMENT NO. 2023-118
This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 2023-118 is made and entered into on ________________, by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation (referred to herein as “CITY”), and POWER SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC a limited liability company authorized to do business in California (referred to herein as “CONTRACTOR”).

R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, CITY and TITAN QUALITY POWER SERVICES LLC entered into Agreement No. 2023-118 on May 24, 2023 (the “Agreement”), to provide OnCall Wastewater Equipment Maintenance for the Wastewater Division; and WHEREAS, On January 01, 2026 TITAN QUALITY POWER SERVICES LLC was acquired by CONTRACTOR, and CONTRACTOR assumed all rights and obligations of TITAN QUALITY POWER SERVICES LLC; and
WHEREAS, CITY and CONTRCATOR, as parties to the Agreement, and in accord with Section 29 of the Agreement, mutually consent to the assignment of all rights and obligations of TITAN QUALITY POWER SERVICES LLC to CONTRACTOR; and
WHEREAS, CITY and CONTRACTOR’s waiver of Section 19 of the Agreement occurred solely in recognition of the above-described merger, does not represent the abrogation of Section 19, and remains in effect subsequent to this Amendment Number 1 to the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend Agreement No. 2023-118 to extend the Term of this Agreement by one (1) year in accordance with the original terms of the Agreement; and
NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and CONTRACTOR mutually agree as follows:

1. Section 3 of Agreement No. 2023-118 entitled
“COMPENSATION/PAYMENT PROCEDURE” is hereby amended to
read as follows:

May 14, 2026

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
S:\Engineering\Annual Contract & Request For Proposal\RFP On Call Equipment Maintenance\2023\Titan - Power Solutions - Amendment\Titan - 2023-118(1) - MSC Editsa.doc
Updated – August 2025
-- Page 2 of 3 Pages --

2. COMPENSATION/PAYMENT PROCEDURE. Subject to the
conditions of this section, CITY will pay CONTRACTOR as follows for performing the Scope of Work (“Compensation”): on an hourly basis in accordance with the hourly rates specified in the updated rate sheet dated May 11, 2026, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference herein.

CITY will pay CONTRACTOR within 30 days after CONTRACTOR submits an itemized invoice for the portions of the Scope of Work completed and that invoice is approved by CITY. The
Compensation will be the total amount paid to CONTRACTOR for performing the Scope of Work and includes, but is not limited to, all out-of-pocket costs and taxes. CITY will pay no other compensation to CONTRACTOR. In no case will CITY compensate CONTRACTOR more than ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($150,000) for performing the Scope of Work.

2. Section 3 of Agreement No. 2023-118 entitled “TERM” is hereby amended to read as follows:

3. TERM. Unless terminated sooner, as set forth herein, this Agreement shall terminate on May 31, 2027. The contract is renewable annually for one (1) consecutive one-year period at the CITY’S option and upon mutually agreeable terms.

3. Section 34 of Agreement No. 2023-118 entitled “TAX NUMBERS” is hereby amended to read as follows:

34. TAX NUMBERS.

CONTRACTOR’s Federal Tax ID Number 31-1757085
CONTRACTOR is a corporation? Yes No X (Please check one.)

4. Except as amended herein, all provisions of Agreement No. 2023- 118 shall remain in full force and effect.
-- o0o –

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
S:\Engineering\Annual Contract & Request For Proposal\RFP On Call Equipment Maintenance\2023\Titan - Power Solutions - Amendment\Titan - 2023-118(1) - MSC Editsa.doc
Updated – August 2025
-- Page 3 of 3 Pages --
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2023-118 to be executed the day and year first above written.
“CITY” “CONTRACTOR”

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD POWER SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC
By: ____________________________ By: ________________________________

KAREN GOH
Mayor Print Name: ________________________
Title: ___________________________
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

WATER DEPARTMENT
By: ____________________________
Kristina Budak
Water Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTERSIGNED:
(Deputy) City Attorney: _______________________ Finance Director: _____________________

MATTHEW COLLOM RANDY MCKEEGAN
Insurance: ____________
Michael Riley
Sales Manager - West
Power Solutions Group, LLC – 425 W kerr Rd, Tipp City OH 45371 Rate Sheet
City of Bakersfield – On Call RFQ
Field Services
NETA Test Technician $225 per Hour
Oil Processing Services
Oil Rig Mobilization Fee
- Includes Rig with driver, to and from site
- Excludes power supply or generator rental $7500 flat fee Transformer Oil Processing (Daily Rate) $5000 / day
Expenses
Mileage (per Vehicle, Trailer, etc) $1.50 / Mile
Mileage (per Rig or Tanker) $2.50 / Mile
Meals $65/day
Expenses cost plus 10%
Clarifications

1. Rate Sheet effective thru 12/31/2026

2. Straight time will apply during normal 8-hour workday Monday - Friday. Overtime will apply after normal 8-hour day during work week for the next following 4 hours then double time for time worked beyond 12 hours during a normal work weekday. The first 8 hours on Saturdays will be billed as overtime and over 8 hours will be billed as double time. Work on Sunday will all be billed as Double time.

3. Minimum charge is 8 hours per day.

4. Emergency charge, i.e. unplanned service may incur a 25% adder.

5. Special equipment such as lift rentals and/or other special charges will be noted prior to completing a project and will be noted on time sheets.

May 11, 2026

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreement TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kristina Budak, Water Director
DATE: May 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2023-119 with Witcher Electric (extend the term by one year and increase compensation by $150,000; revised not to exceed $500,000) to provide On-Call Equipment Maintenance services for the Wastewater Division.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of amendment.

BACKGROUND:

The Water Department - Wastewater Division requires equipment maintenance and repair services beyond the expertise of City staff. These services include troubleshooting, repairing, maintaining, and servicing various equipment and systems throughout the Wastewater Division, including, but not limited to, centrifuges used for sludge dewatering, anaerobic digester mixing and heating systems, aeration and foul air blowers, digester gas flares, various pumps, emergency backup generators, cogeneration systems, solar field equipment, and various instrumentation and electrical systems.

On May 24, 2023, City entered into Agreement No. 2023-119 with Witcher Electric. Witcher Electric was selected after responding to the City’s Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for On-Call Wastewater Equipment Maintenance. Agreement No. 2023-119 had an initial three-year term and provided for renewal of the Agreement for up to two consecutive one-year periods upon mutually agreeable terms.

Since the award of the agreement, Witcher Electric has completed a variety of electrical maintenance and repair projects in support of Wastewater Division operations. Work performed has included, but is not limited to, installing new MCC panels in the Plant 3 Primary Clarifiers 1–4 electrical room; modifying AllenBradley PLC programs at the DAF facility to improve alarm annunciation; installing new underground wiring for control of Primary Clarifiers 1–4; installing and programming new soft starts for the Plant 2 recirculation pumps; repairing multiple Toshiba VFD drives serving the Plant 2 headworks and secondary clarifiers; and replacing the battery backup system and associated wiring for the Plant 3 SCADA servers.

These services have supported the continued reliability, control, and operation of critical wastewater treatment systems and equipment.

At this time, based on the anticipated maintenance and repair needs, staff recommend exercising the option to extend the contract for one year through May 31, 2027, and increase the compensation by $150,000 for a revised total amount not to exceed $500,000.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are budgeted within the Sewer Enterprise Fund to fund this amendment. There is no General Fund Impact associated with this amendment.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 1

2. Exhibit B

WITCHER ELECTRIC INC
3810 Laborde Place Suite A
Bakersfield, Ca. 93308
( 661 )587-7772
FAX# (661) 587-7773
May 4, 2026
City of Bakersfield Waste Water Department
On Call Electrical Services
Listed below is Witcher Electric Inc hourly rates
Description Hourly Rate Overtime Rate Double time
Rate
Electrician
Inside Wireman $164.00 $246.00 $328.00
Technician
Service Truck $20.75 $20.75 $20.75
Bucket Truck $62.68 $62.68 $62.68
Digger Derrick $62.68 $62.68 $62.68
Three Phase
Recording $79 .50 daily $79 .50 daily $79 .50 daily
Meter
Normal business hours are Monday through Friday 6:00am to 2:30pm. 4 hours minimum will be charged for any after hour call outs.

Thank you
Caryl Witcher
Witcher Electric Inc

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreement TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kristina Budak, Water Director
DATE: May 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2023-120 with Industrial Electrical Construction and Maintenance (extend the term by one year and increase compensation by $100,000; revised not to exceed $400,000) to provide On-Call Equipment Maintenance services for the Wastewater Division.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of amendment.

BACKGROUND:

The Water Department - Wastewater Division requires equipment maintenance and repair services beyond the expertise of City Staff. These services include troubleshooting, repairing, maintaining, and servicing various equipment and systems throughout the Wastewater Division, including, but not limited to, centrifuges used for sludge dewatering, anaerobic digester mixing and heating systems, aeration and foul air blowers, digester gas flares, various pumps, emergency backup generators, cogeneration systems, solar field equipment, and various instrumentation and electrical systems.

On May 24, 2023, City entered into Agreement No. 2023-120 with Industrial Electrical Construction and Maintenance (Industrial Electrical). Industrial Electrical was selected after responding to the City’s Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for On-Call Wastewater Equipment Maintenance. Agreement No. 2023- 120 had an initial three-year term and provided for renewal of the Agreement for up to two consecutive one-year periods upon mutually agreeable terms.

Since the award of the agreement, Industrial Electrical has completed a variety of electrical maintenance and repair projects in support of Wastewater Division operations. Work performed has included, but is not limited to, running new underground wiring to the conduit at the tertiary influent pumps, installing MCC panels for Digester Room No. 2 at Plant 3, performing preventative maintenance on the Plant 3 solar field, running new wire and conduit for the secondary clarifier at Plant 3, and installing new high bay lighting at various buildings at Plant 3. These services have supported the continued operation and reliability of critical wastewater treatment facilities and equipment.

At this time, based on the anticipated maintenance and repair needs, staff recommends exercising the option to extend the contract for one year through May 31, 2027, and increase the compensation by $100,000 for a revised total amount not to exceed $400,000.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are budgeted within the Sewer Enterprise Fund to fund this amendment. There is no General Fund Impact associated with this amendment.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 1

2. Exhibit B

Rates 12/30/2025-12/30/2026
Resources St Ot Pt Night Shift Night OT
Project Manager $ 185.00 $ 222.00 $ 370.00
Project Scheduler $ 125.00 $ 187.50 $ 250.00
General Foreman $ 165.00 $ 247.50 $ 330.00
Foreman/Inst. Tech $ 160.00 $ 240.00 $ 320.00 $ 210.24 $ 315.36 Journeyman $ 155.00 $ 232.50 $ 310.00 $ 203.67 $ 305.51 AW1,2 Apprentice 1 $ 92.00 $ 138.00 $ 184.00 $ 120.89 $ 181.33 AW3,4 Apprentice 2 $ 115.00 $ 172.50 $ 230.00 $ 151.11 $ 226.67 AW5,6 Apprentice 3 $ 126.00 $ 189.00 $ 252.00 $ 165.56 $ 248.35 AW7,8 Apprentice 4 $ 135.00 $ 202.50 $ 270.00 $ 177.39 $ 266.09 AW9,10 Apprentice 5 $ 141.00 $ 211.50 $ 282.00 $ 185.27 $ 277.91 Const. Electrician 2 $ 130.00 $ 195.00 $ 260.00 $ 170.82 $ 256.23 Equipment
Pickup Truck $ 20.00 Day Rate
Service Truck $ 25.00
Instrument Truck $ 32.00
Tool Gang Box $ 125.00
19' Scissor Lift Plus $200 ea. Pickup/Delivery $ 125.00 2-4" Threader $ 90.00
4-6" Threader $ 95.00
Sub Pay Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4
$20/day $25/day $30/day $70/day
Notes:

Additional labor and tool day rates available upon request Rental equipment calculated at cost + 20% (includes portable restrooms and storage) Material calculated at cost + 20%
Sub contractor calculated at cost +20%
5/8 schedule is Mon-Fri 7am-3:30pm Over 8hrs is OT. Sat- OT Sun- PT.

Subsistence Zone 1:20-30 mi, Zone 2: 30-40 mi, Zone 3: 40-50 mi, Zone 4: Over 50 mi Sundays and Holidays will be billed at premium time
Payment Terms:

Net 30
Call outs and partial work days to be billed four hour minimum Work schedule is Mon-Thurs 6am-4:30pm Over 10hrs is OT. Fri-Sun OT and PT Unless Technician started week on 5/8 schedule.

May 5, 2026

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreement TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kristina Budak, Water Director
DATE: May 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2023-121 with Cannon (extend the term by one year) to provide On-Call Equipment Maintenance services for the Wastewater Division of the Water Department.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of amendment.

BACKGROUND:

The Water Department - Wastewater Division requires equipment maintenance and repair services beyond the expertise of City Staff. These services include troubleshooting, repairing, maintaining, and servicing various equipment and systems throughout the Wastewater Division, including, but not limited to, centrifuges used for sludge dewatering, anaerobic digester mixing and heating systems, aeration and foul air blowers, digester gas flares, various pumps, emergency backup generators, cogeneration systems, solar field equipment, and various instrumentation and electrical systems.

On May 24, 2023, City entered into Agreement No. 2023-121 with Cannon. Cannon was selected after responding to the City’s Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for On-Call Wastewater Equipment Maintenance. Agreement No. 2023-120 had an initial three-year term and provided for renewal of the Agreement for up to two consecutive one-year periods upon mutually agreeable terms.

Since the award of the agreement, Cannon has supported Wastewater Division operations through a variety of control systems and instrumentation services at Plant 2 and Plant 3. Work performed has included, but is not limited to, troubleshooting and resolving multiple PLC programming issues at both facilities, establishing communications between new variable frequency drives and PLC systems, assisting with PID loop tuning to improve pump efficiency, supporting the development and implementation of PLC logic for new motor control center cabinets, and remapping upgraded Rotork actuators at Plant 3. These services have supported improved system operational efficiency and reliability of critical process control systems.

At this time, based on the anticipated maintenance and repair needs, staff recommend exercising the option to extend the contract for one year through May 31, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are budgeted within the Sewer Enterprise Fund to fund this amendment. There is no General Fund Impact associated with this amendment.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 1

2. Exhibit B

2025/2026 Fee Schedule
Bill Rate Ranges
Subject to change
Associate Engineer 196$ - 235$ Principal Engineer 239$ - 269$ Automation Specialist 180$ - 195$ Project Designer 143$ - 172$ Automation Technician 140$ - 155$ Project Engineer 172$ - 198$ Design Engineer 160$ - 185$ Sr. Associate Engineer 212$ - 254$ Engineering Assistant I - IV 122$ - 153$ Sr. Automation Specialist 200$ - 215$ Information Systems Admin / Manager 138$ - 160$ Sr. Automation Technician 175$ - 190$ Lead Automation Specialist 194$ - 209$ Sr. Principal Designer 162$ - 211$ Lead Automation Technician 170$ - 185$ Sr. Principal Engineer I-III 239$ - 307$ Lead Designer 155$ - 193$ Sr. Project Designer 143$ - 185$ Principal Automation Specialist 212$ - 227$ Sr. Project Engineer 185$ - 223$ Principal Designer 147$ - 195$
Director / Department Manager 247$ - 307$
Electrical - Prevailing Wage
Electrician 238$ - 253$
Other Direct Charges
Outside Reproduction Cost + 15% Travel and Related Subsistence Cost + 15% Automation & Electrical Materials Cost + 25% (+tax) Standard Mileage Rate IRS Rate per mile Subconsultant Fees Cost + 10% Airplane Mileage Rate GSA Rate per mile (effective 7/1/2025)
Expenses, such as special equipment, shipping costs, travel other than by automobile, parking expenses, and permit fees will be billed at the actual cost plus 15%. If the client requests, or the client’s schedule requires work to be done on an overtime basis, a multiplier of 1.5 will be applied to the stated rates for weekdays for daily hours in excess of 8 as well as weekends, and a multiplier of 2.0 for daily hours in excess of 12 and holidays. If the client requests field services to be provided outside of normal working hours, a multiplier of 1.5 will be applied to the stated rates. For prevailing wage projects, if the client requests field services to be provided on any given Sunday, a multiplier of 2.0 will be applied to the stated rates; on or around an observed holiday, other rates may be applied. Survey Crews and Automation Field staff are billed portal to portal. A minimum charge of four hours will be charged for any Automation Field Service calls outside of normal working hours. The stated rates are subject to change, typically on an annual basis.

May 5, 2026

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreement TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kristina Budak, Water Director
DATE: May 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2023-122 with Slater Plumbing and Mechanical (extend the term by one year and increase compensation by $100,000; revised not to exceed $200,000) to provide On-Call Equipment Maintenance service for the Wastewater Division.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of amendment.

BACKGROUND:

The Water Department - Wastewater Division requires equipment maintenance and repair services beyond the expertise of City Staff. These services include troubleshooting, repairing, maintaining, and servicing various equipment and systems throughout the Wastewater Division, including, but not limited to, centrifuges used for sludge dewatering, anaerobic digester mixing and heating systems, aeration and foul air blowers, digester gas flares, various pumps, emergency backup generators, cogeneration systems, solar field equipment, and various instrumentation and electrical systems.

On May 24, 2023, City entered into Agreement No. 2023-122 with Slater Plumbing and Mechanical (Slater). Slater was selected after responding to the City’s Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for On-Call Wastewater Equipment Maintenance. Agreement No. 2023-122 had an initial three-year term and provided for renewal of the Agreement for up to two consecutive one-year periods upon mutually agreeable terms.

Since the award of the agreement, Slater has completed a variety of digester maintenance and repair projects in support of Wastewater Division operations. Work performed has included, but is not limited to, providing boiler tuning for both wastewater treatment plants and providing emissions reports for each boiler unit. These services have supported the continued operation and reliability of critical wastewater treatment facilities and equipment.

At this time, based on the anticipated maintenance and repair needs, staff recommend extending the contract for one year through May 31, 2027, and increase the compensation by $100,000 for a revised total amount not to exceed $200,000.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are budgeted within the Sewer Enterprise Fund to fund this amendment. There is no General Fund Impact associated with this amendment.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 1

2. Exhibit B

Billing Service Rates 2026
Minimum Service Charge …………………………………………………………………….. $100.00 Boiler – Water Heater Service………………………………………………………………. $115.00 Standard Plumbing Service …………………………………………………………………… $105.00 Lift Station Service………………………………………………………………………………… $115.00 Welder - Fabrication Service ………………………………………………………………… $120.00 Backflow Test and Certify …………………………………………………………………….. $80.00 ea Hydro Jetting Service ……………………………………………………………………………. $105.00 Hydro Jetting Equipment………………………………………………………………………. $440.00 Per Job Sewer Machine Cable Service ……………………………………………………………….. $105.00 Sewer Machine Cable Equipment…………………………………………………………… $45.00 Per Job May 5, 2026

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreement TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kristina Budak, Water Director
DATE: May 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 2023-123 with Quinn Company (extend the term by one year and increase compensation by $60,000; revised not to exceed $360,000) to provide On-Call Equipment Maintenance Services for the Wastewater Division.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of amendment.

BACKGROUND:

The Water Department - Wastewater Division requires equipment maintenance and repair services beyond the expertise of City Staff. These services include troubleshooting, repairing, maintaining, and servicing various equipment and systems throughout the Wastewater Division, including, but not limited to, centrifuges used for sludge dewatering, anaerobic digester mixing and heating systems, aeration and foul air blowers, digester gas flares, various pumps, emergency backup generators, cogeneration systems, solar field equipment, and various instrumentation and electrical systems.

On May 24, 2023, City entered into Agreement No. 2023-123 with Quinn Company. Quinn Company was selected after responding to the City’s Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for On-Call Wastewater Equipment Maintenance. Agreement No. 2023-123 had an initial three-year term and provided for renewal of the Agreement for up to two consecutive one-year periods upon mutually agreeable terms.

Since the award of the agreement, Quinn Company has completed a variety of electrical maintenance and repair projects in support of Wastewater Division operations. Work performed has included, but is not limited to, preventive maintenance on all five emergency generators; troubleshooting and repair of voltage distribution boards for two Aeration Basin generators; and providing parts and repair services for emergency generators. These services have supported the continued operation and reliability of critical wastewater treatment facilities and equipment.

At this time, based on the anticipated maintenance and repair needs, staff recommend exercising the option to extend the contract for one year through May 31, 2027, and increase the compensation by $60,000 for a revised total amount not to exceed $360,000.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are budgeted within the Sewer Enterprise Fund to fund this amendment. There is no General Fund Impact associated with this amendment.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 1

2. Exhibit B

2200 Pegasus Drive
Bakersfield, CA 93308
To: City of Bakersfield Date: May 4, 2026
Attn: Jesus Banuelos
Ref: RFQ – On Call Wastewater Equipment Maintenance
Current Labor Rates
Business Hrs. Overtime Premium Time
Standard Field Labor: $220.00 per hr. $330.00 per hr. $440.00 per hr.

Standard Shop Labor: $190.00 per hr. $285.00 per hr. $380.00 per hr.

Customer Value Agreement: $175.00 per hr. $262.50 per hr. $350.00 per hr.

Mileage fees: We do not charge for mileage to/from locations.

Advanced Electrical Services: These services are handled by our Advanced / Master Technicians. They perform repairs and service on automatic transfer switches, switchgear and UPS systems. The technicians are dispatched from our corporate facility in City of Industry, CA. $275.00 per hr. $412.50 per hr. $550.00 per hr.

Sincerely,
Holly Kerley
Holly Kerley
Quinn Power Systems
C: 661-304-0177
E: [email protected]

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Randy McKeegan, Finance Director
DATE: May 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 3 to Agreement no. 2024-157 with Loop Electric, Inc. (incorporating a contract price increase of seven and one-half percent (7.5%), increasing compensation $500,000; revised not to exceed $2,119,100, and extend the term by one year) to continue the supply of vehicle loop cutting and streetlight repair service.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of the amendment.

BACKGROUND:

On June 12, 2024, the City Council approved the annual contract for the supply of vehicle loop cutting and streetlight repair service with Loop Electric, Inc., in the amount of $489,100; renewable annually thereafter for four consecutive one-year periods. The City may exercise the option to allow price adjustments due to increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers (CPA-U) U.S City Average for all items 1982-194=100.

This contract is used by the General Services Division for various vehicle detector loop installations, including those that require horizontal boring, as well as for streetlight repair services. An increase in street paving, which necessitates vehicle loop cutting, has led to a substantial increase in service demand.

The additional compensation will enable the General Services Division to complete both current and upcoming vehicle loop cutting and streetlight repair projects through the contract's term.

Loop Electric Inc. has agreed to extend its bid pricing with a seven and one-half percent (7.5%) contract price increase, consistent with increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers (CPAU) U.S. City Average for classification codes 1982-194=100. Staff have previously reviewed and approved the request in full accordance with the terms and conditions of the original bid specifications.

Per the terms of the contract, amendments increasing the contract and/or extending the contract have been approved as follows:
• Amendment 1 approved February 12, 2025; increased compensation by $330,000. • Amendment 2 approved June 11, 2025; increased compensation by $800,000, and extended term by one year to June 11, 2026.

Staff recommend approval of Amendment No. 3 to incorporate a 7.5% contract price increase, extend the term of the contract by one year, and increase compensation by $500,000 for a revised not to exceed amount of $2,119,100 to allow the continuance of vehicle loop cutting and streetlight repair service to the term date of June 11, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funds are budgeted in the General Fund and Capital Outlay Fund for this contract.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 2024-157

2. EXHIBIT A

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent-Miscellaneous TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: April 29, 2026
SUBJECT: Appropriate $400,000 from the Sewer Enterprise Fund (SEF) fund balance into the Public Works Department’s Capital Improvements Program within the SEF fund for the Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation at Hageman Road and Allen Road project. (Ward 4)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the approval of the appropriation.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Bakersfield previously awarded a contract for the Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation for Hageman Road and Allen Road to Nicholas Construction, Inc. (Contractor). As part of that contract, the scope of work included a backup generator. At the time of the contract award, the generator met the requirements of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD; District). However, when the Contractor applied for the permit for the generator, the City was told that the requirements had changed, and the City was not grandfathered even though the contract was awarded prior to the District requirement changes.

The City met with the District several times, but the District would not make an exemption for this project.

Therefore, the City has to upsize the generator to meet the District standards. The Contractor is giving the City a credit for the previously bid generator; however, there is still a significant cost increase for the new generator as there are additional requirements such as wiring, concrete, etc., so the generator can be in compliance and the permit to operate can be issued.

This appropriation would cover the costs of the change order, which is in the amount of approximately $334,000, and it would allow some additional monies to cover other contingencies and construction inspection costs. The lift station is nearly complete and operational, and the generator is the final piece to completing the entire project.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This appropriation is entirely funded with SEF; therefore, there is no general fund impact associated with this appropriation. Appropriation adjustments will also allow for sufficient funds to be made available for City-controlled contingencies, change orders and city inspection staff time.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

None

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 1, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent-Miscellaneous TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin Albertson, Fire Chief
DATE: May 27, 2026
SUBJECT: Appropriate $77,250 from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) to the Fire Department Operating budget within the General Fund to provide training to local Regional Task Force members and for the purchase of necessary equipment and training consumables
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the appropriation.

BACKGROUND:

The Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD) is the host agency for Urban Search & Rescue (US&R) Regional Task Force 11 (CA-RTF11) that covers Kern County jurisdiction. There are currently ten Regional Urban Search & Rescue Task Forces located throughout the State of California. Each Regional US&R Task Force is comprised of 29 people specially trained and equipped for large or complex urban search and rescue operations. The multi-disciplinary organization provides five functional elements: Command, Search, Rescue, Medical, and Logistics. The funding allocation from Cal OES shall provide specified training for CARTF11 team members, including continuing education to maintain competency, and for the purchase of equipment and training consumables.

As the host agency for Regional Task Force 11, the BFD was awarded $77,250 in 2023 to execute a mobilization training exercise for team members. Cal OES awarded BFD an additional $92,700 in 2024 and $77,250 in 2025 to support ongoing training and equipment needs. Cal OES has since made available an additional $77,250, for a total of $324,450, for additional training, equipment, and training consumables.

BFD seeks approval to appropriate these funds for necessary training, equipment, and training consumables specific to CA-RTF-11 certification.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funding for equipment will be provided by reimbursable State grant funds.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Safety and Resilience
ATTACHMENTS:

CalOES Agreement # A231012274-A2

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent – Public Hearings TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: May 22, 2026
SUBJECT: Public hearing to consider Planning Commission’s approval of General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-0040 and its proposed mitigated negative declaration. (Ward 7)
McIntosh and Associates (applicant), on behalf of Kern Land Partners LLC (property owner) is proposing a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change on approximately 5.39 acres generally located at the southeast corner of Ashe Road and McKee Road. The request includes:

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

2. Resolution adopting General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial).

3. First Reading of an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code by changing the official zoning classification from R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) to C-2/PCD (Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development).

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolutions and first reading of the ordinance.

BACKGROUND:

The project is a request for an amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Element and the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance on approximately 5.39 acres generally located on the Southeast corner of Ashe Road and McKee Road. The applicant proposes to change the land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial); and to change the zone classification from R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) to C-2/PCD (Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development).

Project Summary:

The proposed project seeks the above approvals to establish consistent land use and zoning designations within the project site and with surrounding residential areas. The proposed request is intended to address the constraint that new residential development cannot occur on the project site due to its close proximity to a wastewater treatment facility due to odor concerns. City policy does not permit new residential development within one-quarter mile radius of a sewage facility which the project site is within a one-quarter mile of the City of Bakersfield Sewage Facility No. 3 located at the southwest corner of Ashe Road and McCutchen Road in southwest Bakersfield. No formal plans have been submitted, with the exception of preliminary conceptual plans. All future developments will be analyzed for municipal and CEQA compliance.

Site History:
 January 28, 1998 – The project site was pre-zoned R-1 (single-family dwelling unit) as a part of a larger area pre-zoning (Ordinance 3819).
 March 8, 2006 - The project site was pre-zoned R-1 (single-family dwelling unit) as a part of a larger pre-zoning area prior to annexation into the City (Ordinance 4331).  July 17, 2006 - The project site was annexed into the City of Bakersfield as part of a larger annexation (Annexation 477 – Ashe Road No. 3).

Environmental Review and Determination:

Staff prepared an initialstudy to review the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study determined that compliance with recommended mitigation measures, local ordinances, state laws, and construction to the standards of the Uniform Building Codes will reduce impacts to a less-thansignificant level. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with CEQA. The MND was circulated for a 30-day public and agency review period from December 1, 2025 to December 30, 2025 (SCH No. 22025111041).

The State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed in the evaluation of the environmental effects of this project. Significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the EIR were not identified within staff analysis.

Comments Received. As of this writing, two comment letters have been received in response to the Initial Study. One was submitted by the California Department of Conservation and provides guidance on best practices should an undiscovered oil well be encountered on the project site. The second letter was submitted by an adjacent resident concerning land use compatibility, neighborhood safety, and the protection of nearby residential and recreational uses.

Public Notification:

Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in The Bakersfield Californian and posted on the bulletin board in the City Hall North, 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. All property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified by United States Postal Service mail regarding this public hearing in accordance with city ordinance and state law.

Compatibility with Land Use Element. Staff has reviewed the proposal for compatibility with the applicable goals and policies contained within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Element and finds the following:
 Goal 1: Accommodate new development which captures the economic demands generated by the marketplace and establishes Bakersfield’s role as the capital of the southern San Joaquin Valley.

The project is new commercial development that captures the current commercial marketplace within the southern San Joaquin Valley by providing commercial development.  Goal 2: Accommodate new development which provides a full mix of uses to support its population.

The project is consistent with this goal because the property owner determined the market is driving a need for commercial within the project area.
 Goal 4: Accommodate new development which channels land uses in a phased, orderly manner and is coordinated with the provision of infrastructure and public improvements.

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

Planning Commission Action:

The project was considered by the Planning Commission on April 16, 2026. No individuals or agencies were present at the hearing that opposed the request. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the project to the City Council. Two Commissioners were absent. The Planning Commission’s findings are contained in Resolution Nos. 23-26, 24-26, and 25-26.

FISCAL IMPACT:

If this site develops to its full land use economic potential it will have a positive impact on generating revenue for the City General Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Community Character & Quality of Life
Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution adopting the MND

2. Resolution approving the GPA

3. Ordinance for ZC

4. Map Set

5. Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments

6. Planning Commission Staff Report

7. PC CEQA Resolution No. 23-26

8. PC GPA Resolution No. 24-26

9. PC ZC Resolution No. 25-26

RESOLUTION NO. _____________

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE

LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF THE METROPOLITAN

BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN AND ZONE CHANGE, GENERALLY

LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ASHE ROAD AND
MCKEE ROAD (GPA/ZC NO. 24-0040).

WHEREAS, McIntosh and Associates (applicant), on behalf of Kern Land Partners LLC (property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from LR (Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial); and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) to C-2/PCD (Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development) on approximately 5.39 acres generally located on the southeast corner of Ashe Road and McKee Road (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a public review period from December 1, 2025 to December 30, 2025, in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 16, 2026, and with no one wishing to speak in support or opposition, approved Resolution No. 23-26, which recommended that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, May 27, 2026 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the proposed Negative Declaration as required by Government Code Section 65355, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by City staff and the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s deliberation, and action.

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

1. All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation, 20 days prior to the hearing.

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

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

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

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

2. The Planning Commission’s findings as contained in its Resolution No. 23-26 are hereby adopted.

3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is hereby adopted subject to the mitigation measures found in Exhibit A for the Project located on the map as shown in Exhibit B, both of which are incorporated herein. ---------o0o--------

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of May 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: _Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Freeman, Bashirtash, Kaur____________________ NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: ________________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: ________________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: ________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________

JULIE DRIMAKIS, CMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED: ___________________
By_______________________________

KAREN GOH
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By: ____________________________

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit: A Mitigation Measures
B Location Map

EXHIBIT “A”

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE NO. 24-0040
Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:

1. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer shall submit documentation to the Planning Division that they will/have met all air quality control measures and rules required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

2. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer shall submit proof to the Planning Division that they have complied with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Indirect Source Rule (Rule 9510).

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

3. Prior to ground disturbance, the applicant/developer shall consult with and follow all California Department of Fish and Wildlife and United States Fish and Wildlife Service requirements related to listed plant and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Applicant/developer shall have a qualified professional conduct and prepare a biological resource clearance survey no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities for the detection of listed, or otherwise special-status species, likely to be impacted by any project related activity.
a. If known or natal dens are detected during the survey, protective measures enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) shall be initiated. If the identified dens are unavoidable, pursuant to the guidelines, the CDFW and USFWS shall be contacted for additional guidance and take authorization. b. If Bakersfield cacti are identified during the survey, the CDFW shall be contacted for guidance concerning the feasibility of translocation.
c. The survey or separate survey shall include a focus on the burrowing owl. The survey shall follow the methodology developed by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC 1993). The applicant/developer shall follow CDFW protocol for mitigation and comply with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Geology and Soils, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

4. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period, a cultural awareness training program shall be provided to all new construction workers within one week of employment at the project site. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a qualified cultural resources specialist. Documentation of pre-construction training shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 5 days of training completion.

Exhibit A
GPA No. 21-0302

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

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

Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:

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

EXHIBIT B

RESOLUTION NO. _____________

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN

AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF THE

METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN FROM LR (LOW DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL) TO GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL), GENERALLY LOCATED

ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ASHE ROAD AND MCKEE ROAD
(GPA/ZC NO. 24-0040).

WHEREAS, McIntosh and Associates (applicant), on behalf of Kern Land Partners LLC (property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from LR (Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial); and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) to C-2/PCD (Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development) on approximately 5.39 acres generally located on the southeast corner of Ashe Road and McKee Road (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 16, 2026, and with no one wishing to speak in support or opposition, approved Resolution No. 24-26, which recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, May 27, 2026 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the approval of the amendment as required by Government Code Section 65355, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s deliberation, and action.

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

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

2. The Planning Commission's findings as contained in its Resolution No. 24-26 are hereby adopted.

3. The Project is hereby approved located on the map as shown in Exhibit A, of which is incorporated herein.

4. The Project approved herein is hereby made part of the 2nd amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for calendar year 2026 in accordance with Government Code Section 65358 (b). ---------o0o--------

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of May 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: _Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Freeman, Bashirtash, Kaur _________________ NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: ________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: ________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: ________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________

JULIE DRIMAKIS, MMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED: ___________________
By __________________________

KAREN GOH
Mayor of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By: ____________________________

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit: A General Plan Amendment Map

EXHIBIT A

ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 OF THE BAKERSFIELD

MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION
FROM R-1 (SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING) TO C-2/PCD (REGIONAL

COMMERCIAL/PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT),

GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ASHE
ROAD AND MCKEE ROAD (GPA/ZC NO. 24-0040).

WHEREAS, McIntosh and Associates (applicant), on behalf of Kern Land Partners LLC (property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from LR (Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial); and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) to C-2/PCD (Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development) on approximately 5.39 acres generally located on the southeast corner of Ashe Road and McKee Road (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 16, 2026, and with no one wishing to speak in support or opposition, approved Resolution No. 25-26 which recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, May 27, 2026 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the approval of the amendment as required by Government Code Section 65355, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the Project, including the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s deliberation, and action; and
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

SECTION 1.

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

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

2. The Planning Commission's findings as contained in its Resolution No. 25-26 are hereby adopted.

3. The Project is hereby approved incorporating the change into the official zoning map as described in Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.06.020 as specifically described in Exhibit A and located on the map as shown in

Exhibit B, all of which are incorporated herein.

SECTION 2.

This ordinance must be posted in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code and will become effective not less than 30 days from and after the date of its passage. ---------o0o---------
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of May 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Koman, Bashirtash, Kaur_____________________ NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: ________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: ________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________

JULIE DRIMAKIS, MMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED: ___________________
By __________________________

KAREN GOH
Mayor of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By: ____________________________

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibits: A Zone Change Map
B Legal Description

EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT "B"

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

ZONE CHANGE
BEING ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT No. 08-0963, AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED JANUARY 7, 2009 AS DOCUMENT NO. 209001613 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE KERN COUNTY RECORDER, AND BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 30 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, M.D.M., IN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

CONTAINING 6.33 ACRES GROSS MORE OR LESS
UMclNTOSH II & AssoclATES

NEW GEN ENGINEERING GROUP
661-834-4814 • 661-834-0972
10800 Stockdale Hwy, Suite 103 • Bakersfield, CA 93311
P:\PROJECTS\04102.13-KLPASHE\LEGALS\0410213ZC_BRB_ 1/18/2024

MAP SET

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 1 of 44

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

1. PROJECT NO. (or Title): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-60000040 COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: December 1, 2025
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: December 30, 2025
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:

1. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer shall submit documentation to the Planning Division that they are compliant with air quality control measures and rules required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

2. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer shall submit proof to the Planning Division that they have complied with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Indirect Source Rule (Rule 9510).

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

3. Prior to ground disturbance and/or construction activities, the applicant/developer shall consult with and follow all California Department of Fish and Wildlife and United States Fish and Wildlife Service requirements related to listed plant and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Applicant/developer shall have a qualified professional conduct and prepare a biological resource clearance survey no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities for the detection of listed, or otherwise special-status species, likely to be impacted by any project related activity. a. If known or natal dens are detected during the survey, protective measures enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) shall be initiated. If the identified dens are unavoidable, pursuant to the guidelines, the CDFW and USFWS shall be contacted for additional guidance and take authorization. b. If Bakersfield cacti are identified during the survey, the CDFW shall be contacted for guidance concerning the feasibility of translocation.
c. The survey or separate survey shall include a focus on the burrowing owl. The survey shall follow the methodology developed by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC 1993). The applicant/developer shall follow CDFW protocol for mitigation and comply with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

BAKERSFIELD
THE SOUND OF S~w;, ~
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 2 of 44

Geology and Soils, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Resources Impacts Mitigation Measures:

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

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

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

Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:

7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant/developer shall participate in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program by paying the adopted fees in place for the land use type at time of development.

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 3 of 44

INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

2. Project (Title & No.): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-60000040

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

4. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Yazid Alawgarey, Assistant Planner (661) 326-3191

5. Project Location: The project is generally located on the southeast corner of Ashe Road and McKee Road on approximately 5.39 acres, [Assessor Parcel Number 532-050-09] Bakersfield, CA 93313

6. Applicant (name and address): McIntosh & Associates
Attn: Julie Green
10800 Stockdale Hwy, Suite 103
Bakersfield, CA 93301

7. General Plan Designation: LR (Low Density Residential)

8. Zoning: R-1(Single-Unit Dwelling)

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

McIntosh & Associates (applicant), on behalf of Kern Land Partners LLC (property owner), has requested a General Plan Amendment to amend the existing land use designation from LR (Low Density Commercial) to (GC) General Commercial; and a Zone Change to change the existing zoning from R1(Single-Unit Dwelling) to C-2/PCD (Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development) on approximately 5.39 acres [Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 532-050-09]. The request is to allow for commercial development that will service the surrounding area. The proposed project area will be subdivided with a parcel map for future commercial development.

10. Environmental Setting (briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses):

The proposed project site is currently undeveloped vacant land. The areas to the south and east of the project site are zoned R-1 and developed with single-family homes, while the parcel to the north is zoned A (Agricultural) and is vacant and undeveloped and the area west of the project site is zoned RE (Recreation) and utilized as the Kaiser Permanente Sports Village Soccer Complex.

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 4 of 44

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

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

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

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District
• Approve Indirect Source Rule compliance.

California Water Service Bakersfield
District
• Approve proposed water connections and
improvements.

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 5 of 44

General Plan Amendment & Zone
Change
24-60000040
AERIAL
~ BAKERSFIELD
t
Feet
1,000

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 6 of 44

General Plan Amendment & Zone
Change
24-60000040
p
Land Use

RESIDENTIAL
LR -low Density
Residential, :5
7-26 dwelling
units/net acre

PUBLIC FACILITIES
R-IA - Resource -
Intensive
- Agriculture, 20 acre minimum
parcel size

BAKERSFIELD
t
Feet
1,000

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 7 of 44

General Plan Amendment & Zone
Change
24-60000040
M-1
RE
t;; ii I I I
ll
t;
~ R-
"' z
< "' OXFORD HILLS DR
I H II I I li
11 riJ[ 11 j
1 I I I I I I I I I
Zoning
Industrial Zone
De signation s
- M-1 light
Manufacturing
Re source Zone
Designations
- A Agricultural
Residential Zone
Designations
R-1 One Family
Dwelling
Other /Public Zone
Designations
- RE Recreation
I:'

BAKERSFIELD
t
Feet
1,000
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 8 of 44

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

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

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

Yazid Alawgarey 11/24/25 Signature Date
Yazid Alawgarey
Printed Name
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 9 of 44

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be crossreferenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 10 of 44

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the Project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact. The project is located at the southeast corner of Ashe Road and McKee Road. The existing visual environment in the area consists of vacant land to the north and the Kaiser Permanente Sports Village Soccer Complex to the west. The south and east comprises of single-family development. The project does not conflict with any applicable vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements, or design criteria of federal, state, or local agencies. The project site is located within an area having slopes of 0 to 2 % in any direction. The area is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as visually important or “scenic.” The construction of commercial uses at the site would serve the surrounding community. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts are less than significant.
b. No impact. There are no trees, rock outcrops, or historic buildings located at the project site.

Additionally, the project site is not located adjacent to or near any officially designated or potentially eligible scenic highways to be listed on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System (Caltrans 2017). The closest section of highway eligible for state scenic highway designation is State Route (SR) 14 (Caltrans 2017), located in Kern County over 60 miles to the east. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
c. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to responses I.a, I.b, and I.d. As described, the project is located within an urban area and is contiguous to existing and newly developed land uses.

There are no local vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements, or design criteria that apply to the project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality in urbanized areas, and impacts are less than significant.
l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 11 of 44

d. Less-than-significant impact. This project involves incremental commercial growth within the City of Bakersfield’s jurisdiction. This project would be required to comply with City development standards, including Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 17 (zoning ordinance), Title 15 (buildings and construction), and California Code of Regulations Title 24 (building code). Together, these local and state requirements oblige compliance with current lighting standards that minimize unwanted light or glare to spill over into neighboring properties. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a. Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project site is not designated by the California Department of Conservation as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. Therefore, the project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. b. Less-than-significant impact. The project site is currently zoned R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) for residential uses. The project site is not zoned for agricultural uses and is not under a Williamson Act l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 12 of 44

contract and therefore would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. Therefore impact will be less than significant.
c. No impact. As discussed in II.b, the project site is zoned for residential uses. No lands within or immediately adjacent to the project site are zoned forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. d. No impact. As discussed in II.c, no lands within or immediately adjacent to the project are zoned forest land or timberland and do not contain any forested areas. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest. e. No impact. Please refer to responses II.a through II.d. This project proposes commercial uses in an area designated for industrial, recreational, and commercial development by the General Plan.

There are no agricultural or forestlands in proximity to the project that would experience conflicts in operation due to the proposed development. Therefore, the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY:

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) jurisdiction, in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). As such, air quality impacts from the project are controlled through policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the General Plan. The SJVAPCD has adopted an Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) and is required to submit a “Rate of Progress” document to the California l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 13 of 44

Air Resources Board (“CARB”) that demonstrates past and planned progress toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants.

The SJVAB is classified by the state as being in severe nonattainment for the state 1-hour ozone standard as well as in nonattainment for the state particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The SJVAB is also classified as extreme nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 standard, and attainment/maintenance for the federal carbon monoxide (CO) and PM10 standards.

The SJVAPCD requires local jurisdictions to design all developments in ways that reduce air pollution from vehicles, which is the largest single category of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley, and from other stationary sources. The Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD 2015) lists various land uses and design strategies that reduce air quality impacts of new development. Local ordinance and General Plan requirements related to landscaping, sidewalks, street improvements, level of traffic service, energy-efficient heating and cooling, building code requirements, and location of commercial development in proximity to commercial development are consistent with these listed strategies. Regulation and policy that will result in the compliance with air quality strategies for the new commercial development include but are not limited to, Title 24 efficiency standards, Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards, 2005 building energy efficiency standards, Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 motor vehicle standards, and compliance with the MBGP Air Quality Conservation Element as well as the SJVAPCD air quality guidelines and rules.

A Small Project Analysis Level Assessment, provided by Trinity Consultants, was completed for the project. The report includes California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) emissions estimates, criteria pollutant analysis, and GHG analysis. The report concluded that mass emissions of criteria pollutants from the construction and operation of the proposed project are below the SJVAPCD’s established emissions impact thresholds.

As shown in the table below, the SJVAPCD has established the following specific criteria for pollutant thresholds of significance:

SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds for
Criteria Pollutants
Air Pollutant Tons/Year
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 10
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 10
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 27
Particulate Matter, less than 10
microns (PM10)
15 Particulate Matter, less than 2.5
microns (PM2.5)
15 Source: SJVAPCD 2015
Construction of the project would result in air pollutant emissions. Emissions from construction would result from fuel combustion and exhaust from equipment, as well as vehicle traffic, grading, and the use of toxic materials (e.g., lubricants). The following table provides estimated l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 14 of 44

construction emissions from the project. It was assumed in developing construction emission calculations that the implementation of effective and comprehensive dust control measures under Regulation VIII – PM10 Fugitive Prohibitions – would be used during construction.

The following table provides the estimated construction emissions from the project:

Construction Emissions Summary and Significance Evaluation Criteria Pollutants Unmitigated Mitigated Threshold Significance tons/year tons/year tons/year
Reactive Organic Gas
(VOC)

0.27 0.27 10 Less Than Sig.

NOX 1.13 1.13 10 Less Than Sig.

CO 1.90 1.90 100 Less Than Sig.

SOX 0.00 0.00 27 Less Than Sig.

PM10 0.16 0.11 15 Less Than Sig.

PM2.5 0.07 0.04 15 Less Than Sig.

Source: Trinity Consultant Air Quality Impact Analysis 2025 As shown in the above table, construction emissions are not predicted to exceed SJVAPCD significance threshold levels.

Project operations would also result in air pollutant emissions. The main source of emissions would be from vehicular traffic associated with the project site. The following table provides estimated operational emissions from the project:

Operational Emissions Summary and Significance Evaluation Criteria Pollutants Unmitigated Mitigated Threshold Significance tons/year tons/year tons/year
Reactive Organic Gas
(VOC)

2.87 2.87 10 Less Than Sig.

NOX 1.90 1.90 10 Less Than Sig.

CO 16.14 16.14 100 Less Than Sig.

SOX 0.04 0.04 27 Less Than Sig.

PM10 3.65 3.65 15 Less Than Sig.

PM2.5 0.95 0.95 15 Less Than Sig.

Source: Trinity Consultant Air Quality Impact Analysis 2025 As shown in the above table, operational emissions are not predicted to exceed SJVAPCD significance threshold levels.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 1, the project would not conflict with, or obstruct the implementation of, the applicable air quality plan. Mitigation Measure 2 requires that the necessary fees be paid to the SJVAPCD. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 15 of 44

plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b. Less-than-significant impact. Under the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, any project that would have individually significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have significant cumulative air quality impacts. Impacts of local pollutants are cumulatively significant when the combined emissions from the project and other planned projects exceed air quality standards. The following table shows the project’s contribution to cumulative emissions calculated for both Kern County and the greater SJVAB:

Cumulative Emissions
Emissions Inventory Pollutants (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Kern County 2025 24,345.5 17,0009.0 49,019.5 1,241.0 13,651.0 3,613.5 SJVAB 2025 106,434.0 46,428.0 189,690.5 2,263.0 95,265.0 21,571.5 Project 5.56 1.90 16.14 0.04 3.65 0.95
Project’s % of Kern 0.023% 0.011% 0.033% 0.003% 0.027% 0.026% Project’s % of SJVAB 0.005% 0.004% 0.009% 0.002% 0.004% 0.004% Note: Latest inventory available as of December 2024
Source: CARB 2025b
As shown in the above table, the project does not pose a significant increase to estimated cumulative emissions for criteria pollutants in nonattainment within Kern County and the greater SJVAB. The project’s regional contribution to cumulative impacts would be negligible (well less than 1% for all pollutants under consideration) and does not pose a substantial increase to basin emissions. Therefore, the project’s contribution is not cumulatively considerable.

Additionally, the GAMAQI, citing CEQA Guidelines Section15064(h)(3), states on page 66 that “[a] Lead Agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located” (SJVAPCD 2015).

This project would also be required, when applicable, to follow air quality control measures and rules required by the SJVAPCD, which include, but are not limited to, SJVAPCD Rule 2010 (Permits Required), SJVAPCD Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule), SJVAPCD Rule 4102 (Nuisance), and SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Rule), each of which is discussed below.

SJVAPCD Rule 2010 requires any person constructing, altering, replacing, or operating any source operation that emits, may emit, or may reduce emissions to obtain an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate from the SJVAPCD Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO). The project will comply with this rule by obtaining authorization from APCO before commencing construction on the project.

SJVAPCD Rule 2201 requires review and offset of stationary sources of air pollution and no net increase in emissions above specified thresholds from new and modified stationary sources of all nonattainment pollutants and their precursors. This is achieved by using mechanisms as approved by the SJVAPCD, such as emission trade-offs by which a permit to construct or operate any source l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 16 of 44

of pollution is granted. The project will comply with this rule by demonstrating compliance when obtaining authorization from APCO under Rule 2010. For example, compliance with Rule 2201 may include using Best Available Control Technology and providing emission offsets.

SJVAPCD Rule 4102 protects the health and safety of the public by prohibiting discharge from any source whatsoever of air contaminants that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or other annoyance to any considerable number of people. The project will comply with this rule by not discharging air contaminants or other materials, which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or other annoyance to any considerable number of people.

SJVAPCD Rule 9510 requires the reduction of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate matter smaller than ten microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10) associated with construction and operational activities of development projects occurring within the San Joaquin Valley. Rule 9510 applies to new development projects that would equal or exceed specific size limits called applicability thresholds (e.g., developing more than 2,000 square feet of commercial space, 25,000 square feet of multi-family housing space, 10,000 square feet of heavy industrial space, or 50 commercial units). The project is subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9510 because it exceeds the applicability threshold for developing more than 25,000 square feet of 50 commercial units.

Accordingly, the project must reduce a portion of the emissions occurring during construction and operational phases through on-site measures or pay off-site mitigation fees. The objective of this rule is to reduce construction NOX and PM10 emissions by 20% and 45%, respectively, as well as to reduce operational NOX and PM10 emissions by 33.3% and 50%, respectively, when compared to unmitigated projects. The SJVAPCD uses CalEEMOD (California Emission Estimator Model) to estimate emissions of NOX and PM10 for potential land uses. Examples of measures that may be implemented to reduce emissions under this rule include but are not limited to, incorporating energy efficiency beyond Title 24 requirements, providing bicycle lanes throughout a project, using cleaner fleet construction vehicles, providing employee incentives for using alternative transportation, and building in proximity to existing or planned bus stops. When a development project cannot reduce its NOX and PM10 emissions to the level required by Rule 9510, then the difference must be mitigated through the payment of an off-site emissions reduction fee. One hundred percent (100%) of all off-site mitigation fees are used by the SJVAPCD to fund emission reduction projects through its Incentives Programs, achieving emission reductions on behalf of the project.

Because the air quality modeling indicates that the project’s regional contribution to cumulative impacts would be negligible, and the project would comply with the requirements of the SJVAPCD attainment plans and rules, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Therefore, based on these anticipated activity levels, the project construction activities would not exceed construction thresholds, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less-than-significant impact. Some land uses are deemed more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities associated with a land use that could result in a sensitive receptor experiencing sustained exposure to said air pollution. Population groups considered sensitive receptors include young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, and/or people who are more sensitive than the general population. Sensitive receptors can be expected to reside in locations such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers.

There are eight known non-commercial sensitive receptors within 2 miles of the Project site shown below:
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 17 of 44

Receptor Type of Facility Distance from
Project in Miles
Direction
from Project
Ridgeview High School High School 0.61 NE
Douglas J. Miller Elementary School Elementary School 0.88 N Panama Elementary School Elementary School 0.91 SE
Ridgeview Christian Preschool Preschool 0.92 NE
Guru Angad Darbar Khalsa School Religious School 0.98 NE Stonecreek Jr High School Junior High School 1.48 NE
Berkshire Elementary School Elementary School 1.78 NE
Bill L Williams Elementary School Elementary School 1.89 N Source: Trinity Consultants Air Quality Impact Analysis 2025 Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. The proposed Project consists of commercial uses that do not include activities listed in Table 6 of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 18 of 44

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site has the potential to result in significant impacts on some special-status wildlife species, but no listed special-status plant and animal species were found on the site during reconnaissance-level surveys for the project (Pruett Biological Resource Evaluation 2025).

Despite there being no indication of special-status wildlife species use on the project site during the site visit, there is potential for use by special-status species in the future due to the project’s overall location within the Central Valley region. A database search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants revealed several special-status species that occur in the region.

The project is subject to the terms of Section 10(a)(1)(b) and Section 2081 permits issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(“USFWS”) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”), respectively. Terms of these permits require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to comply directly with requests of the USFWS and the CDFW.

Mitigation Measures 3 – 4 require a survey prior to ground disturbance for any special-status wildlife species and compliance with any requirements of the CDFW and USFWS to reduce or avoid significant impacts to biological resources. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3 requires training of on-site personnel to increase awareness of FESA and CESA. Therefore, with the implementation of the mitigation measures the project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b. No impact. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities located at the site (Pruett Biological Resource Evaluation 2025). This project is not located within, or adjacent to, the Kern River riparian habitat area, nor within the Kern River flood plain, or along a canal that has been identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
c. No impact. There are no wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), located at the project site or within or near the site. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. d. Less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated. It was concluded that the project would not interfere with wildlife movement (Pruett Biological Resource Evaluation 2025). The project is not within the Kern River floodplain, or along a canal that has been identified by the USFWS as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. There is the potential during construction to temporarily affect nursery sites such as dens and burrows. Project construction could cause the direct l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 19 of 44

destruction of a nursery site or cause enough of an indirect disturbance to cause special-status wildlife to abandon a nursery site. However, Mitigation Measure 3 requires preconstruction surveys and, if necessary, additional mitigation recommended by a qualified biologist and CDFW to reduce potential impacts on nursery sites. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident, migratory fish, wildlife species, established native residents, migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
e. No impact. It was concluded that the project site does not contain any biological resources that are protected by local policies or ordinances protecting any biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (Pruett Biological Resource Evaluation 2025). Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to responses IV.a, IV.d, and IV.e.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3, the project would not conflict with the provisions of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
a. No impact. A Cultural Resources Survey which included a pedestrian field survey was completed for the project site by a qualified cultural resources specialist from Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates. A records search for the site and the surrounding area was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, and the California Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento was queried (Hudlow Phase I Cultural Resource Survey 2024). Upon the completion of this survey, it was determined that there are no historical resources on-site. b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. It was concluded that the project site has no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites present (Hudlow Phase I Cultural Resource Survey 2024).

However, there is still the potential to unearth previously unknown archaeological resources at the site, and grading and other ground-disturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources. Mitigation Measure 4 requires that construction workers be provided with cultural awareness training. Mitigation Measure 5 requires ceasing work and investigating any discovery if previously unknown archaeological resources are unearthed during construction. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4 and 5, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, and impacts are less than significant with mitigations incorporated.
l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□ □
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 20 of 44

c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. There are no known human remains present at the Project site (Hudlow Phase I Cultural Resource Survey 2024). The project could inadvertently uncover, or damage, previously unknown human remains. Mitigation Measure 6 requires that if any human remains are found at the site during construction, work will cease, and the remains will be handled pursuant to applicable law. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 6, the project would not significantly disturb any human remains, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY: Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. Project construction would require temporary energy demands typical of other commercial projects that occur throughout the state and this development’s construction would not result in inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources beyond typical commercial construction. All new construction within the City must adhere to adopted building standards, including California Code of Regulations Title 24, which outlines energy efficiency standards for new, commercial buildings to ensure that they do not wastefully, inefficiently, or unnecessarily consume energy. Therefore, the project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. There is no adopted plan by the City of Bakersfield for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As mentioned above, all new development projects within the City are required to adhere to adopted building standards related to energy efficiency. Additionally, the City encourages applicants/developers to go beyond the required standards and make their developments even more efficient through programs such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), which is a green building rating system that provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings. Other encouraged programs available to applicants/developers are Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards and 2005 building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 21 of 44

a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion
a. The following discusses the potential for the project to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects because of various geologic hazards. The City is within a seismically active area.

According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these major active fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge-Kern County, Garlock, Pond Poso, and White Wolf faults. There are additional smaller faults suspected of occurring within the Bakersfield area, which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge-Kern County) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides. i. No Impact. Ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of a fault during an earthquake. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map, the project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault. l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 22 of 44

ii. Less than significant impact. The City is within a seismically active area. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (specifically Seismic Zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake construction standards. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking, and impacts are less than significant. iii. Less than significant impact. The most common seismic-related ground failure is liquefaction and lateral spreading. In both cases, during periods of ground motion caused by an event such as an earthquake, loose materials transform from a solid state to a nearliquid state because of increased pore water pressure. Such ground failure generally requires a high-water table and poorly draining soil for such this to occur. The project site is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Public supply wells in Kern County are at depths between 600 and 800 feet below land surfaces (USGS 2016), meaning that groundwater levels are not close enough to the surface to result in sufficiently saturated soils suitable for liquefaction. In addition, future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed by the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and impacts are less than significant. iv. No impact. In Kern County, the common types of landslides induced by earthquakes occur on steeper slopes found in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon; in these areas, landslides are generally associated with bluff and stream bank failure, rockslide, and slope slip on steep slopes. The project site is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides.
b. Less than significant impact. Construction of the site would temporarily disturb soils, which in turn could loosen said soils. However, the proposed development entails paving over these soils with impervious surfaces, meaning the project site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion.

In addition, the relatively low precipitation that occurs in the project area (on average about 7 to 10 inches/year) results in surface runoff that is intermittent and temporary. The erosion potential at the site, low average rainfall, and the fact that soils are well drained do not make the site susceptible to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, and impacts are less than significant. c. Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the soils at the project site would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides.

Subsidence is part of the baseline condition in the project area due to historic groundwater pumping and the resultant subsidence that occurs with such activities. The project would not substantially contribute to this baseline condition because the projected water use has been conditionally approved by the California Water Service Company Bakersfield District (the District).

The site has been considered by the District against its current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and it was concluded that the City has sufficient existing capacity to service the project.

Therefore, the project has already been considered in the groundwater analysis in the UWMP and would not exacerbate subsidence in the area beyond the baseline condition. 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 23 of 44

Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low-density materials that collapse and compact under the addition of water or excessive loading. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because of the project, and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. The soils identified on or around the project site is Granoso and Kimberlina fine sandy loam, which do not have a high potential to be expansive. Additionally, future structures proposed on the site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property, and impacts are less than significant. e. No impact. The project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because the project would connect to existing City sewer services in the area. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Paleontological sensitivity is determined by the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. Because paleontological resources typically occur in the substratum soil horizon, surface expressions are often not visible during a pedestrian survey. Paleontological sensitivity is derived from known fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit. The project site is entirely underlain by alluvial fan deposits of the late Holocene age, which presumably transition in the subsurface into older, Pleistocene-age deposits.

Like archeological resources, there is the potential to unearth previously unknown paleontological resources at the site, and grading and other ground-disturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5, the project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource site or unique geologic feature, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 24 of 44

a. Less than significant impact. The project would generate an incremental contribution and, when combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases (GHG), could contribute to global climate change impacts. Although the project is expected to emit GHGs, the GHG emissions of a single project into the atmosphere are not necessarily an adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased accumulation of GHG emissions from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change. The resultant consequences of climate change can cause adverse environmental effects. A project’s GHG emissions would typically be small in comparison to state or global GHG emissions and, consequently, in isolation would have no significant direct impact on climate change. Therefore, a project’s GHG emissions and the resulting significance of potential impacts are more properly assessed on a cumulative basis.

On September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (the Act) was enacted by the State of California. The Act charged the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) with the responsibility to monitor, regulate, and reduce GHG emissions.

CARB defined the 1990 baseline emissions for California and adopted that baseline as the 2020 statewide emissions cap at the time. AB 32 required new development projects that are not exempt under CEQA to demonstrate at least a 29% reduction in estimated GHG emissions when compared to the 1990 baseline. Subsequent legislation by the California legislature has included Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), which expanded upon AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 levels by 2030; AB 197, which increased the legislative oversight of CARB via the addition of two legislatively appointed non-voting members and provided added protections for disadvantaged communities; SB 350, which increased California’s renewable energy procurement goal; and SB 100, which established a landmark policy requiring 100% of electrical retail sales to end-use customers and 100% of electricity to serve state agencies to be produced via renewable energy and zero-carbon resources by 2045.

The California Supreme Court’s decision in the “Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; The Newhall Land and Farming Company, Real Party in Interest, Case No. S217763,” determined that the Newhall Ranch project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not substantiate the conclusion that the GHG cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The EIR determined that the project would reduce estimated GHG emissions by 31%, meeting the required 29% reduction, by comparing these emissions to business-as-usual (BAU) levels established through AB 32. The Court determined that the EIR’s deficiency stemmed from using this quantitative comparison method developed by the Scoping Plan as a measure of the GHG reduction effort required by the state and attempting to do so, without adjustments, for a purpose substantially different from its original design. The Court’s final ruling offered several examples that an agency can use to determine that a project’s GHG emissions are less than significant (Center for Biological Diversity v. The Newhall Land and Farming Company, Real Party in Interest, 2015):

1. Lead agencies can use the business-as-usual comparison methodology if they determine what reduction a particular project must achieve to comply with statewide goals;

2. Project design features that comply with regulations to reduce emissions may demonstrate that those components of emissions are less than significant; and

3. Lead agencies could also demonstrate compliance with locally adopted climate plans or could apply specific numerical thresholds developed by some local agencies, to demonstrate emissions are less than significant.
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 25 of 44

Although the City of Bakersfield has not developed specific thresholds for GHG emissions, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), a CEQA Trustee Agency for the project, has developed thresholds. These thresholds entail either implementing Best Performance Standards (BPS) or demonstrating a 29% reduction in estimated GHG emissions when compared to BAU levels of emissions. However, the BAU emissions provided by the SJVAPCD are based on the years 2002 to 2004 and 2020. Since the 2020 project baseline has passed, and at this time no new guidance has been approved by the SJVAPCD for the next target year, the 29% reduction requirement cannot be applied to this project to determine GHG emission significance.

Additionally, BPS thresholds have not been established by the SJVAPCD, making the use of BPS on their own an insufficient means of determining significance as well. Lacking any locally adopted climate plans or specific numerical thresholds developed by a local agency at this time, the project relies on design features that comply with state regulations to reduce GHG emissions.

Regardless, project GHG emissions levels were calculated for disclosure purposes and are as follows:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary and Significance Evaluation Greenhouse Gases Unmitigated (MT/year) Mitigated (MT/year) CO2 3,889 3,889
CH4 1.70 1.70
N2O 0.18 0.18
CO2e 4,163 4,163
Source: Trinity Consultants Air Quality Impact Analysis 2025 When considering the use of design features that comply with state regulations to reduce GHG emissions, one can look to the argument made by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) in their Final Negative Declaration for the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plant – Crude Oil Storage Capacity project (South Coast AQMD, 2014). This approach recognizes that consumers of electricity and fuels used for transportation activities are regulated by requiring producers and importers of these resources to participate in programs, such as the GHG Capand-Trade program. Each sector-wide state program exists within the framework of AB 32, and its descendant legislation, which all seek to achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

The main sources of GHG emissions associated with this project are energy use and combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near or at the top of the supply chain. As such, the project will have no choice but to purchase said electricity and fuels that are produced in a way deemed acceptable to the California market. Additionally, the project will abide by California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards and Title 24 requirements, implementing energy conservation features in this proposed development. The project will also implement GHG emission mitigations such as on-site vehicle idling limits and zero emission infrastructure (e.g., electric vehicle charging stations). Therefore, the project's GHG emissions will be consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan, and the project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts are less than significant. b. Less than significant impact. CARB is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. As proposed, the project would not conflict with any statewide policy, regional plan, or local guidance or policy adopted to reduce GHG emissions. The project would not interfere with the implementation of AB 32 and SB 375 because it would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction targets identified by CARB l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 26 of 44

and the Scoping Plan as described in VIII.a. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. Construction activities would require the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials such as fuels and greases for the fueling/servicing of construction equipment and fuel tanks, and there is the potential for upset and accident conditions that could release such material into the environment. Such substances would be stored in temporary storage tanks/sheds that would be located at the site. Although these types of materials are not acutely hazardous, they are classified as hazardous materials and create the potential for accidental spillage, which could expose construction workers. All transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials used in the construction of the project would be in strict accordance with federal and state laws and regulations. During construction of the project, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all applicable materials present at the site would be made l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 27 of 44

readily available to on-site personnel. During construction, non-hazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of at approved facilities for handling such waste. Also, during construction, waste disposal would be managed using portable toilets located at reasonably accessible on-site locations.

Day-to-day operational activities may involve routine transport, use of, and/or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act, namely gasoline transport and storage. The routine transport of gasoline to the project site would have to comply with all laws and regulations related to hazardous material routes and the proper transfer of gasoline to the site. Users should also read product labels for disposal directions to reduce the risk of products exploding, igniting, leaking, mixing with other chemicals, or posing other hazards on the way to a disposal facility. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts are less than significant. b. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response IX.a. The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The Air Quality Analysis (AQIA) concluded that the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people (Trinity Consultant Air Quality Impact Analysis 2025). As mentioned above, the project would be required to adhere to all applicable federal and state laws and regulations concerning the handling of hazardous materials, and impacts are less than significant.
d. No impact. The EnviroStor (DTSC 2023) and Cortese (CalEPA 2023) lists under Government Code (GC) Section 65962.5 were reviewed. No portion of the project site is identified on either list, which provides the location of known hazardous waste concerns. Therefore, the project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to GC Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area (Kern County 2012). The closest airport to the site is Bakersfield Municpal Airport, which is located approximately 6 miles northeast. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The project is not located within the specified distance within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted.
f. Less than significant impact. Access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period, and appropriate detours would be provided in the event of potential temporary road closures. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in a substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield and is consistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Bakersfield 1997).

This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts are less than significant.
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 28 of 44

g. Less than significant impact. The project site is not located within a “very high,” “high,” or “moderate” fire hazard severity zone (CalFire 2022). The site is surrounded by both developed and undeveloped land, and its vicinity is urban and does not possess high fuel loads that have a high potential to cause a wildland fire. The project site would be developed with hardscapes and irrigated landscaping, which would further reduce fire potential at the site. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
d. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? e. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
f. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
g. Impede or redirect flood flows?
h. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
i. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Discussion
l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 29 of 44

a. Less than significant impact. Construction would include ground-disturbing activities that would temporarily disturb and potentially loosen soils. However, during operation, the soils would be paved over with impervious surfaces such that the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion.

The City owns and maintains a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). The project’s operational urban stormwater discharges are covered under the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board (“CVRWQCB”) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Order No. R5-2016-0040; NPDES No. CAS0085324) (MS4 Permit) (CVRWQCB 2016). The MS4 Permit mandates the implementation of a stormwater management framework to ensure that water quality is maintained despite operational stormwater discharges throughout the City, including the project site. Therefore, by complying with the MS4 Permit, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. Potable water for the site would be supplied by the City of Bakersfield water District (the District) which has provided a Will-Serve letter for the project, which receives at least a portion of its supplies from groundwater sources. Also, by state law, the current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) does not need to address the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) or sustainable groundwater management at this time. It was concluded that the District has sufficient existing capacity to service the project. Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The following responses to items X.d. through X.g. discuss whether the project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces.

Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, and impacts are less than significant. d. Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain any blue-line streams or other surface water features; therefore, the proposed development would not alter the course of a river or stream.

The site would be graded and, as a result, the internal drainage pattern would be altered from the baseline condition. Additionally, the project would increase impervious surfaces on-site (i.e., building pads, sidewalks, asphalt parking area, etc.), which would reduce the percolation of water into the ground and result in greater amounts of stormwater runoff concentrations. If uncontrolled, differences in drainage patterns and increased impervious surfaces could result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. However, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit during construction and the MS4 Permit during operation. To comply with the MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with adopted building codes, including complying with an approved drainage plan that avoids on- and off-site flooding, erosion, and siltation problems. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, and impacts are less than significant. e. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.d. The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 30 of 44

a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, the project’s impacts are less than significant. f. Less than significant impact. To comply with the City’s MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with an approved drainage plan that would avoid on- and off-site flooding. The project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and impacts are less than significant.
g. Less than significant impact. A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Maps shows the project site is in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain. Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and impacts are less than significant. h. Less than significant impact. The City of Bakersfield is located within Central California and is not near a coastal environment that risks flood inundation. In addition, the City is not located within a tsunami zone as identified by the California Department of Conservation’s Tsunami Map. As mentioned above, the project site is in Zone X, which is a minimal-risk area outside the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain.

The project site, like most of the City, is located within the Lake Isabella flood inundation area (Kern County 2017), which is the area that would experience flooding if there was a catastrophic failure of the Lake Isabella Dam. There is an approved Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan (Kern County 2009) that establishes processes and procedures for the mass evacuation and short-term support of populations at risk below the Lake Isabella Dam. The City would utilize the Evacuation Plan to support its Emergency Operations Plans. Therefore, due to the project’s location and implementation of related emergency safety plans, the project would not likely risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazards, tsunami, or seiche zones, and impacts are less than significant.
i. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.d. There is currently no adopted groundwater management plan for the project site or surrounding area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion
l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 31 of 44

a. No impact. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern of the City.

The project does not include a long and linear feature, such as a freeway, railroad track, block wall, etc., that would have the potential to divide a community. The project consists of the development of a finite, 5.39-acre infill site that does not impede existing or future movement or development of the City.
b. No impact. The project is consistent with both the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) and Zoning Ordinance. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, lor zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project site is not within the administrative boundaries of an oilfield and there are no oil wells found on the site (DOC 2022b). Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
b. No impact. The project site is currently designated LR (Low Density Residential). No portion of the site is designated for potential mineral resource extraction use such as R-MP (Mineral and Petroleum). Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 32 of 44

b. Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project would generate both short-term construction noise and operational noise. The first type of short-term construction noise would result from the transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site, as well as construction worker commutes. The total daily vehicle trips resulting from construction worker commutes would be minimal when compared to existing traffic volumes on the affected streets, and the long-term noise level change would not be perceptible.

The second type of short-term construction noise is related to noise generated during project construction. The site preparation and grading phase, which includes excavation and grading, tends to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving equipment is the noisiest construction equipment. Construction noise levels during grading would be less than 70 dBA, which would not exceed the hourly noise level standard for the nearest sensitive uses.

Construction noise would cease to occur once project construction is completed. The project will also be required to comply with the construction hours specified in the City Noise Ordinance, which states that construction activities are limited to the hours of 6:00 AM and 9:00 PM on weekdays, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM on weekends.

Project operations would generate sound levels typical of commercial land uses, which would have to comply with the Bakersfield Municipal Code regarding noise. Stationary operational noise levels at all points around the project site would experience noise level impacts that would be less than the daytime and nighttime hourly noise level standards of 55 dBA and 50 dBA, respectively.

Project-related operational traffic would have very small noise level increases along roadway segments in the project vicinity. Parking lot noise, including engine sounds, car doors slamming, car alarms, loud music, and people conversing, would also occur at the project site. It was determined that the noise levels at all points around the project site would experience noise level impacts that would be less than the City’s daytime and nighttime maximum noise level standards of 75 dBA and 70 dBA.

Therefore, the project would not generate a substantial, temporary, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project that are in excess of the standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. Some ground-borne vibration and noise would originate from earth movement and building activities during the project’s construction phase. Ground-borne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low to moderate. The operation of typical construction equipment would generate ground-borne vibrations that would not exceed guidelines that are considered unsafe for any type of building. Operation of the proposed multifamily housing use would not generate ground-borne vibration. Therefore, the project would not l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 33 of 44

result in the generation of excessive ground-borne vibrations or ground-borne noise, and impacts are less than significant.
c. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area or the vicinity of a private airstrip (Kern County 2012). Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project result in:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The proposed project would accommodate commercial development on the project site that will service the surrounding area. The project will be developed adjacent to existing established residential and recreational uses and is therefore the logical extension of existing urban development. Bakersfield has experienced approximately 13% growth in population (347,483 people in 2010 to 394,328 in 2019) since 2010 (DOF 2019a and DOF 2019b). It is predicted that by 2040, 1,137,676 people will live in Kern County (DOF 2019c). Given that 42.5% of the people in Kern County currently live in Bakersfield (DOF 2019b), and if this trend continues, it is estimated that about 483,512 people would live in Bakersfield in 2040. This means that by 2040, 81,951 additional people would need housing in the Bakersfield area. This Project will be in compliance with the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and will accommodate the orderly development projected increase in Bakersfield’s population by providing residences for existing and future residents in Bakersfield. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, and impacts are less than significant.
b. No impact. The project site is located within a quarter mile of the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant #3. Per City policy, new residential development is not allowed within one quarter mile of any wastewater treatment facility due to odor concerns. The project will not displace any number of people or housing as commercial development is the reasonable permitted option for this parcel. The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 34 of 44

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Discussion
a. The following discusses whether the project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts to public services. The need for additional public service is generally directly correlated to population growth and the resultant additional population’s need for services beyond what is currently available.
i. Less than significant impact. Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County of Kern. A potential increase in services can be paid for via property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, or response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, and impacts are less than significant.
ii. Less than significant impact. Police protection for the project would be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department. Potential increases in services can be paid for via property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. In order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or response times or other performance objectives for police protection, and impacts are less than significant.
iii. Less than significant impact. The project is proposed to service the surrounding area.

Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 35 of 44

significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools, and impacts are less than significant. iv. Less than significant impact. The proposal does not include nor require the construction of recreational facilities. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks, and impacts are less than significant.
v. Less-than-significant impact. The Project and eventual buildup of this area would result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City. Though the Project may necessitate increased maintenance for other public facilities, this potential increase can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION: Would the project result in:
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion
a. No impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. b. No impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. The project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 36 of 44

XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project result in:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact. The Project would result in temporary construction-related traffic impacts. Construction workers traveling to and from the project site as well as construction material delivery would result in additional vehicle trips to the area’s roadway system.

Construction material delivery may require a number of trips for oversized vehicles that may travel at slower speeds than existing traffic and, due to their size, may intrude into adjacent travel lanes.

These trips may temporarily degrade level of service on area roadways and at intersections.

Additionally, the total number of vehicle trips associated with all construction- related traffic, including construction worker trips, could temporarily increase daily traffic volumes on local roadways and intersections. The Project may require temporary lane closures or the need for flagmen to safely direct traffic on roadways near the Project site.

A Trip Generation Analysis was completed and reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department (Ruettgers & Shuler Civil Engineers, 2025). It was determined that the Project has been designed in accordance with City development standards, and appropriate standard conditions of approval have been assigned to the project. The conditions include the dedication and improvement of streets, traffic control measures during construction, pedestrian access, and the payment of impact fees. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system and impacts are less than significant. b. Less-than-significant impact. Section 15064.3 of the updated California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or CEQA Guidelines), the statewide application came into effect on July 1, 2020. This CCR Section 15064.3(b) states:

Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts.
(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within onehalf mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing highquality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease VMT in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 37 of 44

(2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, VMT should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have the discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.
(3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the VMT for the project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project's VMT qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate. (4) Methodology. A lead agency has the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's VMT, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household, or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project's VMT and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate VMT and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

The Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) Travel Demand Model was used to estimate regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) with and without project conditions to determine if the project will have a significant VMT impact. Total regional VMT with and without project conditions was calculated, and is shown in the following table:
2024 Gasoline/Service
Station (project)
City of Bakersfield
Threshold* Difference % Difference
VMT per
capita 16 14.96 1.04 6.5%
The total regional VMT with project traffic is lower than the total without the project. Therefore, the project would not be in conflict or be inconsistent with CCR Section 15064.3(b) and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less-than-significant impact. The project would have to comply with all conditions placed on it by the City Traffic Engineering Division to meet accepted traffic engineering standards intended to reduce traffic hazards. The project is within City limits and surrounded by compatible existing and planned land uses and land use designations. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. There is the potential that, during the construction phase, the project would impede emergency access. For projects that require minor impediments of short duration (e.g., pouring a new driveway entrance), the project would be required to obtain a street permit from the Public Works Department. If a project requires lane closures and/or the diversion of traffic, l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 38 of 44

then a Traffic Control Plan, subject to Public Works approval, would be required. During operations, the project would have to comply with all applicable City policies and requirements to ensure adequate emergency access. Therefore, the need for such permits is determined by the Public Works Department during the permitting and construction phases, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project result in:

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project requires a GPA and therefore, request for consultation letters were sent to a list of tribal contacts received from the Native American Heritage Commission in compliance with Senate Bill 18 (“SB 18”). In the letters, the City stated that the applicable tribes may request consultation with the City regarding the preservation of, and/or mitigation of impacts to, California Native American cultural places in connection with the project. To date, none of the tribes have responded to the request. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. There are no tribal cultural resources determined by the lead agency to be of significance onsite. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 39 of 44

XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project result in:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s Projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact. The project would require the construction of new water, stormwater drainage, sewer facilities; above and/or belowground electrical facilities, natural gas facilities, and telecommunications (e.g., cable, fiber optics, phone, etc.) typical of general manufacturing development. Water, stormwater, and sewer structures would have to be designed to meet the City’s Current Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual (Bakersfield 1999). Compliance with the Design Manual would ensure that the facilities would not result in significant environmental effects.

Electrical, natural gas and telecommunications facilities would be placed by the individual serving utilities; these entities already have in place safety and citing protocols to ensure that placement of new utilities to serve new construction would not have a significant effect on the environment.

Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts are less than significant. b. Less-than-significant impact. The designated water purveyor is the City of Bakersfield Water District (“the District”). The District has provided a letter stating that water service can be supplied in compliance with their current UWMP which accounts for normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

Therefore, the project has sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and impacts are less than significant.
l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 40 of 44

c. Less-than-significant impact. Wastewater produced as a result of the project would be treated at the Waste Water Treatment Plant (“WWTP”) No. 2, which is owned and operated by the City.

WWTP No. 2 has an overall capacity of 25 MGD and a current available capacity of 13.7 MGD (Bakersfield 2023). WWTP No. 2 has sufficient capacity to serve the project. Therefore, it has been determined that the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. It is assumed that solid waste generated because of the project would be disposed of at the Bena Landfill located at 2951 Neumarkel Road, Bakersfield, CA 93307.

By City standards which are designed to achieve state waste stream reduction and recycling goals, the Solid Waste Division of Public Works will conduct a detailed review of the facility at the time of development to incorporate appropriate on-site trash facilities, subject to City approval.

Therefore, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs, and impacts are less than significant. e. Less-than-significant impact. By law, the project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, including those relating to waste reduction, litter control, and solid waste disposal, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRES: Would the project result in:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The project is in an urbanized area and access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield and is not inconsistent with the adopted City of l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 41 of 44

Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Bakersfield 1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents.

Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts are less than significant. b. Less than significant impact. As mentioned above, the project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Additionally, the project site is relatively flat, not near wildlands, the site and its surroundings do not possess high fuel loads (i.e., lots of vegetation and other burnable material) to exacerbate wildfire risks, and therefore, fire-related pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfires and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The project is located within the Metropolitan Bakersfield City limits and the site, as well as the surrounding area, is extensively developed with existing infrastructure such as roads, power lines, utilities, etc., to support the development of this project. Therefore, the project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less than significant impact. The project site is relatively flat, is not within a floodplain, and is not in a moderate-risk to high-risk area for wildfires. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides because of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Would the project result in:
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of life of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
l:'11
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 42 of 44

Discussion
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project, with the implementation of the identified conditions of approval, best management practices, and mitigation measures, would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b. Less than significant impact. Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that said project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” This section further states that cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”
Past, present, and future projects in proximity to the project were considered and evaluated as part of this Initial Study. Also, in addition to project-specific impacts, this Initial Study considered the project’s potential for incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable. As described in the responses above, there is no substantial evidence that there are cumulative effects associated with this project. In addition, any future development projects not identified above would be required to undergo a separate environmental analysis and mitigate any projectspecific or site-specific potential impacts, and impacts are less than significant. c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described in the responses above, the project, with mitigation, would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 43 of 44

REFERENCE LIST
Bakersfield (City of Bakersfield). 1997. Hazardous Materials Area Plan. January.

Bakersfield. 1999. Proposed Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual. June.

Available: < https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/943/Subdivision-Engineering-Design-Manual > Accessed: September 9, 2025.

Bakersfield. 2023. Wastewater Treatment Plants. Available:
<http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/gov/depts/public_works/sewer/wastewater_treatment_plants.htm>.

Accessed: September 23, 2025.

CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2023. Cortese List Data Resources. Available:
<https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/>. Accessed: September 11, 2025.

CalFire (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps.

Available: < https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ >.

Accessed: September 22, 2025.

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2022. California State Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available:<
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1a acaa>. Accessed: September 18, 2025.

CBOC (California Burrowing Owl Consortium). 1993. Burrowing Owl Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines.

April.

City of Bakerfield Water District. 2024. Verification of Water Service letter. April.

CVRWQCB. 2016. Order No. R5-2016-0040, NPDES No. CAS0085324, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems.

Available:<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_ orders/r5-2016-0040_ms4.pdf>. Accessed: September 17, 2025.

Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022a. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

Available:< https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp >. Accessed: September 9, 2025.

Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022b. Well Finder CalGEM GIS.

Available: < https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp>. Accessed: September 9, 2025.

DTSC (Department of Toxic Substance Control). 2023. EnviroStor.

Available:<https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>. Accessed: September 12, 2025.

Findlaw. 2015. Center for Biological Diversity v. The Newhall Land and Farming Company, Real Party in Interest. Available: < https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-supreme-court/1719578.html >.

Accessed: September 17, 2025.

Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates. 2025. Hudlow Phase I Cultural Resource Survey. September.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-60000040 rpn edits.docx Page 44 of 44

Kern County. 2009. Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan.

Available:< https://kerncountyfire.org/jsp-uploads/Isabella-Dam-Failure-Plan.pdf >.

Accessed: September 17, 2025.

Kern County. 2012. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. November.

Kern County. 2017. Lake Isabella Flood Area. Available:< https://kernpublicworks.com/building-andcode/floodplain-management/lake-isabella-flood-area/>. Accessed: September 17, 2025.

Pruett. 2025. Biological Resource Evaluation. April.

Ruettgers & Schuler. 2025. Traffic Study. May.

SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2014. Final Negative Declaration For Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plan – Crude Oil Storage Capacity Project. Available:
< http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/permit-projects/2014/phillips-66- fnd.pdf >. Accessed: September 10, 2025.

Trinity Consultants. 2025. Air Quality Impact Analysis 2025. June.

AK S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0040_8910 Ashe Rd\01_Hearing Documents & Noticing Documents\PC 3.5.2026

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 5, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: 5.d.

TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J.Eng
DATE: February 27, 2026
FILE: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change 24-0040 [Document Description] STAFF PLANNER: Yazid Alawgarey, Assistant Planner
REQUEST: (1) General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial); and (2) Zone Change to amend the zone classification from R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) to C-2/PCD (Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development) on approximately 5.39 acres.

APPLICANT: McIntosh & Associates OWNER: Kern Land Partners LLC Julie Green 9201 Camino Media, Suite 120
10800 Stockdale Hwy, Suite 103 Bakersfield, CA 93311
Bakersfield, CA 93301
LOCATION: Southeast corner of Ashe Road and McKee Road
APN: 532-050-09
PROJECT SIZE: 5.39 Acres CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
(1) Adopt Resolution Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) adopt Resolution APPROVING general plan amendment to change the land use designation from LR to GC; and (3) adopt Resolution APPROVING amending the zone classification from R-1 to C-2/PCD and recommend the same to City Council.

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LR (Low Density Residential) EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) File No. GPA/ZC 24-60000040
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site is currently undeveloped vacant land. The propertiesto the south and east of the project site are zoned R-1 and developed with single-family homes, while the parcel to the north is zoned A (Agricultural) and is vacant and undeveloped and the area west of the project site is zoned RE (Recreation) and utilized as the Kaiser Permanente Sports Village Soccer Complex.

BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:
• January 28, 1998 – The project site was pre-zoned R-1 (single-family dwelling unit) as a part of a larger area pre-zoning (Ordinance 3819).
• March 8, 2006 - The project site was pre-zoned R-1 (single-family dwelling unit) as a part of a larger pre-zoning area prior to annexation into the City (Ordinance 4331). • July 17, 2006 - The project site was annexed into the City of Bakersfield as part of a larger annexation (Annexation 477 – Ashe Road No. 3).

PROJECT ANALYSIS:

General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (“GPA/ZC”). The proposed request is a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to (GC) General Commercial) and a Zone Change to amend the existing zone from R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) to C-2/PCD (Regional Commercial/ Planned Commercial Development) on approximately 5.39 acres.

The request is intended to address the constraint that new residential development cannot occur on the project site due to its close proximity to a wastewater treatment facility due to odor concerns. City policy does not permit new residential development within one-quarter mile radius of a sewage facility which the project site is within a one-quarter mile of the City of Bakersfield Sewage Facility No. 3 located at the southwest corner of Ashe Road and McCutchen Road in southwest Bakersfield.

In addition, the existing residential zoned parcel is not included within the City of Bakersfield 6th Cycle Housing Element Vacant Land Inventory and is therefore, not subject to the No-Net-Loss state mandate which would require the City of Bakersfield to retain the residential zoned parcel for potential future housing. Since this parcel is not listed in the vacant land inventory the City continues to ensure that residential development opportunities remain available even with the conversion of the existing residential zone parcel to a commercial zone. The remaining sites that are identified in the City’s Housing Element sites inventory can accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).

No formal plans have been submitted, with the exception of preliminary conceptual plans for development of a 5,000 square-feet convenience store with maximum sixteen gasoline pumps and a 90,500 square-feet mini-storage. All future developments will be analyzed for municipal and CEQA compliance. If the zone change is approved to C-2/PCD as requested, the development plans would be processed through an application for site plan review. The project will be reviewed by the Site Plan Review (SPR) Committee, for compliance with City development standards. The development plans would be processed and the Planning Commission would consider the plans at a regularly scheduled meeting.

File No. GPA/ZC 24-60000040

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Regional Commercial (C-2)/Planned Commercial Development (PCD) Zone. If the C-2/PCD combining zone change is approved, the purpose of the PCD zone is to allow for innovative design and diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes and open spaces while ensuring compliance with the general plan and the intent of the municipal code. In addition, the development would provide adequate improvements and standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health, safety, and general welfare. This zone is not to be used to restrict commercial development or to compromise other zoning districts that may be more appropriate for a site. Instead, it enables a developer to obtain approval of a specific, detailed plan for a commercial development which ensures that the uniqueness of the project design being proposed is preserved. Standards shall be observed without unduly inhibiting the advantages of modern site planning techniques and innovative planning of commercial and professional office neighborhoods. Land may be classified as being solely within a PCD zone (exclusive zone), or the PCD zone may be used as a combination zone in a C-O, C-1, C-2, or CC zone. In this instance, the land will be classified as a combining zone in a C-2 zone to assign a base zone defining the allowable uses and ensure future site development will be compatible with surrounding development and/or to recognize unique site characteristics.

As such under the PCD zone, your Commission has the authority to require design standards, regulations, limitations, and restrictions which are designed to protect and maintain property values and provide or protect community amenities that would foster and maintain the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. These may include but are not limited to, categories specified in Section 17.54.060 (PCD Latitude of Regulations). Generally, the standards are related to topics such as: construction of fences and walls, structure height, distance between buildings, parking ratios, open space, architectural design of buildings and structures, and any additional improvements and dedications reasonably necessary to fulfill public needs for the general health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and City.

RESIDENTIAL PARCEL CONVERTED TO COMMERCIAL USES
As previously stated, the project site is characterized as being located within one-quarter mile of a wastewater facility and is also not listed within the Housing Element Vacant Land Inventory. Therefore, the conversion from residential zoning to a commercial zone will not create a burden on the limited housing resources facing the city of Bakersfield as is throughout the state of California.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is a process mandated by California State Law that requires jurisdictions to plan for new housing to accommodate projected growth. The RHNA assigns the number of housing units that the California State Housing and Community Development Agency (HCD) determines is necessary to build in an eight-year cycle for each jurisdiction, organized by affordability level.

Vacant Sites Inventory
HCD recognizes the scarcity of land with adequately zoned capacity is a significant contributor to increased housing development costs. Consequently, a lack of adequately zoned sites exacerbates the already significant deficit of housing. Therefore, a General Plan’s Housing Element provides the necessary conditions for conserving, preserving, and producing an adequate supply of housing affordable at a variety of income levels.

File No. GPA/ZC 24-60000040
To comply with California law, a vacant sites inventory was conducted by the City of Bakersfield to identify and analyze specific land (sites) that is available and suitable for residential development. The inventory is used to determine the capacity for Bakersfield to accommodate residential development aligned with the City’s RHNA. The project site is not listed on the Vacant Sites Inventory.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:

Staff prepared an initial study to review the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study determined that compliance with recommended mitigation measures, local ordinances, state laws, and construction to the standards of the Uniform Building Codes will reduce impacts to a less-thansignificant level. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with CEQA. The MND was circulated for a 30-day public and agency review period from December 1, 2025 to December 30, 2025 (SCH No. 22025111041).

The State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed in the evaluation of the environmental effects of this project. Significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the EIR were not identified within staff analysis.

Comments Received. As of this writing, two comment letters have been received in response to the Initial Study. One was submitted by the California Department of Conservation and provides guidance on best practices should an undiscovered well be encountered on the project site. The second letter was submitted by an adjacent resident concerning land use compatibility, neighborhood safety, and the protection of nearby residential and recreational uses.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in The Bakersfield Californian and posted on the bulletin board in the City Hall North Building, 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. All property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified by United States Postal Service mail regarding this public hearing in accordance with city ordinance and state law.

Comments Received. As of this writing, no written comments have been received in response to the notice of public hearing.

Tribal Consultation. In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 18, a letter was sent by staff on October 1, 2025, to inform the American Indian Tribes about the proposed project and its site location. This notification marks the initiation of the 90-day consultation period mandated by SB 18. At present, no request for tribal consultation has been received.

COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS:

Compatibility with Land Use Element. Staff has reviewed the proposal for compatibility with the applicable goals and policies contained within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Element and finds the following:
• Goal 1: Accommodate new development which captures the economic demands generated by the marketplace and establishes Bakersfield’s role as the capital of the southern San Joaquin Valley.

The project is new commercial development that captures the current commercial marketplace within the southern San Joaquin Valley by providing commercial development.

File No. GPA/ZC 24-60000040
• Goal 2: Accommodate new development which provides a full mix of uses to support its population.

The project is consistent with this goal because the property owner determined the market is driving a need for commercial within the project area.
• Goal 4: Accommodate new development which channels land uses in a phased, orderly manner and is coordinated with the provision of infrastructure and public improvements.

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

CONCLUSIONS:

Consistency with Surrounding Development. The project would provide for an expansion of existing commercial uses in the area. Additionally, since residential development is prohibited due to its proximity to the wastewater treatment plant, an alternative use is required for the project site.

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

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

Therefore, staff recommends your Commission: (1) Adopt Resolution ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) adopt Resolution APPROVING general plan amendment to change the land use designation from LR to GC; and (3) adopt Resolution APPROVING change in zone classification from R-1 to C-2/PCD and recommend the same to City Council.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: Map Set
• GPA/ZC Aerial
• GPA/ZC Zone Classification
• GPA/ZC General Plan Designation
Attachment B: Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments Attachment C: Public Comments
Attachment D: Waster Water Treatment Plant #3 Buffer Map Attachment E: Planning Commission Draft Resolutions
• Adopt MND with Attachments
• Approve GPA with Attachments
• Approve ZC with Attachments
RESOLUTION NO. 23-26

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING

COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE

MAP AND ZONE CHANGE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON

THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ASHE ROAD AND MCKEE
ROAD (GPA/ZC NO. 24-0040).

WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates (applicant), on behalf of Kern Land Partners LLC (property owner), is requesting: ( 1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from LR (Low Density Commercial) to (GC) General Commercial); and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) to C-2/PCD (Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development on approximately 5.39 acres generally located on the southeast corner of Ashe road and McKee road. (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Thursday, March 5, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Project as required by Government Code Section 65353, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by City staff and the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department ( 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings:

1. All required public notices have been given. The MND was circulated for public review between December 1, 2025, and December 30, 2025.

Hearing notices regarding the Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation, at least 20 days prior to the hearing.