The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGPA-ZC22-0337, PDR 23-0331 & MOD 23-0508 Staff Report CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 19, 2023 AGENDA: 5.b. TO: Chair Bashirtash and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Paul Johnson, Planning Director RN for PJ DATE: October 13, 2023 WARD: 5 FILE: GPA/ZC No. 22-0337, PDR 23-0331, and ZM 23-0508 STAFF PLANNER: Louis Ramirez, Associate Planner II REQUEST: (1) General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential); (2) General Plan Amendment to change the circulation element map and remove the arterial road designation of Pacheco Road between South Allen Road and Buena Vista Road; (3) Zone Change to change zone classification from R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone to R-3/PUD (Multiple-Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development) zone; (4) a Planned Development Review for development of a 497 single family residential Planned Unit Development; and (5) Zone Modification to reduce the minimum lot size and setback requirements. APPLICANT: McIntosh and Associates OWNER: Piper Family Trust 2001 Wheelan Court 2223 Terrace Way Bakersfield, CA 93309 Bakersfield, CA 93304 PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast corner of Pensinger Road and Allen Road APN: 535-010-01, 03, 04 PROJECT SIZE: 80.45 acres (gross)/48.81 acres (net) CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LR (Low Density Residential) EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (1) Adopt Resolution ADOPTING Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) Adopt Resolution APPROVING the general plan amendment to change the land use designation from LR to HMR; (3) Adopt Resolution APPROVING a general plan amendment to modify the circulation element to delete Pacheco Road as an arterial between South Allen Road and Buena Vista Road; (4) Adopt Resolution APPROVING change in zone classification from R-1 to R-3/PUD; (5) Adopt Resolution APPROVING Zone Modification to reduce the minimum lot size and setbacks; (6) Adopt Resolution APPROVING the planned development review 22- 0337 as depicted in the project description and subject to the listed conditions of approval; and recommend the same to City Council. GPA/ZC 22-0337 and PDR 23-0331 Page 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site is agricultural land. Surrounding properties are primarily developed as: north – Asphalto Branch railroad, agricultural land and oil production facilities; east – agricultural land; south – single family residential neighborhood; and west – fallow land and oil production facilities. BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE: • July 31, 1991 – City Council adopted pre-zoning on the subject property as A (Agriculture Zone) (Ordinance 3384). • August 11, 1992 - City Council approved the annexation of the project site to the City of Bakersfield as part of Annexation No. 355 (Resolution 151-92). • June 21, 2006 - City Council approved General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 05-1257 for: (1) change in land use designation from R-IA (Resource-Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential); (2) and a change in zone classification from A (Agriculture Zone) to R-1 (One-Family Dwelling Zone) (Ordinance 4359; Resolution 151-06). PROJECT ANALYSIS: General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (GPA/ZC). The proposed GPA/ZC is intended to facilitate a residential community development by subdividing two contiguous parcels having 80.45 gross acres and developing 497 single-family lots on 48.81 net acres, at a density of 10.18 dwelling units per net acre. Planned Unit Development (PUD). The project is subject to the PUD zoning overlay and the stated purpose of this zone district is as follows: “The planned unit development zone is intended to allow for innovative design and diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes and open space while ensuring substantial compliance with the general plan and the intent of the municipal code. In addition, the development would provide adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health, safety and general welfare. This zone is not to be used to restrict residential 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 residential neighborhood which ensures that the uniqueness of the project design is preserved. These standards shall be observed without unduly inhibiting the advantages of modern site planning techniques and innovative planning of residential neighborhoods.” As such, 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 17.52.060 (PUD 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. GPA/ZC 22-0337 and PDR 23-0331 Page 3 General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element. Streets are generally classified in three ways: (1) Arterial streets are designed primarily for the movement of through traffic with minor usage as access to abutting properties. (2) Collector streets are typically spaced at half-mile intervals between arterials and motorists use these collectors for through travel to some extent, avoiding parallel arterials. In some cases, collectors in newer areas are aligned in irregular patterns to discourage through traffic. (3) Local streets function to provide access to abutting properties and should be designed to eliminate through traffic. As previously mentioned, Pacheco Road is officially categorized as an arterial street according to the Circulation Element Map within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. It's important to clarify that there are no current or future construction plans for Pacheco Road between South Allen Road and Buena Vista Road. Pacheo Road (as an arterial classification) would not facilitate connectivity because the road would abruptly dead-end. Therefore, deletion of the arterial designation of the segment would not negatively impact circulation of the City. Zone Modification. The applicant is requesting zone modification(s) from city standards as it relates to minimum lot sizes, setbacks, height, and distances between dwelling units. • Applicant’s Request: Minimum Lot Size. Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) 17.16.070 A. states that the minimum lot area shall not be less than six thousand square feet. The applicant requests that the typical lot size be reduced from 6,000 square feet to 3,345 square feet. Applicant’s Justification: The proposed project lies in its alignment with the residential environment of the surrounding area, offering a viable alternative housing opportunity. The distinct layout of the subdivisions, coupled with high-end amenities and attached garages, guarantees that all dwelling units will be thoughtfully designed to blend seamlessly and harmoniously with the character of the neighboring neighborhoods and community. Furthermore, the implementation of smaller lot sizes is aimed at enhancing the overall density of the project site. • Applicant’s Request: Agricultural Setbacks. BMC 17.08.150 A. states that no dwelling or any part thereof shall be placed or constructed within fifty feet of any lot which adjoins property zoned agricultural or residential suburban, unless the property upon which the dwelling is placed or constructed is itself within one of the said zones. The applicant requests that the fifty-foot setback be reduced to five feet. Applicant’s Justification: The reduction in setbacks adjacent to agricultural-zoned property is necessitated by constraints in the tract's street layout and the design of Laguna Blanca Drive and Calle Presada, particularly in the area between the eastern boundary, Pensinger Road, and Southern Pacific San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVR). Lots adjacent to the A-20A (Agriculture-20 acre minimum) zone's eastern boundary are constrained by dimensions of approximately 92 feet in depth and 40 feet in width, making it impractical to meet the standard 140-foot minimum depth requirement. Therefore, the adjusted front and side yard setbacks are imperative to facilitate the appropriate development of these lots adjacent to agricultural land. Given the ongoing transformation of the surrounding area from agricultural to urban uses, there is no foreseen need for the mandated fifty-foot building setback in the future. GPA/ZC 22-0337 and PDR 23-0331 Page 4 Additionally, it is proposed that a Covenant Disclosing Proximity to Agricultural Land Use be mandated upon final map recordation for properties located within 300 feet of an A (Agriculture) zone. This covenant serves the purpose of notifying each homeowner of potential inconveniences or discomforts stemming from neighboring agricultural operations, including noise, odors, dust, or smoke. • Applicant’s Request: Railway Setbacks. BMC 17.08.150 B. states that no dwelling or any part thereof shall be placed or constructed within thirty feet of any freeway or railroad right-of-way. The applicant requests that the thirty-foot setback be reduced to ten feet. Applicant’s Justification: The reduction in the lot depth alongside a railroad right-of-way is supported by a comprehensive acoustical analysis, which concluded that a sound wall of any height is unnecessary for noise mitigation along the northern boundary, adjacent to the Asphalto Branch of the SJVR. Despite acoustical analysis conclusion that a sound wall would not be required for noise mitigation, the developer proposes to construct a six-foot wall between the northern boundary of the tract and railroad right-of-way. • Applicant’s Request: Side yard Setbacks. BMC 17.16.050 states that there shall be a side yard of the main building of not less than five feet. The applicant is requesting that the five-foot setback be reduced to three feet on one side yard and five feet on the other side. Thus, reducing the distance between dwellings to eight feet. Applicant’s Justification: The side yard setback reduction is to facilitate a more spacious living area within each lot, promoting the well-being of the occupants of each dwelling unit. • Applicant’s Request: Airspace. BMC 17.16.040 states that the front yard setback shall be determined by the intersection of the first or each successive story with a forty-five-degree airspace diagonal. Roofs, parapets and appurtenances may not extend more than ten feet beyond the air space diagonal. The applicant is requesting the degree of airspace diagonal removed. Applicant’s Justification: The front yard setback reduction by removal of the air space diagonal is to facilitate a more spacious living area within each lot. Additionally, this adjustment will enable the creation of additional green space, including the establishment of a 'green belt corridor' that will traverse the entire site, offering common access to a public park. Overall Project. The project development consists of two residential tracts, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 7408 and 7415, totaling 497 residential lots. Access to the residential tracts will be comprised of one new road accessed from Pensinger Road and two new roads accessed from South Allen Road. Pedestrian walkways are located throughout the project site. Multiple house plans with square footage ranging from 1,040 square feet to 3,203 square feet will be available throughout the development. Each floor plan has an attached 2-car garage that will be accessed either by an alley or a shared driveway from the rear of each lot. An approximately 4.77-acre park will be located in the center of the residential development. Each lot would have a privately maintained pedestrian access frontage. 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: GPA/ZC 22-0337 and PDR 23-0331 Page 5 Goal 1: Accommodate new development which captures the economic demands generated by the marketplace and establishes Bakersfield’s role as the capital of the southern San Joaquin Valley. The project is new residential development that captures the current residential marketplace within the southern San Joaquin Valley by providing denser but thoughtful residential development. Goal 4: Accommodate new development which channels land uses in a phased, orderly manner and is coordinated with the provision of infrastructure and public improvements. The necessary infrastructure and public improvements are available to accommodate residential developments or, if the project is approved, will be developed through the fair-share payment of impacts fees by the property owner. Therefore, the project is consistent with this goal. Policy 2: Allow for the development of a variety of residential types and densities. The project provides a denser configuration of land use within an area that predominately consists of less dense single-family residential uses. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. Policy 3: Ensure that residential uses are located in proximity to commercial services, employment centers, public services, transportation routes, and recreational and cultural resources. The proposed project site is within 2 miles from an existing school and commercial services. There are nearby employment centers as well as others throughout the city that can be easily accessed via the existing circulation system. Policy 11: Encourage that all new high and high-medium density residential designations be on a contiguous area of at least 5 acres. The project would change the density to a high-medium density residential designation that is approximately 80 acres of contiguous area. Policy 75: Provide adequate land area for the expansion of existing uses and development of new uses consistent with the policies of the general plan. The project site is located on existing residential land near residential land uses. Therefore, adequate land is available for the project, and the project expands existing residential land uses at a different density. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. CALIFORNIA STATE HOUSING BILLS: Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5, establishes limitations to a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects, emergency shelters, or farmworker housing that are consistent with objective local development standards and contribute to meeting housing need. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(3)(j), when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: GPA/ZC 22-0337 and PDR 23-0331 Page 6 1. The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. 2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) is a process mandated by California state law that requires jurisdictions to plan for new housing to accommodate projected growth. The RHNA assigns the number of housing units that the California State Housing and Community Development Agency (HCD) determines is necessary to build in an eight-year cycle for each jurisdiction, organized by affordability level. The project would contribute 497-units at moderate income level to the 5th Cycle of the Housing Element. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Initial Study was based on the following project-specific analysis and technical studies: Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment; Air Quality Impact Analysis; Phase I Cultural Resource Survey; Biological Resource Evaluation; Trip Generation Letter; Acoustical Analysis; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; Water Verification Letter. The initial study determined that compliance with the recommended mitigation measures, local ordinances, state laws, and construction to the standards of the Uniform Building Codes will reduce impacts to a less- than-significant level. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND was circulated for a 30-day public and agency review period starting August 25, 2023, through September 25, 2023 (SCH No. 2023080651). Comments Received. Two comment letters were submitted to the City during the circulation of the MND. The first comment was submitted by Jason Weiss, a resident in the Briarwood Home Community. Staff’s responses are as follows: 1. Comment: The traffic that will be created cannot be handled by the two-lane road on Pensinger. Response: The City's Public Works Department has conducted a comprehensive review of the Trip Generation Letter. In accordance with the department's guidelines, the project applicant is obligated to engage in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee program, which entails the payment of the prevailing fees corresponding to the specific land use category at the time of development. GPA/ZC 22-0337 and PDR 23-0331 Page 7 Furthermore, it is important to note that prior to the final recordation of the tracts, a prerequisite will be the expansion of Pensinger Road adjacent to the project area to accommodate additional lanes. 2. Comment: The amount of displaced farmland and animals that [are] on the current land. Response: The property is designated and zoned for residential land use. Furthermore, the amount of farmland in comparison to harvested agricultural crops in Kern County would amount to less than a hundredth of a percent (total acreage of harvested crops in 2022 per Kern County Agricultural Crop Report: 866,127 acres). 3. Comment: Families like to take walks out there to take in this beauty. Response: The project site is privately owned, and as such, the general public does not possess a right to access private property or use it. 4. Comment: There is plenty of other areas where land could be developed like down the road on Panama where the abandoned golf course land is. Response: The project site is privately owned and currently has residential entitlements. The applicant is requesting an increase in residential land use density and zone classification for future development. 5. Comment: We already deal with power outages due to strain on the grid and adding another 500 homes would [cause] this to happen more. Response: All development would have to comply with the current building codes. New development will be required to comply with Title 24, Part 6 that include Bulidng Energy efficiency standards and ultimately require the review and approval of local utility provider PG&E prior to operations. The State of California has declared a housing crisis; therefore, all new development must balance the needs of the community with available resources. 6. Comment: The amount of pollution and [the] toll this will take on the environment is not what we need to be focusing on right now. Response: An Air Quality Impact Analysis concluded that the air pollution was less than significant when mitigation measures are incorporated. A Biological Resource Evaluation concluded that no biological resources were observed on site at the time of surveying the area. Mitigation measures would need to be implemented to ensure that potential biological resources are not impacted. Furthermore, the project is consistent with goals set by City Council and the State. 7. Comment: There are plenty of other open areas of land to develop that will not take away these resources from local farmers. We need to be focused on keeping jobs in town then sending them elsewhere. Response: This project site has residential entitlements. Currently, the project site can be developed as a residential neighborhood. The applicant is requesting a denser entitlement. GPA/ZC 22-0337 and PDR 23-0331 Page 8 8. Comment: Think about the impact this will have on current residents and not the money that could be made. Response: This comment is a general statement and does not specify the type of impacts that would occur for current residents. All impacts of the project were evaluated in the IS/MND. As such, no additional response is warranted. The second comment was submitted by the Department of Conservation Land Resource Protection are as follows: 1. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, the Department advises that the environmental review address mitigation for the loss or conversion of agricultural land. An agricultural conservation easement is one potential method for mitigating loss or conversion of agricultural land. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15370 [mitigation includes “compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements.”]; see also King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814.) Mitigation through agricultural conservation easements can take at least two forms: the outright purchase of easements or the donation of mitigation fees to a local, regional, or statewide organization or agency whose purpose includes the acquisition and stewardship of agricultural easements. The conversion of agricultural land may be viewed as an impact of at least regional significance. Hence, the search for replacement lands may not need to be limited strictly to lands within the project’s surrounding area. A helpful source for regional and statewide agricultural mitigation banks is the California Council of Land Trusts. They provide helpful insight into farmland mitigation Page 3 of 3 policies and implementation strategies, including a guidebook with model policies and a model local ordinance. The guidebook can be found at: California Council of Land Trusts Of course, the use of conservation easements is only one form of mitigation, and the Department urges consideration of any other feasible measures necessary to mitigate project impacts. Response: The project site is designated for low-density residential use and is zoned as one- family dwelling. The property's existing entitlement dates back to 2006 when a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was adopted. The MND concluded that the impact to convert the land from agricultural to residential would be less than significant. In accordance with CEQA guidelines section 15206. (b), it is essential to determine whether a proposed project is of statewide, regional, or areawide significance when it involves the cancellation of more than 100 acres of land under the Williamson Act. However, it is important to note that this project encompasses less than 100 acres and is not subject to the Williamson Act. Moreover, the data since 2006 shows fluctuations in harvested agricultural crops averaging around 25,000 acres with a median fluctuation of 18,000 acres annually. The project site represents less than half of a percent of these yearly fluctuations. Consequently, the recommendation to impose a mitigation measure that would require the project proponent to purchase agricultural conservation easements will not be accommodated. Environmental Conclusion. 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. With mitigation, significant environmental impacts were not identified for the proposed project. GPA/ZC 22-0337 and PDR 23-0331 Page 9 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 of Bakersfield Development Services Building, 1715 Chester 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. Signs are required as part of the public notification process and must be posted between 20 to 60 days before the public hearing date. Photographs of the posted signage and the Declaration of Posting Public Hearing Notice signed by the applicant are on file at the Planning Division. Comments Received. As of this writing, no comments have been received. Tribal Consultation. In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 18, a letter was sent by staff on December 1, 2022, 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. Community Outreach. The applicant hosted a community outreach meeting at the Briarwood Park Site, on September 12, 2023. Flyers were mailed by the applicant to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. According to the meeting sign-in sheet, three individuals attended. The applicant states the primary concern among neighbors was the value of their properties. The neighbors relayed positive feedback about access to the proposed park as the adjacent neighborhood current park site is undeveloped. CONCLUSIONS: Consistency with Surrounding Development. The project is designed to introduce a higher-density residential use that complements the prevailing single-family residential development in the vicinity. Consistency with General Plan/Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan related to residential development, as noted above. As conditioned, the planned development review is required to comply with requirements and regulations as set forth in the Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) and City Development Standards. Recommendation. Staff finds that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area, land use designation, and zoning ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends your Commission: (1) adopt Resolution ADOPTING 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 (Low Density Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential); (3) Adopt Resolution APPROVING an amendment to the circulation element map to delete a planned arterial alignment of Pacheco Road between South GPA/ZC 22-0337 and PDR 23-0331 Page 10 Allen Road and Buena Vista Road; (4) Adopt Resolution APPROVING change in zone classification from R- 1 (One-Family Dwelling) to R-3/PUD (Multiple Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development; (5) Adopt resolution APPROVING a zone modification for the reduction of the minimum lot size and setbacks; (6) Adopt Resolution APPROVING Planned Development Review No. 23-0331; and recommend same to City Council. ATTACHMENTS: Map Set • GPA/ZC Aerial • GPA/ZC Zone Classification • GPA/ZC General Plan Designation Attachment B: Site Plan Attachment C: VTTM 7408 and 7415 Attachment D: Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments Attachment E: Planning Commission Draft Resolutions • Adopt MND with Attachments • Approve GPA with Attachments • Approve ZC with Attachments • Approve GPA Circulation Element with Attachments • Approve PDR Resolution with Attachments • Approve Zone Modification with Attachments MAP SET YEADONWAYHOLABIRDAVE LUCKMAN DRSCARPA STPUGINPLHAWKSMOOR ST MACLURE DRITOWAY GIOCONDO AVEKOENIGWAYHELMUTLN NEUTRA DREIFFEL PLWI NDERMERE ST PENSINGER RDS ALLENRDFUTURE BOLTHOUSE DR FUTURE PENSINGER RD FUTURE CANFIELD PKWY 10/3/2023 0 300 600 Feet _ GPA/ZC 22-0337 PDR 23-0331 GPA/ZC 22-0337 & PDR 23-0331 LR to HMR R-1 to R-3/P.U.D. AERIAL AE AuE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD YEADONWAYHOLABIRD AVE LUCKMANDRGOODHUE STSCARPA STPUGINPLHAWKSMOOR ST MACLURE DRITO WAYGIOCONDO AVEKOENIG WAYHELMUT LNNEUTRA DREIFFELPLWINDERMERESTWINDERMERE STPENSINGER RDS ALLEN RDGC GC GC GC LRLR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR WM-SU WM-SU WM-SU WM-SUWM-HMRWM-LMR R-IA R-IA R-IA R-IA R-IA R-IA GC GC GC GC GC GC WM-SU LR LR LRLR LR LR LR 10/3/2023 0 300 600 Feet _ GPA/ZC 22-0337 PDR 23-0331 GPA/ZC 22-0337 & PDR 23-0331 LR to HMR R-1 to R-3/P.U.D. AE AuE Land Use RESIDENTIAL LR - Low Density Residential: ≤ 7.26 dwelling units/net acre COMMERCIAL GC - General Commercial RESOURCE R-IA - Resource - Intensive Agriculture: 20 acre minimum parcel size WEST MING SPECIFIC PLAN WM-LMR: West Ming Low Medium Density Residential WM-HMR: West Ming High Medium Density Residential WM-SU: West Ming Special Use - combines LI, R-MP, P, OS, OS-P, PT, OC CITY OF BAKERSFIELD R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 A-20A A-20A A-20A A-20A A-20A A-20A C-C/P.C.D.-PE C-C/P.C.D.-PE WM-SU WM-SU WM-SU WM-SU C-C/P.C.D.-PE C-C/P.C.D.-PE C-C/P.C.D.-PE R-1 R-1 R-1 WM-SU R-1R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 WM-R2 WM-R2 YEADONWAYHOLABIRD AVE LUCKMAN DRGOODHUE STSCARPA STPUGINPLHAWKSMOOR ST MACLURE DRITO WAYGIOCONDO AVEKOENIG WAYHELMUT LNNEUTRA DREIFFELPLWINDERMERESTWINDERMERE STPENSINGER RDS ALLEN RD10/3/2023 0 300 600 Feet _ GPA/ZC 22-0337 PDR 23-0331 GPA/ZC 22-0337 & PDR 23-0331 LR to HMR R-1 to R-3/P.U.D. AE AuE Zoning Commercial Zone Designations C-C Combining -Petroleum Extraction Overlay Resource Zone Designations A-20A Agricultural - 20acre minimum Residential Zone Designations R-1 One Family Dwelling WEST MING SPECIFIC PLAN WM-R2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone - Lower to Medium Density WM-SU Special Use Zone CITY OF BAKERSFIELD N E W G E N E N G I N E E R I N G G R O U P LEGEND: N E W G E N E N G I N E E R I N G G R O U P MINIMIUM SETBACK (R3 ZONE) & PROPOSED LOT STATISTICS: MAXIMIUM HEIGHT(R3 ZONE) BUILDABLE LOT AREA BY LOT SIZE N E W G E N E N G I N E E R I N G G R O U P NEW GEN ENGINEERING GROUPKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRVESTING TENTATIVE TRACT No. 7408 NEW GEN ENGINEERING GROUPVESTING TENTATIVE TRACT No. 7408 NEW GEN ENGINEERING GROUPKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRVESTING TENTATIVE TRACT No. 7415 NEW GEN ENGINEERING GROUPVESTING TENTATIVE TRACT No. 7415 Page 1 of 43 NEGATIVE DECLARATION The City of Bakersfield Development Services Department, Planning Division, has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures. PROJECT NO. (or Title): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 22-0337 Planned Unit Development No. 23-0331 COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: August 25, 2023 COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: September 25, 2023 MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required): Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer shall submit documentation to the Planning Division that they are compliant with air quality control measures and rules required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The documentation shall specify that the project has complied with the SJVAPCD’ Indirect Source Rule (Rule 9510) Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures: 2. Prior to ground disturbance, the project proponent shall comply with federal and state laws protecting species of plants, fish, and wildlife that are listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened, as well as their designated critical habitat. If the presence of an endangered or threatened species on private land that overlaps with development that impose certain duties, such as avoiding unauthorized take and requiring consultation with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) agency. If unauthorized take occurs, property owners and developers shall take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with federal and state laws. 3. Prior to ground-disturbing activities during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys shall be required prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance shall occur within the appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist. Appropriate avoidance shall be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests shall be implemented as follows: 1) ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters); 2) burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW shall be required; 3) Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers); 4) other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters). Page 2 of 43 Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures: 4. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period, a construction worker cultural awareness training program shall be provided to all new construction workers within one week of employment at the project site. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a qualified cultural resources specialist. 5. During construction, if cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and excavation. All reports, correspondence, and determinations regarding the discovery shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Information System’s Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University Bakersfield. 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. Paleontological Resources Mitigation Measures: 7. During construction, if paleontological resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified paleontological resource specialist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include fossil salvage. Ground disturbance in the vicinity of the discovery site (within 50 feet) shall not resume until the resource-appropriate measures are implemented or the materials are determined to be less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall conduct a Phase II Limited Subsurface Assessment. If soil vapors exceed the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Human Health Screening Levels threshold of concern for risk to human health. If the soil vapors exceed the threshold, the applicant will implement mitigation methods required by the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory. 9. The idle oil well shall be abandoned and capped prior to issuance of a grading permit. Plugged and abandoned wells will require re-abandonment based on review by the California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). All abandonment activities shall be consistent with applicable CalGEM regulations. 10. During construction, if any unknown oil, gas, or injection wells are discovered or any known or unknown wells are damaged during work at the Project site, work /activity in the area shall be stopped and CalGEM shall be contacted in order to evaluate the condition of the well. Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures: 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant 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. Page 3 of 43 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1. Project (Title & No.): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 22-0337 Planned Unit Development No. 23-0331 2. Lead Agency (name and address): City of Bakersfield Development Services Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 3. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Louis Ramirez, Associate Planner II (661) 326-3023 4. Project Location: The project is located on approximately 80-acres (APNs: 535-010- 01, 535-010-03, and 535-010-04) in southwest, Bakersfield, California. The project site is located on the northeast corner of Pensinger Road and South Allen Road. 5. Applicant (name and address): McIntosh & Associates Attn: Whitney Jackson 2001 Wheelan Court Bakersfield, CA 93309 6. General Plan Designation: LR (Low Density Residential) 7. Zoning: R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) 8. Description of Project (describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.): McIntosh & Associates (applicant) representing the Piper Family Trust (property owner), is proposing a residential development. The Project would consist of 497 single family homes: 1. General Plan Amendment (GPA) of the land use element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (General Plan) from LR (Low Density Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential); 2. Zone Change (ZC) from R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone classification to R-3/PUD (Multiple Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development) zone; and 3. Site Plan Review consisting of a Residential Development consistent with the R-3/PUD zone classification; and 4. Deletion of an arterial road reservation in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Circulation Element. The project intends to develop two residential tracts totaling 497 of residential lots. Access to the residential tract will be comprised of one new road off of Pensinger Road and two new roads off of South Allen. Pedestrian walkways are located though out the project site. Multiple house plans with square footage ranging from 1,040 square feet to 3,203 square feet will be available throughout the development. Each floor plan has an attached 2-car garage that will be accessed either by an Page 4 of 43 alley or a shared driveway from the rear of each lot. An approximately 4.77 acre park will be located in the center of the residential development. Each lot would have a privately maintained pedestrian access frontage 9. Environmental setting (briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses): The Project site is currently agricultural land row crops and is bounded by Asphalto Branch railroad line, oil production facility, and agricultural land to the north; agricultural land to the east; a single family residential development and Pensinger Road to the south; oil production facilities and agricultural land to the west. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): Agency Approvals and Decisions Subsequent City of Bakersfield Approvals Development Services Department and Public Works • Issue grading permits. • Issue building permits. • Accept public right-of-way dedications. • Approve road improvement plans. • Issue encroachment permits. • Approve proposed sewer connections and improvements. Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits Regional Water Quality Control Board • Issue a Construction Activity General Construction Permit. • Confirm Compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District • Approve Indirect Source Rule compliance Bakersfield City Water District • Approve proposed water connections and improvements. Page 5 of 43 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. 8/25/2023 Signature Date Louis Ramirez Printed name Page 6 of 43 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 7 of 43 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 within the City limits on the northeast corner of Pensinger Road and South Allen Road. The existing visual environment in the area adjacent to the project is agricultural land with nearby residential uses. 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 from 0 to 5 %. The area is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as visually important or “scenic.” The construction of single family homes at the site would be in character and compatible with existing urban land uses in the vicinity of the site and is a natural extension of the urban growth occurring in the Project area. 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 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 site consists of existing farmland. The project site is bounded to the south by a newly constructed residential neighborhood; to the east agricultural land; and to the north and west oil production facilities and agricultural land. Therefore, the Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, and impact is less than significant. d. Less-than-significant impact. This project involves incremental urban growth within the City of Bakersfield’s jurisdiction. This project would be required to comply with City development Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 8 of 43 standards, including Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 17 Zoning, Title 15 Buildings and Construction, and the California Code of Regulations Title 24 (Building Standards Code). Together, these local and state requirements oblige project compliance with current lighting standards that minimize unwanted light or glare to spill over into neighboring properties. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and impact is 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. Less than Significant Impact The Project site is designated as Prime Farmland by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (DOC 2023a). The project site was granted a nonagricultural entitlement, GPA/ZC 05-1257 in 2006. An Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment was prepared that determined the amount of prime irrigated farmland being converted is considered insignificant (WZI, Inc., June 2005). The Project does not convert 100 acres or more of the farmlands designated prime, unique or of statewide significance to nonagricultural uses. State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15206 does not regard the cancellation of less than 100 acres of land from the Williamson Act to be of statewide, regional or areawide Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 9 of 43 significance. The Project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. Thus, when evaluated independently and cumulatively, this project poses an impact that is less than significant. b. No impact. The project site is currently zoned R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) for residential uses and is not under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c. No impact. As discussed in II.b, the Project site is zoned for residential uses. The proposed zone change would increase the residential density throughout the project site. There are no forest lands, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production lands on the project site. 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. There are no forestlands on the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest. e. No impact. Please refer to responses II.a through II.d. This project proposes to increase the density of an existing residential area designated for urban development by the General Plan. There are no 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 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 non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 10 of 43 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 Air Resources Board (CARB) that demonstrates past and planned progress toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants. The SJVAPCD requires local jurisdictions to design all developments in ways that reduce air pollution from vehicles, which is the largest single category of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley, and from other stationary sources. They do so through the permitting authority under the New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule (Rule 2201) and the Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate (Rule 2010). Other regulations and policy that require compliance with air quality strategies for new commercial developments include, but are not limited to, Title 24 efficiency standards, Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards, 2022 building energy efficiency standards, Assembly Bill 1493 motor vehicle standards, and compliance with the General Plan Air Quality Conservation Element. An Air Quality Impact Assessment (“AQIA”) (Trinity Consultants 2023) was completed for the proposed project. The AQIA concluded that the proposed emissions from the project are below the SJVAPCD’s established emissions impact thresholds, and that the primary source of emissions from the project will be motor vehicles that are licensed through the State of California and whose emissions are already incorporated into the CARB San Joaquin Valley Emissions Inventory. Therefore, the project would not conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, the applicable air quality plan. As shown in the following table, the SJVAPCD has established specific criteria pollutants thresholds of significance for the operation of specific projects. SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants (Construction and Operational) Air Pollutant Tons/Year Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 10 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 10 Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 27 Particulate Matter, less than 10 microns (PM10) 15 Particulate Matter, less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) 15 Source: Trinity Consultants 2023. Construction of the project would result in air pollutant emissions. Emissions from construction would result from fuel combustion and exhaust from equipment as well as vehicle traffic, grading, and the use of toxic materials (e.g., lubricants). The following table provides estimated construction emissions of the previously listed air pollutants from the project, including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and reactive organic gas (ROG). It was assumed in developing construction emission calculations that: 1) exposed areas would be watered and 2) construction vehicle speeds would be reduced to less than 15 mile per hour. Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 11 of 43 Emission Source Pollutant (tons/year) ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 2026 0.28 2.33 2.90 0.01 0.84 0.40 2027 0.18 1.39 2.27 0.00 0.21 0.08 2028 0.17 1.32 2.24 0.00 0.21 0.08 2029 1.69 1.56 2.09 0.00 0.68 0.33 2030 0.17 1.31 2.13 0.00 0.22 0.09 2031 0.15 1.16 2.00 0.00 0.14 0.06 2032 0.14 1.10 1.92 0.00 0.13 0.00 2033 1.54 0.11 1.19 0.00 0.01 0.00 Maximum Annual Emissions 1.69 2.33 2.90 0.01 0.84 0.40 Mitigated 2026 0.28 2.33 2.90 0.01 0.37 0.19 2027 0.18 1.39 2.27 0.00 0.21 0.08 2028 0.17 1.32 2.24 0.00 0.21 0.08 2029 1.69 1.56 2.09 0.00 0.26 0.13 2030 0.17 1.31 2.13 0.00 0.17 0.07 2031 0.15 1.16 2.00 0.00 0.14 0.06 2032 0.14 1.10 1.92 0.00 0.01 0.05 2033 1.54 0.11 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.00 Maximum Annual Emissions 1.69 2.33 2.90 0.01 0.37 0.19 SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: Trinity Consultants 2023. As shown in the above table, construction emissions are not predicted to exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds levels. Project operations would also result in air pollutant emissions. The main source of emissions would be from vehicular traffic associated with the Project site. The following table provides estimated operational emissions from the Project. Operational Emissions Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year) ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Unmitigated Residential 2.49 2.97 21.63 0.06 2.42 0.50 Mitigated Residential 2.49 2.97 21.63 0.06 2.42 0.50 SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: EnviroTech Consultants 2022. As shown in the above table, operational emissions are also not predicted to exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds levels. Because the project develops more than 50 residential units, it must comply with the SJVAPCD’s Indirect Source Rule (ISR) (Rule 9510). Mitigation Measure 1 requires that the project comply with SJVAPCD air quality control measures and rules, including Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 12 of 43 the ISR. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b. Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Under SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI; SJVAPCD 2015), any project that would have individually significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have significant cumulative air quality impacts. Impacts of local pollutants are cumulatively significant when the combined emissions from the Project and other planned projects exceed air quality standards. The following table shows the Project’s contribution to cumulative emissions calculated for both Kern County and the greater San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). Cumulative Emissions Emissions Inventory Pollutants (tons/year) ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Kern County – 20201 22,740 16,316 39,274 548 14,637 4,271 SJVAB 114,939 72,015 241,630 2,336 99,390 24,966 Project 2.49 2.97 21.68 0.06 2.42 0.05 Project % of Kern 0.011% 0.018% 0.055% 0.011% 0.017% 0.012% Project % of SJVAB 0.002% 0.004% 0.009% 0.003% 0.002% 0.002% 1Latest inventory available as of May 2023. Source: Trinity 2023. 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 therefore, the project’s contribution is not cumulatively considerable. The GAMAQI, citing CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), states 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). Mitigation Measure 1 in this MND require compliance with air quality control measures and rules required by the SJVAPCD, which include, but are not necessarily 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 at length in the AQIA prepared for the project (Trinity Consultants 2023). The air quality modeling indicates that project’s regional contribution to cumulative impacts would be negligible and the project would comply with the requirements of the SJVAPCD attainment plans and rules. Therefore the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard and impacts are less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation. c. Less-than-significant impact. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved that expose sensitive receptors to sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Examples of the types of land use that Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 13 of 43 are sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. The most sensitive portions of the population are children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. The closest sensitive receptor to the project site would be residential uses. The project has identified sensitive receptors in the area including a residential development adjacent to the project and an assisted living facility 0.70 miles to the northeast. (Trinity Consultants 2023). However, the majority of the potential ambient air quality emissions from the Project are related to mobile source emissions and are not expected to result in localized impacts such as CO “Hot Spots”. Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts are less than significant. d. Less-than-significant impact. Because the Project consists of residential uses that do not include activities listed in Table 6 of the GAMAQI as a source that would create objectionable odors, the Project is not expected to be a source of objectionable odors. 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? 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 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 14 of 43 a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site has the potential to result in significant impacts to some special-status wildlife species, but no listed special-status plant species were found on the site during reconnaissance-level surveys for the project. Direct and indirect impacts, in the form of “incidental take” of a threatened, endangered, or otherwise protected species, are not expected as a result of the development of the proposed project. (Pruett 2023). Mitigation Measure 2 requires a survey and compliance with avoidance measures prior to ground disturbance for any special-status wildlife species that have the potential to occur at the project site. Measure 3 requires nesting bird surveys for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site between during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) and a requirement for the qualified biologist to coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife if burrowing owls are found onsite. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 2 and 3, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b. No impact. No 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 United States Fish and Wildlife Service exists on the project site (Pruett 2023). This project is also not located within, or adjacent to, the Kern River riparian habitat area. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. c. No impact. There are no wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, located at the project site, and no features identified as wetlands categories are found in the National Wetlands Inventory within the Project area (Pruett 2023). Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. d. Less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated. No migratory wildlife corridors were identified during the literature search or field study. The project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native fish of wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (Pruett 2023). There is the potential during construction to temporarily affect nursery sites such as dens and burrows. Project construction could cause the direct destruction of a nursery site or cause enough of an indirect disturbance to cause special-status wildlife to abandon a nursery site. However, Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 require preconstruction surveys and, if necessary, additional actions recommended by a qualified biologist and CDFW to reduce potential impacts to nursery sites. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 2 and 3, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites and the potential for any such impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. e. Less-than-significant impact. It was concluded that the project site does not contain any biological resources that are protected by local policies (Pruett 2023). Therefore, impacts are less than significant. f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to responses IV.a, IV.d, and IV.e. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 2 and 3, the project would not conflict with the Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 15 of 43 provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, 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. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey (Hudlow 2022) was completed for the project by a qualified cultural resources specialist. It has been concluded that the Project site does not contain historical resources (Hudlow 2022). However a record search of the project area and the environs within the on-half mile was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Information Center, RS#22-432 on November 9, 2022, which identified two historical site that are located within the project area. One of these two sites is a historic structure, a pair of oil tanks and the second is a historic trash scatter. Mitigation Measure 4 requires that construction workers are provided with cultural awareness training. Mitigation Measure 5 requires ceasing work and investigating any discovery in the event that previously unknown historical or archeological resources are unearthed during construction. Therefore, potential impacts that would have an adverse change of a historical resource would be less than significant with mitigations incorporated. b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. It has been concluded that the Project site does not contain any known archaeological resources (Hudlow 2022). However, there is still the potential to unearth previously unknown archaeological resources at the site, and grading and other ground-disturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources. Therefore, 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 would be less than significant with mitigations incorporated. c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. There are no known human remains found at the Project site (Hudlow 2022). The Project could inadvertently uncover or damage previously unknown human remains. Mitigation Measure 6 requires that if any human remains are found at the site during construction, work would cease and the remains would be handled pursuant to applicable law. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 6, the Project would not significantly disturb any human remains, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigations incorporated. Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 16 of 43 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. The applicant is proposing a multiple single family residential community. Project construction would require temporary energy demands typical of other residential projects that occur throughout the state and this development’s construction would not result in inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources beyond typical residential construction. All new construction within the City of Bakersfield must adhere to adopted building standards, including California Code of Regulations Title 24, which outlines energy efficiency standards for new residential and nonresidential 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 and developers to go beyond the required standards and make their developments even more efficient through programs such as LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, which is a green building rating system that provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings. Other encouraged programs available to applicants and developers are Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards and 2005 building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts are less than significant. Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 17 of 43 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project; a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Discussion a. The following discusses the potential for the project to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects because of various geologic hazards. The City is within a seismically active area. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these major active fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge-Kern County, Garlock, Pond Poso, and White Wolf faults. There are numerous additional smaller faults suspected to occur within the Bakersfield area, which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge-Kern County) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides. 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 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 18 of 43 earthquake fault zone. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. ii. Less than significant impact. The City is within a seismically active area. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (specifically Seismic Zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake construction standards. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking and impacts are be less than significant. iii. Less than significant impact. The most common seismic-related ground failure is liquefaction and lateral spreading. In both cases, during periods of ground motion caused by an event such as an earthquake, loose materials transform from a solid state to near-liquid state because of increased pore water pressure. Such ground failure generally requires a high water table and poorly draining soils in order for such ground failure to occur. According to the United States Department of Agriculture’s Web Soil Survey, the Project site’s soil is Kimberlina fine sandy loam, saline-sodic, which is both well- draining soils with depth to water table at more than 80 inches. Public supply wells in Kern County are at depths between 600 and 800 feet below land surface (USGS 2016) and therefore, groundwater levels are not close enough to the ground surface to result in sufficiently saturated soils suitable for liquefaction. As a result, the potential for liquefaction at the Project site is low. In addition, future structures proposed on the Project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and impacts are be less than significant. iv. No impact. In Kern County, the common types of landslides induced by earthquake occur on steeper slopes found in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon; in these areas, landslides are generally associated with bluff and stream bank failure, rockslide, and slope slip on steep slopes. The Project site is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides. b. Less than significant impact. Construction of the site would temporarily disturb soils, which could loosen soil; however, during operation, the soils would be paved over with impervious surfaces such that the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion. In addition, the relatively low precipitation in the project area (on average about 7 to 10 inches/year) results in surface runoff that is intermittent and temporary in nature. The erosion potential at the site, low average rainfall, and the fact that the soils are well drained does not make the Project site susceptible to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil and impacts are be less than significant. c. Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the Project site’s soils would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides. Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 19 of 43 Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low-density materials that collapse and compact under the addition of water or excessive loading. Future structures proposed on the Project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, and impacts are less than significant. d. Less-than-significant impact. The soils identified on site, primarily fine sandy loams, do not have a high potential to be expansive. Additionally, future structures proposed on the Project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the Project would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property and impacts are less than significant. e. No impact. The Project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because the Project would connect to existing City sewer services in the area. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 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 late Holocene age, which presumably transition in the subsurface into older, Pleistocene-age deposits. Due to the presence of alluvial deposits, there is the potential to unearth previously unknown paleontological resources at the site, and grading and other ground-disturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 7, the Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project; a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion a. Less than significant impact. 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 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 20 of 43 legislature stated, "Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California." The Act caps California's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. The Act defines GHG emissions as all of the following gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. This agreement represents the first enforceable statewide program in the U.S. to cap all GHG emissions from major industries that includes penalties for non-compliance. While acknowledging that national and international actions will be necessary to fully address the issue of global warming, AB 32 lays out a program to inventory and reduce GHG emissions in California and from power generation facilities located outside the state that serve California residents and businesses. AB 32 charges California Air Resource Board (CARB) with responsibility to monitor and regulate sources of GHG emissions. In order to reduce those emissions, CARB has adopted a list of discrete early action measures that can be implemented to reduce GHG emissions. CARB has defined the 1990 baseline emissions for California and has adopted that baseline as the 2020 statewide emissions cap. CARB aims to minimize costs, maximize benefits, improve, and modernize California's energy infrastructure, maintain electric system reliability, maximize additional environmental and economic co-benefits for California, and complement the state's efforts to improve air quality. Subsequent legislation by the California legislature has included Senate Bill (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 the CARB by adding two legislatively appointed non- voting members to the Board and provided additional protection to disadvantaged communities; SB 350, which increased California's renewable energy electricity procurement goal and SB 100, which established a landmark policy requiring renewable energy and zero- carbon resources to supply 100 percent of electrical retail sales to end use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve state agencies by 2045. The California Supreme Court's most recent CEQA decision on the Newhall Ranch development case, Center for Biological v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (November 30, 2015, Case No. 217763), determined that the 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 Newhall Ranch development project would reduce GHG emissions by 31 percent from business as usual (BAU). This reduction was compared to the California's target of reducing GHG emissions statewide by 29 percent from business as usual. The Court determined that "the EIR's deficiency stems from taking a quantitative comparison method developed by the Scoping Plan as a measure of the greenhouse gas reduction effort required by the state as a whole, and attempting to use that method, without adjustments, for a purpose very different from its original design." In the Court's final ruling it offered suggestions that were deemed appropriate use of the BAU methodology: 1. Lead agencies can use the comparison to BAU methodology if they determine what reduction a particular project must achieve in order 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 that 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. The City of Bakersfield has not developed specific thresholds for GHGs. The San Joaquin Vally Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), a CEQA Trustee Agency for the project, has developed thresholds to determine significance of a proposed project - either implement Best Performance Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 21 of 43 Standards or achieve a 29% reduction from BAU (a specific numerical threshold). However, the SJVAPCD has established their BAU and baseline emissions based on the years 2002-2004 and 2020, respectively. The 2020 projected baseline has passed, and at this time, no new guidance has been approved for determining BAU and projected baseline for the next target year. Therefore, the 29% reduction from BAU cannot be applied to the project in order to determine significance. Additionally, a Best Performance Standards threshold has not been established. For this Project, compliance with locally adopted climate plans will be used to determine level of significance for GHG. Therefore, the GHG analysis for this Project follows the suggestions from the Court's ruling on the Newhall Ranch development project in order to determine significance using the project design features. In the decade after South Coast AQMD adopted the Interim GHG Significance Threshold, several new laws and executive orders were adopted that require additional reductions in years after 2020. For instance, the Governor signed Executive Order B-55-18 which commits California to total, economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. The 2008 Guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today's standards which propose a grand vision that, if achieved, would fundamentally change how business is conducted and citizens live in the State. Thus, as discussed in the most recent updates to the Scoping Plan, objectives of the Scoping Plan affect entire sectors of the economy and it no longer makes sense to evaluate GHG emissions on a project-level. For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in the table below are primarily for disclosure purposes because impact analysis for the project follows the approach certified by South Coast AQMD in the Final Negative Declaration for the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plant- Crude Oil Storage Capacity Project on December 12, 2014 (South Coast AQMD, 2014). Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year) Source CO2 CH4 N2o CO2e Mitigated Construction Emissions Construction Emissions 3,338.08 0.11 0.11 3,373.20 Mitigated Operational Emissions Mobile Emissions 5,296.06 0.25 0.22 5,373.01 Area Emissions 6.18 0.00 0.00 6.20 Energy Emissions 1,157.09 0.11 0.00 1,161.20 Water Emissions 41.51 0.66 0.02 62.98 Waste Emissions 40.12 4.01 0.00 140.36 Refrigerant Emissions 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 Total Project Operations Emissions 6,540.96 5.04 0.24 6,9744.90 Annualized Construction Emissions1 111.27 0.00 0.00 112.44 Project Emissions 6,652.23 5.04 0.25 6,857.34 Note: 0.00 could represent <0.00 Per South Coast AQMD’ Methodology (Trinity, 2023) The approach used by South Coast AQMD to assess GHG impacts from that project recognizes that consumers of electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by requiring providers and importers of electricity and fuel to participate in the GHG Cap-and-Trade Program and other Programs (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, renewable portfolio standard, etc.). Each such sector-wide program exists within the framework of AB 32 and its descendant laws the purpose of which is to achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 22 of 43 The project would generate GHGs from electricity use and combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near the top of the supply-chain. As such, the project) will have no choice but to purchase electricity and fuels produced in a way that is acceptable to the California market. Thus, project GHG emissions will be consistent with the relevant plan (i.e., AB 32 Scoping Plan). The project would meet its fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative impact of global climate change because the project will be purchasing energy from the California market. Thus, the project would have a less than significant impact on applicable GHG reduction plans. Nonetheless, GHG emissions impacts from implementing the project were calculated at the project-specific level for construction and operations as previously explained. Impact analysis for the Project follows the approach certified by South Coast AQMD in the Final Negative Declaration for the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plant - Crude Oil Storage Capacity Project on December 12, 2014 (South Coast AQMD, 2014). In summary, this approach takes into account the cumulative nature of the energy industry and recognizes that consumers of electricity and diesel fuel are in effect regulated by higher level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources. Therefore, 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 for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The project would not interfere with the implementation of AB 32 and SB 375 because it would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction targets identified by CARB and the Scoping Plan. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG and impacts are less than significant. Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 23 of 43 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project; a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Discussion a. Less than significant impact. The project proposes to develop 497 residential units and therefore, does not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the hazardous Material Transportation Uniform Safety Act. Construction activities would require the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials such as fuels and greases for the fueling/servicing of construction equipment and fuel tanks, and there is the potential for upset and accident conditions that could release such material into the environment. Such substances would be stored in temporary storage tanks/sheds that would be located at the site. Although these types of materials are not acutely hazardous, they are classified as hazardous materials and create the potential for accidental spillage, which could expose construction workers. All transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials used in the construction of the project would be in strict accordance with federal and state laws and regulations. During construction of the project, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all applicable materials present at the site would be made readily available to onsite personnel. During construction, non-hazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of at approved facilities Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 24 of 43 for handling such waste. Also, during construction, waste disposal would be managed using portable toilets located at reasonably accessible onsite locations. Therefore, the impact are less than significant. b. Less than significant impact with mitigations incorporated. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted by an environmental profession (Krazan 2021). The assessment identified evidence of a recognized environmental conditions at the Project site. Based on review of historical aerial photographs, three tank farms with multiple aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and production water ponds were formerly present at the subject site in association with crude-oil production of the Canfield Ranch Field - Edgar Lease. With the exception of one idle oil well with pumping unit and gas separator, no surface indications of oil wells, mud pits, production water ponds, or ASTs were noted at the subject site. Records on file with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) document a 7/21/2001 case closure with respect to waste discharge requirements. However, no documentation of investigations of subsurface soil conditions was identified for the subject site tank farm facilities. Krazan’s experience with oilfield tank farms indicates that there is a significant potential for hazardous materials or wastes to be present in subsurface soil as a result of the use of additives at crude-oil production tank-farm facilities over many years of operation. Petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds are typical constituents of concern. The incorporation of Mitigation Measure 8 would reduce the potential release of soil vapors during construction by requiring a Phase II Limited Subsurface Assessment prior to construction to less then significant levels. Mitigation Measure 9 would elevate the concern of the potential exposure of oil from leaking wells by requiring the applicant to consult with CalGEM to determine if known plugged and abandoned well meet current standards. If the plugged and abandoned well does not meet current standards an additional reabandonment of the well shall be required. Mitigation Measure 10 would require the applicant to notify CalGEM and stop work if an unknown well is discovered or if any known or unknown well is damaged during work at the project site. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment and impact are less than significant with mitigations incorporated. c. Less than significant impact. Buena Vista Elementary School is located 0.78 miles southeast of the proposed development. Due to the location and nature of the project, materials, substances, and waste considered hazardous in nature will be handled accordingly during construction activities. The 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, 2023). As mentioned above, the project would be required to adhere to all applicable federal and state laws and regulations with respect to the handling of hazardous materials thus, impacts are less than significant. d. No impact. The EnviroStor (DTSC 2023) and Cortese (CalEPA 2023) lists pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65962.5 were reviewed. No portion of the project site is identified on either list, which provides the location of known hazardous waste concerns. Therefore, the project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to GC Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area (Kern County 2012). The closest airport to the project site is the Bakersfield Municipal Airport, which is located approximately 6 miles east of the site. Therefore, the project would not Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 25 of 43 result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The Project is not located within a distance 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 implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts are less than significant. g. Less than significant impact. The project site is not located within a “very high,” “high,” or “moderate” fire hazard severity zone (CalFire 2022). The site is surrounded by agricultural land, and its vicinity is urban and does not possess high fuel loads that have a high potential to cause a wildland fire. The project site would be developed with hardscapes and irrigated landscaping, which would further reduce fire potential at the site. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands and impacts are less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project; a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? iii. 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? iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 26 of 43 d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Discussion a. Less than significant impact. Construction would include ground-disturbing activities. Construction of the site would temporarily disturb soils, which could loosen soils; however, during operation, the soils would be paved over with impervious surfaces such that the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion. The City owns and maintains a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). The project’s operational urban storm water discharges are covered under the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Order No. R5-2016-0040; NPDES No. CAS0085324) (MS4 Permit) (CVRWQCB 2016). The MS4 Permit mandates the implementation of a storm water management framework to ensure that water quality is maintained within the City because of operational storm water discharges throughout the City, including the project site. 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 from the project would be supplied by the City of Bakersfield. The City receives at least a portion of its supplies from groundwater sources. The project’s projected water use has been conditionally approved by the City and therefore, the project site has been considered by City against its most current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). By state law, current UWMPs do not need to address the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) or sustainable groundwater management at this time. It was concluded that District has sufficient existing capacity to service the project. As a result, 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. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. c. The following discusses 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. i. Less than significant impact. The project site does contain one blue-line Riverine habitat classified as R4SBC in the northwest corner of the project site. The Riverine habitat was identified using a color infrared imager from 1987 (FWS,2023). However, since 1987, the Riverine has been graded for development or cultivated as agricultural land. Thus, the Riverine no longer exists and the project would not alter the course of a river or stream. The project site would be graded and, as a result, the internal drainage pattern at the site would be altered from the baseline condition. Additionally, the Project would result in increased impervious surfaces (i.e., building pads, sidewalks, asphalt parking area, etc.) at the site, which would reduce percolation to ground and result in greater amounts of storm water runoff concentrations at the site. If uncontrolled, differences in drainage patterns and increased impervious surfaces could result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 27 of 43 offsite. However, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit during construction and MS4 permit during operation. In order to comply with the MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with adopted building codes, including complying with an approved drainage plan, which avoids on- and offsite flooding, erosion, and siltation problems. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite and impacts are less than significant. ii. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.c.i. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite and impacts are less than significant. iii. Less than significant impact. In order to comply with the City’s MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with an approved drainage plan that would avoid on- and offsite flooding thus, the project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. iv. Less than significant impact. A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Maps, shows the project site is located in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual- chance floodplain. Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows and mpacts are less than significant. d. Less than significant impact. The City of Bakersfield is located within Central California and is not near a coastal environment that risks flood inundation. In addition, the City is not located within a tsunami zone as identified by the California Department of Conservation’s Tsunami Map. As mentioned above, the project site is located in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1- percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain. The project site, like most of the City, is located within the Lake Isabella flood inundation area (Kern County 2017), which is the area that would experience flooding in the event that there was a catastrophic failure of the Lake Isabella Dam. There is an approved Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan (Kern County 2009) that establishes a process and procedures for the mass evacuation and short-term support of populations at risk below the Lake Isabella Dam. The City would utilize the Evacuation Plan to support its Emergency Operations Plans. Due to the project’s location and implementation of related emergency safety plans, the project would not likely risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones and impacts are less than significant. e. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.c.i. There is currently no adopted groundwater management plan for the project site or its vicinity. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts are less than significant. Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 28 of 43 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 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, etc., that would have the potential to divide a community. The proposed project is the development of residential tract totaling 497 of residential lots and is adjacent to existing residential development. The development of the proposed project will not impede existing or future movement or development of the City. Additionally, as part of the proposed development, existing collectors and arterials will be further developed thereby increasing circulation and access to communities within the city. Therefore, the Project would not physically divide an established community. b. No impact. The Project requires a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP), namely a change from LR (Low Density Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential). The project also requires a Zone Change (ZC) to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, namely a change from R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) to R-3/PUD (Multiple Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development). If the GPA/ZC were to be approved by the City, the project would be consistent with both the MBGP and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 29 of 43 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. Less than Significant. The project site is within the administrative boundaries of the Canfield Ranch oilfield and there are five abandoned oil wells and one idle oil well on the site (DOC 2022b). A 2.5 acre drilling island is allocated in the northwest corner of the project site. Thus, allowing mineral access to the site. 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 and impacts are less than significant. b. No impact. The project site is currently designated LR (Low Density Residential) and, if the GPA is approved, this designation would change to HMR(High Medium Density Residential). No portion of the site is designated for a 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? b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 30 of 43 a. Less than significant impact. The project would generate both short-term construction noise and operational noise. The first type of short-term construction noise would result from transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site, and construction worker commutes. These transportation activities would incrementally raise noise levels on access roads leading to the site. A one-time trip to move pieces of heavy equipment for grading and construction activities would result in single-event noise at a distance of 50 feet from a sensitive noise receptor that would reach a maximum level of 84 A-weighted decibels (dBA). Because the equipment would be left onsite for the duration of project construction, the one-time trip would not add to the daily traffic noise in the project vicinity. 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 at 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 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekends. Project operations would generate sound levels typical of residential land uses, which would have to comply with Bakersfield Municipal Code regarding noise. 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. Residential noise, including engine sounds, car doors slamming, car alarms, loud music, and people conversing, would also occur at the project site would experience noise level impacts that would be less than the city’ daytime and nighttime maximum noise level standards of 75dBA and 70 dBA. Therefore, the project would not generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies and impacts are less than significant. 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 buildings. Operation of the proposed residential development would not generate ground-borne vibration. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels and impacts are less than significant. c. Less than significant impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area or within the vicinity of a private airstrip (Kern County 2012). The Southern Pacific Railroad Ashphalto Branch abuts the northern boundary of the project site. An acoustical analysis was performed on the northern portion of the site (WJV, 2022). The analysis concluded that the noise generated from the railroad would comply with the City of Bakersfield 65 dB CNEL exterior noise level standard. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 31 of 43 hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area and impacts are less than significant. 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 project would accommodate population growth in this area through the development of new residential units. The project is adjacent to existing and planned residential development 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 accommodates this 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 consists of agricultural land. Therefore, the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 32 of 43 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in: a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities? Discussion a. The following discusses whether the project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts to public services. The need for additional public service is generally directly correlated to population growth and the resultant additional population’s need for services beyond what is currently available. i. Less than significant impact. Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County. Potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection and impacts are less than significant. ii. Less than significant impact. Police protection for the project would be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department. Potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or 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 police protection and impacts are less than significant. iii. Less than significant impact. The project is growth accommodating and therefore, the need for additional schools can be paid for by existing school impact fees and increased property tax revenues. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 33 of 43 adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions 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 schools and impacts are less than significant. iv. Less than significant impact. The project is growth accommodating and includes a community park. Residential projects are required to follow the parkland requirements that are calculated based on the General Plan and City Ordinance park standards of 2.5 acres for every 1,000 people. The project is a development of 497 residential lots with an average of 3.2 persons per household per the United States Census Bureau. Thus the project will house 1,590 people and requiring 3.98 acres of parkland. The project is allocating 4.77 acres of parkland, exceeding the City Ordinance park standards. Compliance with Municipal Code 15.80 park acreage dedication and the park development fee ensures that parks are dedicated and built in accordance with City standards to accommodate the increased population. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks and impacts are less than significant. v. Less-than-significant impact. The project and eventual buildup of this area would result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City. Though the project may necessitate increased maintenance for other public facilities, this potential increase can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities and impacts are less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. RECREATION: Would the project result in: a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion a. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. Therefore, the project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 34 of 43 that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated and impacts are less than significant. b. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. Therefore, 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 and impacts are less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project result in: a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Result in inadequate emergency access? Discussion a. Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project would result in temporary construction-related traffic impacts. Construction workers traveling to and from the project site as well as construction material delivery would result in additional vehicle trips to the area’s roadway system. Construction material delivery may require a number of trips for oversized vehicles that may travel at slower speeds than existing traffic and, due to their size, may intrude into adjacent travel lanes. These trips may temporarily degrade level of service on area roadways and at intersections. Additionally, the total number of vehicle trips associated with all construction-related traffic, including construction worker trips could temporarily increase daily traffic volumes on local roadways and intersections. The project may require temporary lane closures or the need for flagmen to safely direct traffic on roadways near the project site. However, once the project is built, it would not result in any permanent traffic-related effects. The project also proposes an amendment to the circulation element, the removal of a section of Pacheco Road. Currently, a section of Pacheco Road is designated as an arterial road that runs parallel to a railroad and the project’s northern boundary. Upon review of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan(“MBGP”) Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), the section of Pacheco road east of South Allen Road was not analyzed or identified. Pacheco Road was drawn as an arterial road on the Comprehensive Circulation Plan Map in the adopted MBGP. The only sections of Pacheco that was identified and analyzed as an arterial road is between Buena Vista Road and Old River Road. That section of Pacheco Road is currently not developed, impacts to the circulation system would be less than significant if removed. A Trip Generation Analysis was completed and reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department (McIntosh, 2023), along with the proposed site plans. It was Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 35 of 43 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, and pedestrian access. Also, Mitigation Measure 11 will require the applicant to 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. 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 with mitigation incorporated. b. Less-than-significant impact. Section 15064.3 of the updated California Code of Regulations (CCR or CEQA Guidelines), statewide application came into effect July 1, 2020. This CCR Section 15064.3(b) states: Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts. (1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease VMT in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. (2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, VMT should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152. (3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the VMT for the particular 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 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 air quality impact analysis concluded that the project the on-site estimated trip distance for the project was determined to be 0.22 miles and 0.18 miles. The on-site estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was then divided by the total VMT used in CalEEMod for the project, in order to Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 36 of 43 determine the on-site to off-site mobile emissions ratio for the projects average VMT per trip of 10.83 miles is approximately 59% lower than the average regional VMT of 26.45 miles per Kern Council of Governments 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy. 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 in order to comply with accepted traffic engineering standards intended to reduce traffic hazards, including designing the roads so that they do not result in design feature hazards. The project is with the 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 a short duration (e.g., pouring a new driveway entrance), the project would be required to obtain a street permit from City Public Works. If a project requires lane closures and/or the diversion of traffic, then a Traffic Control Plan, subject to Public Works approval, would be required. During operations, the project would have to comply with all applicable City policies and requirements to ensure adequate emergency access. The need for such permits is determined by the Public Works Department during the permitting and construction phases of their permitting process. In addition, the site plans have been designed in accordance with all City development standards. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project result in: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria 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 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 37 of 43 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 impact are less than significant. b. Less than significant impact. Based on the results to date of the SB 18 consultation inquiry to applicable tribes, the City has determined that it is unlikely that tribal cultural resources will be found at the site. The site is currently exclusively agricultural land that is tilled and harvested on a seasonal basis. There are no tribal cultural resources determined by the lead agency to be of significance onsite. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant and impacts are less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project result in: a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c. Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion a. Less-than-significant impact. The project would require the construction of new water, storm water drainage, sewer facilities; above and/or below ground electrical facilities, natural gas facilities, and telecommunications (e.g., cable, fiber optics, phone, etc.) typical of residential Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 38 of 43 development. Water, storm water, and sewer structures would have to be designed to meet the City’s Current Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual (Bakersfield 1999). Compliance with the Design Manual would ensure that such facilities would not result in significant environmental effects. Electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities would be placed by the individual serving utilities; these entities already have in place safety and siting protocols to ensure that placement of new utilities to serve new construction would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects and impacts are less than significant. b. Less-than-significant impact. The project is within the City of Bakersfield Water Resources service area. The City has provided a letter stating that water service can be supplied in compliance with their current UWMP that accounts for normal, dray, and multiple dry years (City of Bakersfield 2022). Therefore, the project has sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years and impacts are less than significant. c. Less-than-significant impact. Wastewater as a result of the project would be treated at Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) No. 3, which is owned and operated by the City. WWTP No. 3 has an overall capacity of 32 MGD and a current available capacity of 14.7 MGD (Bakersfield 2023). WWTP No. 3 has sufficient capacity to serve the project. As a result, it has been determined that the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments and impacts are less than significant. d. Less-than-significant impact. It is assumed that solid waste generated as a result of the project would be disposed at the Bena Landfill located at 2951 Neumarkel Road, Bakersfield, CA 93307. In accordance with city standards which are designed to achieve State waste stream reduction and recycling goals, the Solid Waste Division of Public Works will conduct a detailed review of the facility at the time of development to incorporate appropriate on-site trash facilities, subject to city approval. Therefore, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs and impacts are less than significant. e. Less-than-significant impact. By law, the project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, including those relating to waste reduction, litter control, and solid waste disposal and impacts are less than significant. 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 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 39 of 43 infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Discussion a. Less than significant impact. The project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The project is located adjacent to an urbanized area and access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield and is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Bakersfield 1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts are less than significant. b. Less than significant impact. As mentioned above, the project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Additionally, the project site is relatively flat, not near wildlands, the site and its surrounding do not possess high fuel loads (i.e., lots of vegetation and other burnable material) to exacerbate wildfire risks and therefore, fire-related pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfires and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors and impacts are less than significant. c. Less than significant impact. The project is located within the Metropolitan Bakersfield city limits and the site. The site is adjacent to an existing neighborhood to the south so infrastructure such as roads, power lines, utilities etc., to support the development of this project are accessible. 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- to high-risk area for wildfires. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes, and impacts are less than significant. Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 40 of 43 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Would the project result in: a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of life of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure 1 requires that the project comply with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District air quality control measures and rules, including the Indirect Source Rule to ensure that the reduce air impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 mitigate potential impacts to biological resources to less than significant. There are no important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory found at the site. Mitigation Measures 4, 5, 6, and 7 would ensure that potential impacts to historic, archaeological, tribal and paleontological resources that could be uncovered during construction activities would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation 8 would require the project to paying the adopted Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) to ensure that the impact to the circulation system is reduced to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, the project, with the implementation of the identified conditions of approval, best management practices, and mitigation measures, would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species , cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community , reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory 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 the project has potential environmental effects “that are individually Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 41 of 43 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 projects potential for incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable. As described in the responses above, there is no substantial evidence that there are cumulative effects associated with this project. In addition, any future development projects not identified above would be required to undergo a separate environmental analysis and mitigate any project- or site-specific potential impacts, as necessary. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described in the responses above, the project, with mitigation, would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 42 of 43 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: August 24, 2023 Bakersfield. 2019. Wastewater Treatment Plants. Available:<https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/679/Wastewater-Treatment-Plants.>. Accessed: August 24, 2023. CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2017. Cortese List Data Resources. Available:<https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/>. Accessed: August 24, 2023. CalFire (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps. Available:< https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildland-hazards- building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ >. Accessed: August 24, 2023. 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: August 24, , 2023. City of Bakersfield 2022. Verification of Property Location for Water Service. January 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: August 24, 2023. Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022a. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Available:< https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp >. Accessed: August 24, 2023. Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022b. Well Finder CalGEM GIS. Available: < https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/Wellfinder.aspx>. Accessed: August 24, 2023. DOF (Department of Finance). 2022. Table 2: E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and State, 2010-2020. Available:<http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/>. Accessed: August 24, 2023. DOF. 2019b. E-1: City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change, 1, 2016 and 2017. Available:<http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/>. Accessed: August 24, 2023. DOF. 2019c. Total Estimated and Projected Population for California and Counties: April 1, 2010, to July 1, 2060 in 5-year Increments. Available:<http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/>. Accessed: August 24, 2023. DTSC (Department of Toxic Substance Control). 2017. EnviroStor. Available:<https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>. Accessed: February 23, 2023. Environmental Checklist and Analysis Page 43 of 43 FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service) .2023. National Wetland Inventory. Available:< https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/>. Accessed: August 24, 2023. Hudlow(Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates) 2022. Phase I Cultural Resource Survey South Allen Road and Pensinger, City of Bakersfield, California. November Krazan (Krazan and Associates, INC.) 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Agricultural Property - Lorenxi Property NEC Pensinger and South Allen Roads APNs 535-010-01, -03, and -04 Bakersfield, California 93311 Kern County. 2009. Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan. Available:< https://kerncountyfire.org/wp-content/uploads/Isabella-Dam-Failure-Plan.pdf>. Accessed: August 24, 2023. Kern County. 2012. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. November. Available:< https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/ALUCP2012.pdf Accessed: August 24, 2023 Kern County. 2017. Lake Isabella Flood Area. Available:< https://kernpublicworks.com/building-and- code/floodplain-management/lake-isabella-flood-area/>. Accessed: August 24, 2023. Mcintosh (McIntosh and Associates) 2023. Traffic Generation Letter. Pruett (Pruett Biological Resource Consulting Inc.) 2023. Biological Resource Evaluation General Plan Amendment/Zone Change Assessor’s Parcel Map Number 535-010-01, -03, and -04 County of Kern Bakersfield, California. July R&S (Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers) 2022. Trip Generation VMT Analysis for Proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (GPA/ZC) on APN 539-010-08 on the Southwest Corner of Berkshire Road & Ashe Road. April. SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February. Available: < https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL- DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF> Accessed: February 23, 2023 Trinity Consultants. 2023. Air Quality Impact Analysis, Pensinger - S. Allen Multi-family Residential Development Bakersfield, CA, May. WJV (WJV Acoustics, INC.) 2022. Acoustical Analysis Tract 7408 Bakersfield, California. February WZI Inc. 2007 Agricultural Land Evaluation and Conversion Assessment. November AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS Pensinger .. S. Allen Multi-Residential Development Bakersfield, CA Prepared For: McIntosh & Associates 10800 Stockdale Hwy, Suite 103 Bakersfield, CA 93311 Prepared By: TRINITY CONSULTANTS 4900 California Avenue, Suite 420A Bakersfield, CA 93309 661-282-2200 May 2023 Project 220505.0196 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1-1 2-1 2.1 Purpose ......................... ,. .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 General Project Description ........................................................................................ 2-1 3. SETTING 3-1 3.1 Air Quality Standards ................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Existing Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 3 .. 5 3.2.1 Ozone (01) ............................................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.2 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.s) ........................................................... 3-6 3.2.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) .............................................................................................. 3-6 3.2.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) and Hydrocarbons .................................................................. 3-7 3.2.5 Sulfur Dioxide {502) .................................................................................................. 3-7 3.2. 6 Lead (Pb) and Suspended Sulfate .............................................................................. 3-8 3.3 Climate .......................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.4 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases ....................................................................... 3-9 3. 4.1 Global Climate Change .............................................................................................. 3-9 3.4.2 Effects of Global Climate Change ............................................................................. 3-11 3.4.3 Global Climate Change Regulatory Issues ................................................................. 3-12 4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4.1 Significance Criteria ..•..•.....••....•........•...•.••• ·-·········· .. •··•••••····•••··••••··•••••••·••••••••·••••••······ 4-1 4.1.1 Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Air Quality Impacts under CEQA .................... 4-1 4.1.2 Thresholds for Ambient Air Quality Impacts ................................................................ 4-2 4.1.3 Thresholds for Hazardous Air Pollutants ...................................................................... 4-2 4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Threshold of Significance ............................................................. 4-2 4.1.5 Global Climate Change Thresholds of Significance ....................................................... 4-3 4.2 Project Related Emissions .•••••..••••••••.•..•.••••.•••.•...•..•.•..••••••••••• ,. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4-3 4.2.1 Short-Term Emissions ............................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.2 Long-Term Operations Emissions ............................................................................... 4-5 4.3 Potential Impact on Sensitive Receptors ..................................................................... 4-6 4.4 Potential Impacts to Visibility to Nearby Areas .......................................................... 4-7 4.5 Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide .................................................................. 4-7 4.6 Predicted Health Risk Impacts .................................................................................... 4-7 4.7 Potential Impacts from Valley Fever ................ ,. .......................................................... 4-9 4.8 Potential Impacts from Asbestos .................................................................................. 4-9 4.9 Odor Impacts and Mitigation •••••••......•..••..••••.••••••..•••.•••••.•..•••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••• 4-10 4.10 Impacts to Ambient Air Quality .......•...•.......•.••.•.•..•••.••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.••.•••••••••• 4-10 4.11 Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change ................................................. 4-12 4.11.1 Feasible and Reasonable Mitigation Relative to Global Warming ................................. 4-13 5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5-1 5.1 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts ................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Cumulative Local Air Quality Impacts ......................................................................... 5-3 5·.3 Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants 0 ......................................................................... 5 ... 3 5.4 Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (CO) -Mobile Sources ................................................. 5-3 Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential I Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 6. CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN 6-1 6.1 Required Evaluation Guidelines ....................................................... ., ........................................................... 6-1 6.2 Consistency with the Kern County Council of Government's Regional Conformity Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6-2 7 , MITIGATION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED MEASURES 7-1 7.1 SJVAPCD Required PM10 Reduction Measures .................................................................. 7-1 7.2 Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust ........................................... 7-1 7.3 Other Measures to Reduce Project Impacts ..................................................................... 7-2 8, LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 9. REFERENCES APPENDIX A. EXISTING AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA APPENDIX B. PROJECT EMISSION CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C. CARB 2020 AND 2025 ESTIMATED EMISSION INVENTORIES APPENDIX D. HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT MODELING FILES APPENDIX E. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT MODELING FILES Pensinger-5. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 8-1 9-1 A~1 B-1 C-1 D-1 E-1 ii Figure 2-1. Regional Location Figure 2-2. Project Location Figure 2-3. Project Master Plan Figure 2-5. Project Site Topography Figure 3-1. SJVAPCD Monitoring Network Figure 6-L City of Bakersfield Zoning Figure 6-2. TAZ Analysis Map Pensinger-5. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants LIST OF FIGURES 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 3-4 6-2 6-3 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1. Federal & california Air Quality Standards Table 3-2. SJVAB Attainment Status Table 3-3. Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area Table 3-4. Bakersfield, California Weather Data Table 4-1. SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance Table 4-2. Measures of Significance -Toxic Air Contaminants Table 4-3. Short-Term Project Emissions Table 4-4. Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions Table 4-5. Sensitive Receptors Located < 2 Miles from Project Table 4-6. Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP Table 4-7. Predicted Ambient Air Quality Impacts Table 4-8. Comparison of Maximum Modeled Project Impacts with Significance Thresholds Table 4-9. Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year) Table 4-10. Select CARS GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Table 5-1. Comparative Analysis Based on SJV Air Basin 2020 Inventory -Tons per Year Table 5-2. Emission Inventory SJVAB 2025 Projection -Tons per Year Table 5-3. Emission Inventory SJVAB -Kern County Portion 2025 Projection -Tons per Year Table 5-4. 2025 Emissions Projections -Proposed Project, Kern County, and SJVAB Table 6-1. TAZ Analysis Area Projected Growth Analysis Table 6-2. Percent Increase/Decrease on TAZ Analysis Area Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-3 3-5 3-9 4-1 4-2 4-4 4-6 4-6 4-9 4-11 4-12 4-13 4-14 5-2 5-2 5-2 5-3 6-4 6-4 iv 1. EXECUTIVE S UMMARY Trinity Consultants has completed an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) for the Pensinger-S. Allen Multi- Family Residential Development (Project). The Project would be located at the northeast corner of Pensinger Road and S. Allen Road in Bakersfield, California. The proposed Project's construction would include the following criteria pollutant emissions: reactive organic gases (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (N02), sulfur dioxide (S02), and suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.s). Project operations would generate air pollutant emissions from mobile sources (vehicle activity from residents), energy sources, and area sources (incidental activities related to architectural coating and landscape maintenance). Project construction and operational activities would also generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Criteria and GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1 (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2022), which is the most current version of the model approved for use by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Table 4-3 presents the Project's construction emissions and provides substantial evidence to support a less than significant air quality impact on the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Table 4-4 presents the Project's operations emissions and provides substantial evidence to support a less than significant air quality impact on the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. As discussed in Section 4.11, the Project's GHG emissions will be in compliance with all local and statewide air quality and climate plans, therefore the Project would have less than significantGHG impacts. SJVAPCD uses a single threshold for determination of significance for both project specific and cumulative impacts. As such, a qualitative evaluation of the cumulative projects supports a finding that the Project's contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because the proposed Project's incremental emissions would be less than significant Pensinger - S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 1-1 Figure 2-2. Project Location Pensinger-5. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 2-2 Figure 2-3 depicts the Project's Master Plan for providing detailed location of the proposed structures, parking areas and Land Use Designations. Figure 2-3. Project Master Plan Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 2-3 3. SETTING Protection of the public health is maintained through the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards for various atmospheric compounds and the enforcement of emissions limits for individual stationary sources. The Federal Clean Air Act requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. NAAQS have been established for ozone (03), CO, N02, 502, PM10 and PM2.s, and lead (Pb). California has also adopted ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for these "criteria" air pollutants. CAAQS are more stringent than the corresponding NAAQS and include standards for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride (chloroethene), and visibility reducing particles. The U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required each state to identify areas that were in non-attainment of the NAAQS and to develop State Implementation Plans (SIP's) containing strategies to bring these non-attainment areas into compliance. NAAQS and CAAQS designation/classification for Kern County are presented in Section 3.1 below. Responsibility for regulation of air quality in California lies with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the 35 local air districts with oversight responsibility held by the EPA. CARB is responsible for regulating mobile source emissions, establishing CAAQS, conducting research, managing regulation development, and providing oversight and coordination of the activities of the 35 air districts. The air districts are primarily responsible for regulating stationary source emissions and monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations. CARB also determines whether air basins, or portions thereof, are "unclassified," in "attainment" or in "non-attainment" for the NAAQS and CAAQS relying on statewide air quality monitoring data. 3.1 Ai r Quality Standards The Project area is located within Kern County's portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB or Basin), Kern County is included among the eight counties that comprise the SJVAPCD. The SJVAPCD acts as the regulatory agency for air pollution control in the Basin and is the local agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions for the Project area. Table 3-1 provides the NAAQS and CAAQS. Pensinger-5. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-1 Table 3-1. Federal & california Air Quality Standards NAAQS CAAQS Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration 8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3? 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) Q3 1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) 8-hour 9 ppm (10 µg/m3) 9 ppm (10 µg/m3) co 1-hour 35 ppm ( 40 µg/m3) 20 ppm (23 µg/m3) N02 Annual Average 53 ppb (100 µg/m3) 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 1-Hour 100 ppb (188.68 µg/m3) 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 3-Hour 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/m3) S02 24 Hour 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3) 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 1-Hour 75 ppb (196 µg/m3) 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) Annual Arithmetic 20 µg/m3 Particulate Matter Mean (PM10) 24-Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 Annual Arithmetic 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 Fine Particulate Mean Matter (PM2.s) 24-Hour 35 µg/m3 Sulfates 24-Hour 25 µg/m3 Rolling Three-Month 0.15 µg/m3 Pbd Averaae 30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 H2S 1-Hour 0.03 ppm ( 42 µg/m3) Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour 0.010 ppm (26 µg/m3) ( chloroethene) Visibility Reducing 8 Hour ( 1000 to 1800 b particles PST) ppm == parts per million mg/ m3 = milligrams per cubic µg/ m3 ;:::: micrograms per cubic ppb ;:::: parts per billion meter meter Source: CARB 2016 a. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm b. In 1989, CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standards and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards respectivelv. Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-2 Under the provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act, the Kern County portion of the SJVAB has been classified as nonattainment/extreme, nonattainment/severe, nonattainment, attainment/unclassified, attainment, or unclassified under the established NAAQS and CAAQS for various criteria pollutants. Table 3-2 provides the SJVAB's designation and classification based on the various criteria pollutants under both NAAQS and CAAQS. Table 3-2. SJVAB Attainment Status Pollutant NAA0S8 CAAOSb Q3, 1-hour No Federal StandardF Nonattainment/Severe Q3 8-hour Nonattainment/Extremee Nonattainment PM10 Attainmentc Nonattainment PM2.s Nonattainment:ci Nonattainment co Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified NO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment SO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment Pb (Particulate) No Desianation/Classification Attainment H2S No Federal Standard Unclassified Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment Visibility Reducing Particulates No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment Source: SJVAPCD 2022a Note: a. See 40 CFR Part 81 b. See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210 c. On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan. d. The Valley is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.s NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.s NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009). e. Though the Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour Q3 standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010). f. Effective June 15, 2005, the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour Q3 standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010). Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour 03 nonattainment areas continue to a□□lv to the SJVAB. Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-3 3.2 Existing Air Quality For the purposes of background data and this air quality analysis, this analysis relied on data collected in the last three years for the CARS monitoring stations that are located in the closest proximity to the project site. Table 3-3 provides the background concentrations for 031 particulate matter of 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.s), CO, N02, S02, and Pb. Information is provided for the Bakersfield - 5558 California Avenue, Bakersfield -410 E. Planz Road, Bakersfield -Golden State Highway Oildale -3311 Manor Street, and Shafter-Walker Street monitoring stations for 2019 through 2021. No data is available for H2S, Vinyl Chloride or other toxic air contaminants in Kern County. Table 3-3. Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area Maximum Concentration Days Exceeding Standard Pollutant and 2019 2020 2021 2019 Monitorina Station Location 03-1-hour CAAQS (0.09 oom) Bakersfield -5558 California Ave 0.097 0.110 0.090 2 Oildale -3311 Manor Street 0.099 0.109 0.107 1 Shafter -Walker Street 0.087 0.116 0.104 0 03-8-hour CAAOS (0.070 ppm) Bakersfield -5558 california Ave 0.088 0.098 0.081 28 Oildale -3311 Manor Street 0.087 0.096 0.095 20 Shafter -Walker Street 0.077 0.098 0.086 15 03 -8-hour NAAOS C0.070 oom) Bakersfield -5558 California Ave 0.088 0.098 0.080 24 Oildale -3311 Manor Street 0.086 0.096 0.095 16 Shafter -Walker Street 0.077 0.098 0.085 14 PM10 -24-hour CAAQS (50 ug/m3) Bakersfield -5558 California Ave 125.9 196.8 439.3 17 Oildale -3311 Manor Street 392.1 277.3 423.0 118 PM10 -24-hour NAAOS (150 UQ /m3) Bakersfield -5558 California Ave 116.3 193.8 437.5 0 Oildale -3311 Manor Street 389.3 517.2 421.4 8 PM2.s · 24-hour NAAOS (35 ua/m3) Bakersfield -5558 california Ave 59.1 150.7 72.3 12 Bakersfield -Golden State Hiahwav 66.1 150.2 78.5 4 Bakersfield -410 E Planz Road 83.7 158.6 70.5 3 CO -8-Hour CAAQS & NAAQS (9.0 rmm) No data collected * * * * N02 -1-Hour CAAQS C0.18 oom) Bakersfield -5558 California Ave 0.067 0.050 0.057 0 Shafter -Walker Street 0.049 0.040 0.047 0 N02 -1-Hour NAAQS (0.10 nnm) Bakersfield -5558 california Ave 0.0671 0.0504 0.0572 0 Shafter -Walker Street 0.0493 0.0409 0.0478 0 S02-24-hour Concentration -CAAOS (0.04 nom) & NAAOS (0.14 onm) No data collected * * * Pb -Maximum 30-Dav Concentration CAAOS (1500 na/m3) Bakersfield -5558 California Ave 8.5 5.7 Source: CARB 2023a Notes: nnm= oarts oer million Pensinger-5. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 9.9 * * 2020 2021 3 0 3 6 6 1 25 11 24 46 34 16 25 11 23 43 34 15 18 124 123 129 1 3 15 2 44 40 10 43 17 17 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * * * * 3-5 I * There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value. The following is a description of criteria air pollutants, typical sources and health effects and the recently documented pollutant levels in the project vicinity. 3.2.1 Ozone (03) The most severe air quality problem in the San Joaquin Valley is high concentrations of 03. High revels of 03 cause eye irritation and can impair respiratory fun<ct:ions. High levels of Q3 can also affect plants and materials. Grapes,. lettuce, spinach and many types of garden flowers and shrubs are particularly vulnerable to Q3• damage. 03 is not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is a secondary pollutant produced through photochemical reactions involving hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Significant Q3 generation requires about one to three hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. For this reason, the months of April through October comprise the "ozone season." 03 is a regional pollutant because 03 precursors are transported and diffused by wind concurrently with the reaction process. The data contained in Table 3-3 shows that the Bakersfield, Oildale and Shafter area exceeded the 1-hour average ambient Q3 CAAQS and the 8-hour average ambient 03 NAAQS and CAAQS during the 2019 through 2021 period. 3.2.2 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.s) Both State and Federal particulate standards now apply to particulates under 10 microns (PM10) rather than to total suspended particulate (TSP), which includes particulates up to 30 microns in diameter. Continuing studies have shown that the smaller-diameter fraction of TSP represents the greatest health hazard posed by the pollutant; therefore, EPA has recently established NAAQS for PM2.s. The project area is classified as attainment for PM10 and non-attainment for particulates under 2.5 microns (PM2.s) for NAAQS. Particulate matter consists of particles in the atmosphere resulting from many kinds of dust and fume- producing industrial and agricultural operations, from combustion, and from atmospheric photochemical reactions. Natural activities also increase the level of particulates in the atmosphere; wind-raised dust and ocean spray are two sources of naturally occurring particulates. The largest sources of PM10 and PM2.s in Kern County are vehicle movement over paved and unpaved roads, demolition and construction activities, farming operations, and unplanned fires. PM10 and PM2.s are considered regional pollutants with elevated levels typically occurring over a wide geographic area. Concentrations tend to be highest in the winter, during periods of high atmospheric stability and low wind speed. In the respiratory tract, very small particles of certain substances may produce injury by themselves or may contain absorbed gases that are injurious. Particulates of aerosol size suspended in the air can both scatter and absorb sunlight, producing haze and reducing visibility. They can also cause a wide range of damage to materials. Table 3-3 shows that PM10 levels regularly exceeded the CAAQS but not the NAAQS at two monitoring stations over the three-year period of 2019 through 2021. Table 3~3 shows that PM2.s NAAQS were exceeded from 2019 through 2021. Similar levels can be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site. 3.2.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. Wind speed and atmospheric mixing also influence CO concentrations; however, under inversion conditions prevalent in the San Joaquin Valley, CO concentrations may be more uniformly distributed over a broad area. Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Alr Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-6 Internal combustion engines, principally in vehicles, produce CO due to incomplete fuel combustion. Various industrial processes also produce CO emissions through incomplete combustion. Gasoline-powered motor vehicles are typically the major source of this contaminant. CO does not irritate the respiratory tract but passes through the lungs directly into the blood stream, and by interfering with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood, deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen, thereby aggravate cardiovascular disease, causing fatigue, headaches, and dizziness. CO is not known to have adverse effects on vegetation, visibility, or materials. Table 3-3 reports no CO data is available for the three-year period from 2019 through 2021; historically Bakersfield area data for CO has been below the CAAQS and NAAQS. 3 .2.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) and Hydrocarbons Kern County has been designated as an attainment area for the NAAQS for NO2. NO2 is the "whiskey brown" colored gas readily visible during periods of heavy air pollution. Mobile sources and oil and gas production account for nearly all of the County's NOx emissions, most of which is emitted as NO2. Combustion in motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries and other industrial operations are the primary sources in the region, Railroads and aircraft are other potentially significant sources of combustion air contaminants. Oxides of nitrogen are direct participants in photochemical smog reactions. The emitted compound, nitric oxide, combines with oxygen in the atmosphere in the presence of hydrocarbons and sunlight to form NO2 and Q3. NO2, the most significant of these pollutants, can color the atmosphere at concentrations as low as 0.5 ppm on days of 10-mile visibility. NOx is an important air pollutant in the region because it is a primary receptor of ultraviolet light, which initiates the reactions producing photochemical smog. It also reacts in the air to form nitrate particulates. Motor vehicles are the major source of reactive hydrocarbons in the basin. Other sources include evaporation of organic solvents and petroleum production and refining operations. Certain hydrocarbons can damage plants by inhibiting growth and by causing flowers and leaves to fall. Levels of hydrocarbons currently measured in urban areas are not known to cause adverse effects in humans. However, certain members of this contaminant group are important components in the reactions, which produce photochemical oxidants. Table 3-3 shows that the Shafter area exceeded the 1-hour average ambient NO2 NAAQS and CAAQS for the 2019 through 2021 period. Hydrocarbons are not currently monitored. 3.2.S Sulfur Dioxide (S02) Kern County has been designated as an attainment area for the NAAQS for SO2. 502 is the primary combustion product of sulfur, or sulfur containing fuels. Fuel combustion is the major source of this pollutant, while chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing facilities are minor contributors. Gaseous fuels (natural gas, propane, etc.) typically have lower percentages of sulfur containing compounds than liquid fuels such as diesel or crude oil. SO2 levels are generally higher in the winter months. Decreasing levels of SO2 in the atmosphere reflect the use of natural gas in power plants and boilers. At high concentrations, SO2 irritates the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations, when respirated in combination with particulates, 502 can result in greater harm by injuring lung tissues. Sulfur oxides (SOx), in combination with moisture and oxygen, results in the formation of sulfuric acid, which can yellow the leaves of plants, dissolve marble, and oxidize iron and steel. SOx can also react to produce sulfates that reduce visibility and sunlight. Table 3-3 shows no data has been reported over the three-year period in Kern County. Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-7 3.2.6 Lead (Pb) and Suspended Sulfate Ambient Pb levels have dropped dramatically due to the increase in the percentage of motor vehicles that run exclusively on unleaded fuel. Ambient Pb levels in Lost Hills are well below the ambient standard and are expected to continue to decline; the data reported in Table 3-3 only shows the highest concentration as the number of days exceeding standards are not reported. Suspended sulfate levels have stabilized to the point where no excesses of the State standard are expected in any given year. 3.3 Climate The most significant single control on the weather pattern of the San Joaquin Valley is the semi-permanent subtropical high-pressure cell, referred to as the "Pacific High." During the summer, the Pacific High is positioned off the coast of northern California, diverting ocean-derived storms to the north. Hence, the summer months are virtually rainless. During the winter, the Pacific High moves southward allowing storms to pass through the San Joaquin Valley. Almost all of the precipitation expected during a given year occurs from December through April. During the summer, the predominant surface winds are out of the northwest. Air enters the Valley through the Carquinez strait and flows toward the Tehachapi Mountains. This up-valley (northwesterly) wind flow is interrupted in early fall by the emergence of nocturnal, down-valley (southeasterly) winds which become progressively more predominant as winter approaches. Wind speeds are generally highest during the spring and lightest in fall and winter. The relatively cool air flowing through the Carquinez strait is warmed on its journey south through the Valley. On reaching the southern end of the Valley, the average high temperature during the summer is nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Relative humidity during the summer is quite low, causing large diurnal temperature variations. Temperatures during the summer often drop into the upper 60s. In winter, the average high temperatures reach into the mid-S0s and the average low drops to the mid-30s. In addition, another high-pressure cell, known as the "Great Basin High," develops east of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range during winter. When this cell is weak, a layer of cool, damp air becomes trapped in the basin and extensive fog results. During inversions, vertical dispersion is restricted, and pollutant emissions are trapped beneath the inversion and pushed against the mountains, adversely affecting regional air quality. Surface-based inversions, while shallow and typically short-lived, are present most mornings. Elevated inversions, while less frequent than ground-based inversions, are typically longer lasting and create the more severe air stagnation problems. The winter season characteristically has the poorest conditions for vertical mixing of the entire year. Meteorological data for various monitoring stations is maintained by the Western Regional Climate Center. Meteorological data for the Project site is expected to be similar to the data recorded at the Bakersfield monitoring station. This data is provided in Table 3-4, which contains average precipitation data recorded at the Wasco monitoring station. Over the 79-year period from October of 1937 through June of 2016 (the most recent data available), the average annual precipitation was 6.17 inches. Pensinger-5. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-8 Table 3-4. Bakersfield, California Weather Data Period of Record Monthlv Climate Summarv for the Period 10/01/1937 to 6/0912016 Jan Feb Mar Aor Mav Jun Jul Aua Seo Oct Avg. Maximum 57.4 63.6 69.0 75.7 84.2 92.1 98.6 96.7 91.0 80.5 Temo (F) Avg. Minimum 38.5 42.1 45.4 49.7 56.6 63.3 69.2 67.7 63.1 54.0 Temp (F) Average Total 1.04 1.16 1.12 0.67 0.21 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.10 0.30 Precioitation (in.) Average Snowfall 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (in.) Average Snow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deoth (in.) Percent of possible observations for period of record: Max. Temp.: 99.6% Min. Temo.: 99.6% Precioitation: 99.7% Snowfall: 92.4% Snow Deoth: 92.2% Source: Western Reaional Climate Center 2022. 3.4 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases 3.4.l Global Cli mate Change Nov Dec 67.3 57.8 44.1 38.5 0.59 0.85 0.0 0.0 0 0 Annual 77.8 52.7 6.17 0.1 0 "Global climate change" refers to change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms, lasting for decades or longer. The term "global climate change" is often used interchangeably with the term "global warming," but "global climate change" is preferred by some scientists and policy makers to "global warming" because it helps convey the notion that in addition to rising temperatures, other changes in global climate may occur. Climate change may result from the following influences: ► Natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun; ► Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation); and/or ► Human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, and desertification). As determined from worldwide meteorological measurements between 1990 and 2005, the primary observed effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric temperature of 0.36 degree Fahrenheit (°F) per decade. Climate change modeling shows that further warming could occur, which could induce additional changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system, ecosystems, and the environment of California could include higher sea levels, drier or wetter weather, changes in ocean salinity, changes in wind patterns or more energetic aspects of extreme weather (e.g., droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and increased intensity of tropical cyclones). Specific effects from climate change in California may include a decline in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, erosion of California's coastline, and seawater intrusion in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Human activities, including fossil fuel combustion and land use changes, release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other compounds cumulatively termed greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs are effective at trapping radiation that would otherwise escape the atmosphere. This trapped radiation warms the atmosphere, the oceans, and the earth's surface (USGCRP, 2014). Many scientists believe "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" (IPCC, 2017). The increased amount of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere is the alleged primary result of human-induced warming. Pensinger-$. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources, or formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. They include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), and 03. In the last 200 years, substantial quantities of GHGs have been released into the atmosphere, primarily from fossil fuel combustion. These human-induced emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, therefore enhancing the natural greenhouse effect. The GHGs resulting from human activity are believed to be causing global climate change. While human-made GHGs include CO2, CH4, and N20, some (like chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs]) are completely new to the atmosphere. GHGs vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), the comparative ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere. The GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (''atmospheric lifetime''). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of "CO2 equivalents" (C02e). Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources of CH4 production include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Human activity accounts for the majority of the approximately 500 million metric tons of· CH4 emitted annually. These anthropogenic sources include the mining and burning of fossil fuels; digestive processes in ruminant livestock such as cattle; rice cultivation; and the decomposition of waste in landfills. The major removal process for atmospheric CH4, the chemical breakdown in the atmosphere, cannot keep pace with source emissions; therefore, CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising. Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2008 were 30.1 billion metric tons of C02e and have. increased considerably since that time (United Nations, 2011). It is important to note that the global emissions inventory data are not all from the same year and may vary depending on the source of the data (U.S. EPA, 2019). Emissions from the top five emitting countries and the European Union accounted for approximately 70% of total global GHG emissions in 2014. The United States was the number two producer of GHG emissions behind China. The primary GHG emitted by human activities was CO2, representing approximately 76% of total global GHG emissions (U.S. EPA, 2019). In 2017, the United States emitted approximately 6.5 million metric tons of C02e. Of the six major sectors nationwide (electric power industry, transportation, industry, agriculture, commercial, and residential), the electric power industry and transportation sectors combined account for approximately 57% of the GHG emissions; the majority of the electrical power industry and all of the transportation emissions are generated from direct fossil fuel combustion. Between 1990 and 2017, total United States GHG emissions rose approximately 1.3% (U.S. EPA, 2019). Worldwide, energy-related CO2 emissions are expected to increase at an average rate of 0.6% annually between 2018 and 2050, compared with the average growth rate of 1.8% per year from 1990 to 2018. Much of the increase in these emissions is expected to occur in the developing world where emerging economies, such as China and India, fuel economic development with fossil fuel energy. Developing countries' emissions are expected to grow above the world average at a rate of approximately 1 % annually between 2018 and 2050 and surpass emissions of industrialized countries by 2025 (U.S. EIA, 2019). CARB is responsible for developing and maintaining the California GHG emissions inventory. This inventory estimates the amount of GHGs emitted into and removed from the atmosphere by human activities within the state of California and supports the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Climate Change Program. CARB's current GHG emission inventory covers the years 2000 through 2017 and is based on fuel use, equipment activity, industrial processes, and other relevant data (e.g., housing, landfill activity, and agricultural lands), Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-10 In 2017, emissions from statewide emitting activities were 424 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMT C02e), which is 5 MMT C02e lower than 2016 levels. 2017 emissions have decreased by 14% since peak levels in 2004 and are 7 MMT C02e below the 1990 emissions level and the State's 2020 GHG limit. Per capita GHG emissions in California have dropped from a 2001 peak of 14.1 tonnes per person to 10.7 tonnes per person in 2017, a 24% decrease (CARB 2019). CARB estimates that transportation was the source of approximately 40% of California's GHG emissions in 2017, followed by electricity generation at 15%. Other sources of GHG emissions were industrial sources at 21 %, residential plus commercial activities at 10%, and agriculture at 8% (CARB 2019). CARB has projected the estimated statewide GHG emissions for the year 2020, which represent the emissions that would be expected to occur with reductions anticipated from Pavley I and the Renewables Electricity Standard (30 MMT C02e total), will be 509 MMT of C02e (CARB, 2014). GHG emissions from the transportation and electricity sectors as a whole are expected to increase at approximately 36% and 20% of total C02e emissions, respectively, as compared to 2009. The industrial sector consists of large stationary sources of GHG emissions and the percentage of the total 2020 emissions is projected to be 18% of total C02e emissions. The remaining sources of GHG emissions in 2020 are high global warming potential gases at 6%, residential and commercial activities at 10%, agriculture at 7%, and recyding and waste at 2%. 3.4.2 Effects of Global Climate Change Changes in the global climate are assessed using historical records of temperature changes that have occurred in the past. Climate change scientists use this temperature data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from past climate changes in rate and magnitude. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. In its Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC predicted that the global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100 could range from 1.1 degree Celsius (°C) to 6.4 °C (8 to 10.4 °Fahrenheit) {IPCC, 2013). Global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios (IPCC, 2014). The IPCC concluded that global climate change was largely the result of human activity, mainly the burning of fossil fuels. However, the scientific literature is not consistent regarding many of the aspects of climate change, the actual temperature changes during the 20th century, and contributions from human versus non-human activities. Effects from global climate change may arise from temperature increases, climate sensitive diseases, extreme weather events, and degradation of air quality. There may be direct temperature effects through increases in average temperature leading to more extreme heat waves and less extreme cold spells. Those living in warmer climates are likely to experience more stress and heat-related problems. Heat-related problems include heat rash and heat stroke, drought, etc. In addition, climate-sensitive diseases may increase, such as those spread by mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects. Such diseases include malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. Extreme events such as flooding and hurricanes can displace people and agriculture. Global warming may also contribute to air quality problems from increased frequency of smog and particulate air pollution. According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team (CAT) Report, several climate change effects can be expected in California over the course of the next century (CalEPA, 2006). These are based on trends established by the IPCC and are summarized below. ► A diminishing Sierra snowpack declining by 70% to 90%, threatening the state's water supply. Pensinger-5. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-11 ► A rise in sea levels, resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences. During the past century, sea levels along California's coast have risen about seven inches. 1f emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher anticipated warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. Sea level rises of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. (Note: This condition would not affect the Proposed Project area, as it is a significant distance away from coastal areas.) ► An increase in temperature and extreme weather events. Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events and heat waves in California. More heat waves can exacerbate chronic disease or heat-related illness. ► Increased risk of large wildfires if rain increases as temperatures rise. Wildfires in the grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of southern California are estimated to increase by approximately 30% toward the end of the 21st century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant fuel available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter, drier climate could promote up to 90% more northern California fires by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation. ► Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4 °Funder the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25% to 35% increase in the number of days that ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas (see below). ► Increased vulnerability of forests due to forest fires, pest infestation, and increased temperatures. ► Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk. ► Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85% more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today's conditions. This is more than twice the increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range. This increase in air quality problems could result in an increase in asthma arid other health-related problems. ► A decrease in the health and productivity of California's forests. Climate change can cause an increase in wildfires, an enhanced insect population, and establishment of non-native species. ► Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. ► .Increased ground-level ozone formation due to higher reaction rates of ozone precursors. 3.4.3 Global Climate Change Regulatory I ssues In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the impacts of global warming and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established an agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions, including methane. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of GHGs in the United States. The plan consists of more than 50 voluntary programs. Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. The Montreal Protocol stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete 03 in the stratosphere (chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs], halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) were phased out by 2000 (methyl chloroform was phased out by 2005). On September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (the Act) was enacted by the State of California. The legislature stated, "Global warming· poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California." The Act caps California's GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. The Act defines GHG emissions as all of the following gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. This agreement represents the first enforceable statewide program in the U.S. to cap all GHG emissions from major industries that includes penalties for non-compliance. While acknowledging that national Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-12 and international actions will be necessary to fully address the issue of global warming, AB32 lays out a program to inventory and reduce GHG emissions in California and from power generation facilities located outside the state that serve California residents and businesses. AB32 charges CARS with responsibility to monitor and regulate sources of GHG emissions in order to reduce those emissions. CARB has adopted a list of discrete early action measures that can be implemented to reduce GHG emissions. CARB has defined the 1990 baseline emissions for California and has adopted that baseline as the 2020 statewide emissions cap. CARB is conducting rulemaking for reducing GHG emissions to achieve the emissions CQP by 2020. In designing emission reduction measures, CARS must aim to minimize costs, maximize benefits, improve, and modernize California's energy infrastructure, maintain electric system reliability, maximize additional environmental and economic co-benefits for California, and complement the state's efforts to improve air quallty. Subsequent legislation by the California legislature has included Senate Bill (SB) 32, which expanded upon AB32 to reduce GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 levels by 2030; AB197 which increased the legislative oversight of the CARB by adding two legislatively appointed non-voting members to the CARB Board and provided additional protection to disadvantaged communities; 5B350, which increased California's renewable energy electricity procurement goal and 5B100, which established a landmark policy requiring renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 100 percent of electrical retail sales to end use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve state agencies by 2045. Global warming and climate change have received substantial public attention for more than 20 years. For example, the United States Global Change Research Program was established by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to enhance the understanding of natural and human-induced changes in the Earth's global environmental system, to monitor, understand, and predict global change, and to provide a sound scientific basis for national and international decision-making. Even so, the analytical tools have not been developed to determine the effect on worldwide global warming from a particular increase in GHG emissions, or the resulting effects on climate change in a particular locale. The seientific tools needed to evaluate the impacts that a specific project may have on the environment are even farther in the future. The California Supreme Court's most recent CEQA decision on the Newhall Ranch development case, Center for Biological v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (November 30, 2015, Case No. 217763), determined that the 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 Newhall Ranch development project would reduce GHG emissions by 31 percent from business as usual (BAU). This reduction was compared to the California's target of reducing GHG emissions statewide by 29 percent from business as usual. The Court determined that "the EIR's deficiency stems from taking a quantitative comparison method developed by the Scoping Plan as a measure of the greenhouse gas reduction effort required by the state as a whole, and attempting to use that method, without adjustments, for a purpose very different from its original design." In the Court's final ruling it offered suggestions that were deemed appropriate use of the BAU methodology: 1. Lead agencies can use the comparison to BAU methodology if they determine what reduction a particular project must achieve in order 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 that 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. Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-13 Kern County, the Lead CEQA agency for this Project, has not developed specific thresholds for GHGs. As discussed in Section 4.1, the SJVAPCD, a CEQA Trustee Agency for this Project, has developed thresholds to determine significance of a proposed project -either implement Best Performance Standards or achieve a 29% reduction from BAU (a specific numerical threshold). However, the SJVAPCD has established their BAU and baseline emissions based on the years 2002-2004 and 2020, respectively. The 2020 projected baseline has passed, and at this time, no new guidance has been approved for determining BAU and projected baseline for the next target year. Therefore, the 29% reduction from BAU cannot be applied to the subject Project in order to determine significance. Additionally, a Best Performance Standards threshold has not been established. For this Project, compliance with locally adopted climate plans will be used to determine level of significance for GHG. Therefore, the GHG analysis for this Project follows the suggestions from the Court's ruling on the Newhall Ranch development project in order to determine significance using the project design features. Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-14 4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4.1 Significance Criteria To determine whether a proposed Project could create a potential CEQA impact, local, State, and Federal agencies have developed various means by which a project's impacts may be measured and evaluated. Such means can generally be categorized as follows: ► Thresholds of significance adopted by air quality agencies to guide lead agencies in their evaluation of air quality impacts under the CEQA. ► Regulations established by air districts, CARB and EPA for the evaluation of stationary sources when applying for Authorities to Construct, Permits to Operate and other permit program requirements (e.g., New Source Review). ► Thresholds utilized to determine if a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the ambient air quality standards or other concentration-based limits. ► Regulations applied in areas where severe air quality problems exist. Summary tables of these emission-based and concentration-based thresholds of significance for each pollutant are provided below along with a discussion of their applicability. 4.1.1 Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Air Quality Impacts under CEQA In order to maintain consistency with CEQA, the SJVAPCD (2015) adopted guidelines to assist applicants in complying with the various requirements. According to the SJVAPCD's GAMAQI, a project would have potentially significant air quality impacts when the project: ► Creates a conflict with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan; ► Causes a violation of any air quality standard or generates substantial contribution towards exceeding an existing or projected air quality standard; ► Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is designated non-attainment under a NAAQS and CAAQS (including emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for Q3 precursors); ► Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or ► Creates objectionable odors that affect a substantial number of people. The SJVAPCD GAMAQI thresholds are designed to implement the general criteria for air quality emissions as required in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Paragraph III (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations §15064.7) and CEQA (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. al). SJVAPCD's specific CEQA air quality thresholds are presented in Table 4-1. Table 4-1. SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance Criteria Pollutant Siqnificance Level Construction co 100 tons/vr NOx 10 tons/vr ROG 10 tons/yr sox 27 tons/yr PM10 15 tons/vr PM2.s 15 tons/yr Source: SJVAPCD 2015 Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants Operational 100 tons/vr 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr 27 tons/yr 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr 4-1 4.1.2 Thresholds for Ambient Air Quality Impacts CEQA Guidelines -Appendix G (Environmental Checklist) states that a project that would "violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation" would be considered to create significant impacts on air quality. Therefore, an AQIA should determine whether the emissions from a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the NAAQS or CMQS (presented above in Table 3-1) when added to existing ambient concentrations. The EPA has established the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to determine what comprises "significant impact levels" (SIL) to NAAQS attainment areas. A project's impacts are considered less than significant if emissions are below PSD SIL for a particular pollutant. When a SIL is exceeded, an additional "increment analysis" is required. As the Project would not include modification to the stationary source under NSR, it would not be subject to either PSD or NSR review. The PSD SIL thresholds are used with ambient air quality modeling for a CEQA project to address whether the Project would "violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation." Ambient air quality emissions estimates below the PSD SIL thresholds would result in less than significant ambient air quality impacts for both a project and cumulative CEQA impact analysis. The SJVAB is classified as non-attainment for the 03 NAAQS and, as such, is subject to "non-attainment new source review" (NSR). PSD SILs and increments are more stringent than the CAAQS or NAAQS and represent the most stringent thresholds of significance. 4.1.3 Thresholds for Hazardous Air Pollutants The SJVAPCD's GAMAQI states, "From a health risk perspective there are basically two types of land use projects that have the potential to cause long-term public health risk impacts: ► Type A Projects: Land use projects that will place new toxic sources in the vicinity of existing receptors, and ► Type B Projects: Land use projects that will place new receptors in the vicinity of existing toxics sources" (SJVAPCD 2015). Table 4-2 presents the thresholds of significance used with toxic air contaminants when evaluating hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Table 4-2. Measures of Significance -Toxic Air Contaminants Agencv Level Description Siqnificance Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Impacts Under CEOA Carcinogens Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or exceeds 20 in one million. SJVAPCD Acute: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Non~ Maximally Exposed Individual. Carcinogens Chronic: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximallv Exoosed Individual. Source: SJVAPCD 2015 4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Threshold of Significance Attachment A of Kern County's Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports states "the following threshold are defined for purposes of determining cumulative effects as the baseline for "considerable". "Projects in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. .. will be subject to the following significance thresholds". The thresholds outlined in the guidelines mirror the individual project Pensinger-5. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-2 significance thresholds of 15 tons per year for PM10 and 10 tons per year for NOx and ROG. Therefore, owing to the inherently cumulative nature of air quality impacts, the threshold for whether a project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact is simply whether the project would exceed project-level thresholds. 4.1.5 Global Climate Change Thresholds of Significance On December 17, 2009, SJVAPCD adopted Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD 2009); which outlined the SJVAPCD's methodology for assessing a project's significance for GHGs under CEQA. The following criteria was outlined in the document to determine whether a project could have a significant impact: ► Projects determined to be exempt from the requirements of CEQA would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions and would not require further environmental review, including analysis of project specific GHG emissions. Projects exempt under CEQA would be evaluated consistent with established rules and regulations governing project approval and would not be required to implement BPS. ► Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or approved by the lead agency with jurisdiction over the affected resource and supported by a CEQA compliant environmental review document adopted by the lead agency. Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program would not be required to implement BPS. ► Projects implementing Best Performance Standards would not require quantification of project specific GHG emissions. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. ► Projects not implementing Best Performance Standards would require quantification of project specific GHG emissions and demonstration that project specific GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29%, compared to Business-as-Usual (BAU), including GHG emission reductions achieved since the 2002-2004 baseline period. Projects achieving at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG. ► Notwithstanding any of the above provisions, projects requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for any other reason would require quantification of project specific GHG emissions. Projects implementing BPS or achieving at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG. 4.2 Project Related Emissions This document was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD's GAMAQI. The GAMAQI identifies separate thresholds for a project's short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) emissions. Project emissions were estimated for the following project development stages: ► Short-term (Construction and Demolition) -Construction emissions of the proposed Project were estimated in CalEEMod using default construction schedules and construction equipment starting with site preparation for the staggered development of a 249 dwelling unit Tract followed by a 246 dwelling unit Tract. ► Long-term (Operations)-Long term emissions were also estimated in CalEEMod using model defaults for operations of 499 single family homes. Pensinger-$. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-3 4.2.1 Short-Term Emissions The Project applicant did not provide a list of specific construction equipment; the construction emissions were therefore based on the default CalEEMod equipment list accordingly for the proposed Project's land use type and development intensity. Applying model defaults as well as a conservative analysis approach, construction emissions were estimated as if construction started in January of 2026 with the following Tract starting once the first Tract's construction has finished. The dates entered into the CalEEMod program may not represent the actual dates the equipment will operate; however, the total construction time is accurate, and therefore, all estimated emission totals are conservative and reflect a reasonable and legally sufficient estimate of potential impacts. All construction equipment activity levels were assumed based on the specified CalEEMod default values for type and number of equipment and horsepower. SJVAPCD's required measures for all projects were also applied: ► Water exposed areas 3 times per day; and ► Reduce vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour. Table 4-3 presents the Project's short-term emissions based on the anticipated construction period. Table 4-3. Short-Term Project Emissions Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/vearl ROG NOx co SO2 PM10 PM2.s Unmitigated 2026 0.28 2.33 2.90 0.01 0.84 0.40 2027 0.18 1.39 2.27 0.00 0.21 0.08 2028 0.17 1.32 2.24 0.00 0.21 0.08 2029 1.69 1.56 2.09 0.00 0.68 0.33 2030 0.17 1.31 2.13 0.00 0.22 0.09 2031 0.15 1.16 2.00 0,00 0.14 0.06 2032 0.14 1.10 1.92 0.00 0.13 0.05 2033 1.54 0.11 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.00 Maximum Annual Emission 1.69 2.33 2.90 0.01 0.84 0.40 Mitigated 2026 0.28 2.33 2.90 0.01 0.37 0.19 2027 0.18 1.39 2.27 0.00 0.21 0.08 2028 0.17 1.32 2.24 0.00 0.21 0.08 2029 1.69 1.56 2.09 0.00 0.26 0.13 2030 0.17 1.31 2.13 0.00 0.17 0.07 2031 0.15 1.16 2.00 0.00 0.14 0.06 2032 0.14 1.10 1.92 0.00 0.13 0.05 2033 1.54 0.11 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.00 Maximum Annual Emission 1.69 2.33 2.90 0.01 0.37 0.19 Siqnificance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15 Is Threshold Exceeded for a Single Year No No No No No No After Mitiaation? Source: Trinity Consultants 2023 Note: 0.00 could reoresent < 0.00 As calculated with CalEEMod, the estimated short-term construction-related emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD significance threshold levels during any given year and would therefore be less than significant Pensinger-5. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-4 4.2.2 Long-Term Operations Emissions Long-term emissions are caused by operational mobile, area, and energy sources. Long-term emissions would consist of the following components: 4.2.2.1 Fugitive Dust Emissions Operation of the Project site at full build-out is not expected to present a substantial source of fugitive dust (PM10) emissions. The main source of PM10 emissions would be from vehicular traffic associated with the Project site. PM10, on its own as well as in combination with other pollutants, creates a health hazard. The SJVAPCD's Regulation VIII establishes required controls to reduce and minimizing fugitive dust emissions. The following SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations apply to the proposed Project (and all projects): ► Rule 4102 -Nuisance ► Regulation VIII -Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions • Rule 8011 -General Requirements • Rule 8021 -Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities • Rule 8041 -Carryout and Trackout • Rule 8051 -Open Areas The Project would comply with applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations, the local zoning codes, and additional emissions reduction measures recommended later in this analysis, in Section 7, Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures. 4.2.2.2 Exhaust Emissions Project-related transportation activities from residents would generate mobile source ROG, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.s exhaust emissions. Exhaust emissions would vary substantially from day to day but would average out over the course of an operational year. The variables factored into estimating total Project emissions include: level of activity, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of residents and visitors. 4.2.2.3 Projected Emissions The proposed Project is expected to have long-term air quality impacts as shown in Table 4-4. The outputs from the CalEEMod runs are available in Appendix B. Mitigation measures implemented within CalEEMod include: ► On-site Renewable Energy ( 4kw per dwelling unit) Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-5 Table 4-4. Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/vearl ROG NOX co SOX PM10 PM2.s Mobile 1.89 2.05 18.74 0.06 2.35 0.43 Area 0.55 0.02 2.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 Enerov 0.05 0.89 0.38 0.01 0.07 0.07 Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Operational Emissions 2.49 2.97 21.68 0.06 2.42 0.50 SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15 Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: Trinity Consultants 2023 Note: 0.00 could reoresent < 0.00 As shown in Tables 4-4, operation-related emissions, as calculated by CalEEMod (see Appendix B), would be less than the SJVAPCD significant threshold levels. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact during Project operations. 4.3 Potential Impact on Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside, such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers. There are 18 known non-residential sensitive receptors within 2 miles of the Project site shown below in Table 4-5. Table 4-5. Sensitive Receptors Located < 2 Miles from Project Receptor Type of Facility Hoffman Hospice Assisted Livinq Facilitv Iw Park at Seven Oaks Assisted Livinq Facilitv Buena Vista Elementarv K-6 Public St. John's Children Center Kinderoarten Trinitv Preschool PK Private Earl Warren Jr. Hioh 7-8 Public Heritaqe Assisted Livinq Assisted Livinq Facilitv Stockdale Hiqh School 9-12 Public Heritaqe Livinq Assisted Livino Facilitv Lerwick Home Care Assisted Livinq Facilitv Creative Connections Inc. Assisted Livinq Facilitv Oaks Children Center PK Private Able Home Care Assisted Livinq Facilitv John's Haven Assisted Livinq Assisted Livina Facilitv Iron Mountain Senior Livina Assisted Livina Facilitv Old River Elementarv School K-6 Public Balanced Residential Care Assisted Livina Facilitv Libet Livina Services Assisted Livina Facilitv Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants Distance from Direction from Proiect in Miles Proiect 0.70 NE 0.77 NE 0.78 SE 0.79 NE 0.83 NE 1.07 NE 1.17 NE 1.27 NE 1.32 E 1.41 E 1.43 NE 1.56 NE 1.58 E 1.59 E 1.60 NE 1.68 NE 1.70 E 1.70 E 4-6 4.4 Potential Impacts to Visibility to Nearby Areas Visibility impact analyses are intended for stationary sources of emissions which are subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements in 40 CFR Part 60; they are not usually conducted for area sources. Because the Project's PM10 emissions increase is predicted to be less than the PSD threshold levels, an impact at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation within 100 kilometers of the Project (including San Rafael Wilderness, Domeland Wilderness, Edwards Air Force Base, China Lake Naval Weapons Station, and the entire R-2508 Airspace Complex) is extremely unlikely. Therefore, based on the Project's predicted less-than significant PM10 emissions, the Project would be expected to have a less than significant impact to visibility at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation. 4.5 Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. CO concentrations are also influenced by wind speed and atmospheric mixing. CO concentrations may be more uniformly distributed when inversion conditions are prevalent in the valley. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations along a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels for sensitive receptors, e.g. children, the elderly, hospital patients, etc. This localized impact can result in elevated levels of CO, or "hotspots" even though concentrations at the closest air quality monitoring station may be below NAAQS and CAAQS. The localized Project impacts depend on whether ambient CO levels in the Project vicinity would be above or below NAAQS. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if a project's emissions would exceed of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a state standard, a project's emissions are considered significant if they would increase one-hour CO concentrations by 10 ppm or more or eight-hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. There are two criteria established by the SJVAPCD's GAMAQI by which CO "Hot Spot" modeling is required.: 1. A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service {LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity would be reduced to LOS E or F; or 2. A traffic study indicates that the project would substantially worsen an already existing LOS Fon one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity. According to the Project proponent, at the time of this analysis no traffic generation assessment impact study was prepared for this Project. However, due to the location and traffic increase anticipated from this Project, impacted intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at a LOS of C or better. Therefore, CO "Hotspot" Modeling was not conducted for this Project and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed. 4.6 Predicted Health Risk Impacts GAMAQI recommends that Lead Agencies consider situations wherein a new or modified source of HAPs is proposed for a location near an existing residential area or other sensitive receptor when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs. The proposed Project would result in emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and would be located near existing residents and workers; therefore, an assessment of the potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of hazardous air pollutants from the proposed Project is required. Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-7 To predict the potential health risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project, ambient air concentrations were predicted with dispersion modeling to arrive at a conservative estimate of increased individual carcinogenic risk that might occur as a result of continuous exposure over a 8-year construction timeline. Similarly, predicted concentrations were used to calculate non-cancer chronic and acute hazard indices (His), which are the ratio of expected exposure to acceptable exposure. The basis for evaluating potential health risk is the identification of sources with increased HAPs. Health risk is determined using the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) software distributed by the CARB; HARP2 requires peak 1-hour emission rates and annual-averaged emission rates for all pollutants for each modeling source (CARS 2015). Assumptions used to calculate the emission rates for the proposed Project are outlined below. The most recent version of EPA's AMS/EPA Regulatory Model -AERMOD was used to predict the dispersion of emissions from the proposed Project. The analysis employed all of the regulatory default AERMOD model keyword parameters, including elevated terrain options. For construction health impacts, diesel combustion emissions from diesel on-site construction equipment was modeled as an area source for on-site construction activity on the property. Diesel particulate matter was calculated using CalEEMod for on-site construction equipment. A unit emission rate of 1 grams/second (g/sec) was input to AERMOD for the area source. Discrete receptors were placed on houses and businesses within close proximity of the Project site. Receptor grids were placed over the more densely populated areas mostly to the east and south of the Project site. A total of 2,795 discrete off-site receptors analyzed. Elevated terrain options were employed even though there is not complex terrain in the Project area. SJVAPCD-provided, AERMET UStar processed meteorological datasets for the Bakersfield monitoring station, calendar years 2013 through 2017 was input to AERMOD (SJVAPCD 2018). This was the most recent available dataset available at the time the modeling was conducted. Rural dispersion parameters were used because the operation and the majority of the land surrounding the facility is considered "rural" under the Auer land use classification method (Auer 1978). Plot files generated by AERMOD were uploaded to the Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Assessment Tool (ADMRT) program in the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP 2) (CARB 2015). ADMRT post-processing was used to assess the potential for excess cancer risk and chronic and acute non-cancer effects using the most recent health effects data from the California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). HARP2 site parameters were set for the mandatory minimum pathways of inhalation, soil ingestion, dermal, and mother's milk. Risk reports were generated using the derived OEHHA analysis method for carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic chronic and acute risk. Site parameters are included in the HARP2 output files. Total cancer risk was predicted for each receptor. A hazard index was computed for chronic non-cancer health effects for each applicable endpoint and each receptor. A hazard index for acute non-cancer health effects was not computed since DPM does not have a risk exposure level for acute risk. SJVAPCD has set the level of significance for carcinogenic risk at twenty in one million, which is understood as the possibility of causing twenty additional cancer cases in a population of one million people. The level of significance for chronic and acute non-cancer risk is a hazard index of 1.0. All receptors were modeled as residential receptors with 8-year exposure (4-years per tract). This is conservative since all on-site receptors and business receptors would be exposed less than 8 years. Pensinger-5. Atren Multi-Family Residentfal / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-8 The carcinogenic risk and the health hazard index (HI) for chronic non-cancer risk at the point of maximum impact (PMI) do not exceed the significance levels of twenty in one million (20 x 10-6) and 1.0, respectively for the proposed Project. The PMis, are identified by receptor location and risk, and are provided in Table 4- 6. The electronic AERMOD and HARP2 output files are provided in Appendix D. Table 4-6. Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP Value UTM East UTM North Excess Cancer Risk 1.79E-05 305289.6 3908779.2 Chronic Hazard Index 8.51E-03 305289.6 3908779.2 As shown above in Table 4-6, the maximum predicted cancer risk for the proposed Project is 1.79E-05. The maximum chronic non-cancer hazard index for the proposed Project is 8.SlE-03. Since the PMI remained below the significance threshold for cancer and chronic risk, this Project would not have an adverse effect to any of the surrounding communities. The potential health risk attributable to the proposed Project is determined to be less than significant based on the following conclusions: 1. Potential carcinogenic risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of twenty in a million at each of the modeled receptors; and 2. The hazard index for the potential chronic non-cancer risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of 1.0 at each of the modeled receptors. 3. The hazard index for the potential acute non-cancer risk was not calculated since there is no acute risk associated with DPM emission; therefore, the proposed Project is considered below the significance level. Therefore, potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project would be less than significant. 4. 7 Potential I mpacts from Valley Fever The proposed project has the potential to generate fugitive dust and suspend Valley Fever spores with the dust that could then reach nearby sensitive receptors. It is possible that onsite workers could be exposed to Valley Fever spores as fugitive dust is generated during construction. In order to mitigate potential risk, the proposed Project would provide training and personal protective respiratory equipment to construction workers and provide information to all construction personnel and visitors about Valley Fever. Therefore, the exposure to Valley Fever would be minimized. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, dust from the construction of the proposed project would not add significantly to the existing exposure level of people to this fungus, including construction workers, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. 4.8 Potential Impacts from Asbestos Naturally occurring asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading of development projects, and at mining operations. Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-9 Serpentinite and/or ultramafic rock are known to be present in 44 of California's 58 counties. These rocks are particularly abundant in the counties associated with the Sierra Nevada foothills, the Klamath Mountains, and Coast Ranges. However, according to information provided by the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, the project site is not located in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be present (CDCDMG, 2000). Therefore, impacts associated with exposure of construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors to asbestos would be less than significant. 4 .9 Odor Impacts and Mitigation The SJVAPCD's GAMAQI states "An analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for both of the following two situations: 1. Generators -projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and 2. Receivers -residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources." (SJVAPCD 2015). The GAMAQI also states, "The District has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. These are presented in Table 6 (Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources), along with a reasonable distance from the source within which, the degree of odors could possibly be significant. [Table 6] can be used as a screening tool to qualitatively assess a project's potential to adversely affect area receptors." (SJVAPCD, 2015). Because the Project is a residential site and the anticipated activities for the Project site are not listed in Table 6 of the GAMAQI as a source that would create objectionable odors, the Project is not expected to be a source of objectionable odors. Based on the provisions of the SJVAPCD's GAMAQI, the proposed Project would not exceed any screening trigger levels to be considered a source of objectionable odors or odorous compounds (SJVAPCD, 2015). Furthermore, there does not appear to be any significant source of objectionable odors in close proximity that may adversely impact the Project site when it is in operation. Additionally, the Project emissions estimates indicate that it would not be expected to adversely impact surrounding receptors. As such, the proposed Project would not be a source of any odorous compounds nor would it likely be impacted by any odorous source. 4.10 Impacts to Ambient Air Quality An ambient air quality analysis was performed to determine if the proposed Project has the potential to impact ambient air quality through a violation of the ambient air quality standards or a substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality standard. The basis for the analysis is dispersion modeling and the Project_'s long-term air quality impacts shown in Table 4-4. The maximum off-site ground level concentration of each pollutant for the 1-hour, 3-hour, 8-hour, 24-hour, and annual periods was predicted using the most recent version of EPA's AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) dispersion software under the BREEZE AERMOD interface. SJVAPCD-approved, AERMET-processed UStar meteorological datasets for calendar years 2013 through 2017 was input to AERMOD (SJVAPCD 2017). This was the most recent available dataset available at the time the modeling runs were conducted. All of the regulatory default AERMOD model keyword parameters were employed. Rural dispersion parameters were used for this project as the majority of the land surrounding the project site is considered "rural" under the Auer land use classification method (Auer 1978). Pensinger-5. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quafity Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-10 Emissions were evaluated for each pollutant on a short-term (correlating to pollutant averaging period) and long-term (annual) basis, with the exception of CO that was evaluated only for short-term exposures since there are no long-term significance thresholds for CO. Most mobile emissions predicted by CalEEMod will occur beyond the project boundary because of vehicle trips. In order to determine the on-site vehicle emissions, an estimated on-site trip distance was determined by calculating the diagonal distance from the center of the project to the furthest corner. The on-site estimated trip distance for the Project was determined to be 0.22 miles for Tract 7408 and 0.18 miles for Tract 7415. The on-site estimated vehicle mil~s traveled (VMT) was then divided by the total VMT used in CalEEMod for the Project, in order to determine the on-site to off-site mobile emissions ratio for the Project, 2.03% for Tract 7408 and 1.69% for Tract 7415. The total mobile emissions calculated by CalEEMod for the project were then reduced to estimate the mobile on-site emissions used for ambient air quality modeling. A fence-line coordinate grid of receptor points was constructed. The grid consisted of a 25-meter fence-line spacing and three receptor tiers. The first tier had 25-meter tier spacing extending a distance of 100 meters with initial receptors starting 25 meters from the facility boundary. The second tier had SO-meter tier spacing extending a distance of 150 meters. Elevated terrain options were employed even though there is not complex terrain in the Project area. For each pollutant and averaging period modeled, a "total" concentration was estimated by adding the maximum measured background air concentration to the maximum predicted Project impacts. The maximum measured background air concentrations used in this analysis were calculated from measured concentrations at the nearest monitoring stations. The results of the air dispersion modeling, presented in Table 4-7, demonstrate that the maximum impacts attributable to the Project, when considered in addition to the existing background concentrations, are below the applicable ambient air quality standard for NOx, SOx, and CO. The electronic AERMOD output files are provided in Appendix E. Table 4-7. Predicted Ambient Air Quality Impacts Averaging Background Project Project+ NAAQS CAAQS Pollutant Period (µg/m3) {µg/m3) Background {µg/m3) (µg/m3) luQ/m3) N02 1-hour 115.10 17.53 132.63 188.68 338 Annual 20.37 0.83 21.20 100 56 1-hour 19.98 0.13 20.11 196 655 3-hour 17.98 0.07 18.06 1,300 ---502 24-hour 7.19 0.03 7.22 365 105 Annual 1.15 0.01 1.16 --- --- co 1-hour 3 262 60 3 322 40 000 23 000 8-hour 1 515 28 1 542 10 000 10 000 PM10 24-hour 437.00 0.51 437.51 150 50 Annual 237.07 0.10 237.17 ---20 24-hou r 72.30 0.11 72.41 35 ---PM2_5 Annual 7.10 0.02 7.12 12 12 Pre-Project concentrations of annual PM10 and PM2.5 exceed their respective ambient air quality standards. Therefore, these averaging periods for PM2.s and PM10 are evaluated in accordance with the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) procedure in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 52.21. It is Pensinge-r-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-11 EPA's policy to use significant impact levels (SIL) to determine whether a proposed new or modified source will cause or contribute significantly to an AAQS or PSD increment violation. The SJVAPCD has developed SILs for fugitive emissions of PM10 and PM2.s (SJVAPCD 2019). If a source's maximum impacts are below the SIL, the source is judged to not cause or contribute significantly to an AAQS or increment violation. A comparison of the proposed impact from the Project to the District SIL values is provided in Table 4-8. Because the Project's modelled annual PM10 and PM2.s are below the SJVAPCD's significance levels for 24-hour and annual concentrations, the Project's contribution to potential violations of ambient air quality standards would be less-than-significant Table 4-8. Comparison of Maximum Modeled Project Impacts with Significance Thresholds Pollutant Averaging Predicted SIL Period Concentration <ua I m3) foa/m3) PM10 24-hour 0.51 10.4 Annual 0.10 2.08 PM2.s 24-hour 0.11 2.5 Annual 0.02 0.63 4.11 Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Cli mate Change In the decade after South Coast AQMD adopted the Interim GHG Significance Threshold, several new laws and executive orders were adopted that require additional reductions in years after 2020. For instance, Senate Bill 32 (Lara, 2016) requires that GHG emissions be 40% less than 1990 levels by 2030. More drastic still, Senate Bill 100 (de Leon, 2018) which was signed by the Governor recently requires 100% zero-carbon electricity by 2045. On the day SB 100 was signed into law, the Governor also signed Executive Order B-55- 18 which commits California to total, economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. Clearly, the 2008 Guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today's standards which propose a grand vision that, if achieved, would fundament.ally change how business is conducted and citizens live in the State. Thus, as discussed in the most recent updates to the Scoping Plan, objectives of the Scoping Plan affect entire sectors of the economy and it no longer makes sense to evaluate GHG emissions on a project-level. For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in Table 4~9 are primarily for disclosure purposes because impact analysis for the Project follows the approach certified by South Coast AQMD in the Final Negative Declaration for the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plant-Crude Oil Storage Capacity Project on December 12, 2014 (South Coast AQMD, 2014). The approach used by South Coast AQMD to assess GHG impacts from that project recognizes that consumers of electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by requiring providers and importers of electricity and fuel to participate in the GHG Cap-and-Trade Program and other Programs (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, renewable portfolio standard, etc.). Each such sector-wide program exists within the framework of AB 32 and its descendant laws the purpose of which is to achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan. In summary, the Project would generate GHGs from electricity use and combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near the top of the supply-chain. As such, each citizen of California (including the operator of the Project) will have no choice but to purchase electricity and fuels produced in a way that is acceptable to the California market. Thus, Project GHG emissions will be consistent with the relevant plan (i.e., AB 32 Scoping Plan). The Project would meet its fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative impact of global climate change because the proposed Project will be purchasing energy from the California market. Thus, the Project would have a less than significant impact on applicable GHG reduction plans. Pensinger-5. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-12 Nonetheless, GHG emissions impacts from implementing the Project were calculated at the Project-specific level for construction and operations as explained in the previous paragraphs. Impact analysis for the Project follows the approach certified by South Coast AQMD in the Final Negative Declaration for the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plant -Crude Oil Storage Capacity Project on December 12, 2014 (South Coast AQMD, 2014). In summary, this approach takes into account the cumulative nature of the energy industry and recognizes that consumers of electricity and diesel fuel are in effect regulated by higher level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Table 4-9. Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT /Year) Source CO2 CH4 N20 C02e Mitiqated Construction Emissions Construction Emissions 3 338.08 0.11 0.11 3 373.20 Mitiqated Ooerational Emissions Mobile Emissions 5.296.06 0.25 0.22 5,373.01 Area Emissions 6.18 0.00 0.00 6.20 Enerqv Emissions 1,157.09 0.11 0.00 1,161.20 Water Emissions 41.51 0.66 0.02 62.98 Waste Emi ssions 40.12 4.01 0.00 140.36 Refriqerant Emissions 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 Total Proiect Operational Emissions 6,540.96 5.04 0.24 6,744.90 Annualized Construction Emission s1 111.27 0.00 0.00 112.44 Project Emissions 6,652.23 5.04 0.25 6,857.34 *Note: 0.00 could represent <0.00 Per South Coast AQMD's Methodoloav The Project will not result in the emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), or sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), the other gases identified as GHG in AB32. The proposed Project will be subject to any new regulations developed by CARB to address GHG emissions. 4.11.1 Feasible and Reasonable Mitigation Relative to Global Warming CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce the impacts from construction and operations on air quality. The SJVAPCD's "Non-Residential On-Site Mitigation Checklist" was utilized in preparing the mitigation measures and evaluating the projects features. These measures include using controls that limit the exhaust from construction equipment and using alternatives to diesel when possible. Additional reductions would be achieved through the regulatory process of the air district and CARB as required changes to diesel engines are implemented which would affect the product delivery trucks and limits on idling. While it is not possible to determine whether the Project individually would have a significant impact on global warming or climate change, the Project would potentially contribute to cumulative GHG emissions in California as well as related health effects. The Project emissions would only be a very small fraction of the statewide GHG emissions. However, without the necessary science and analytical tools, it is not possible to assess, with certainty, whether the Project's contribution would be cumulatively considerable, within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15065(a)(3) and 15130. CEQA, however, does note that the more severe environmental problems the lower the thresholds for treating a project's contribution to cumulative impacts as significant. Given the position of the legislature in AB32 which states that global warming poses serious detrimental effects, and the requirements of CEQA for the lead agency to determine that a project not have a cumulatively Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-13 considerable contribution, the effect of the Project's CO2 contribution may be considered cumulatively considerable. This determination is ''speculative," given the lack of clear scientific evidence or other criteria for determining the significance of the Project's contribution of GHG to the air quality in the SJVAB. The strategies currently being implemented by CARB may help in reducing the Project's GHG emissions and are summarized in the table below. Table 4-10. Select CARB GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Strategy Descriotion of Strateov AB 1493 (Pavley) required the state to develop and adopt regulations Vehicle Climate Change Standards that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of climate change emissions emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Requlations were adopted by CARB in Sept. 2004. Diesel Anti-Idling In July 2004, CARB adopted a measure to limit diesel-fueled retail motor vehicle idlinq. Other Light-Duty Vehicle New standards would be adopted to phase in beginning in the 2017 Technoloqy model year. Alternative Fuels: Biodiesel Blends CARB would develop regulations to require the use of 1 % to 4% Biodiesel displacement of California diesel fuel. Alternative Fuels: Ethanol Increased use of ethanol fuel. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission Increased efficiency in the design of heavy-duty vehicles and an Reduction Measures educational oroaram for the heavy-dutv vehicle sector. Not all of these measures are currently appropriate or applicable to the proposed Project. While future legislation could further reduce the Project's GHG footprint, the analysis of this is speculative and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, will not be further evaluated in this AQIA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 notes that sometimes the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-by- project basis. Global climate change is this type of issue. The causes and effects may not be just regional or statewide, they may also be worldwide. Given the uncertainties in identifying, let alone quantifying the impact of any single project on global warming and climate change, and the efforts made to reduce emissions of GHGs from the Project through design, in accordance with CEQA Section 15130, any further feasible emissions reductions would be accomplished through CARB regulations adopted pursuant to AB32. The Project will comply with all local and statewide air quality and climate plans; therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential I Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-14 5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS By its very nature, air pollution has a cumulative impact. The District's nonattainment status is a result of past and present development within the SJVAB. Furthermore, attainment of ambient air quality standards can be jeopardized by increasing emissions-generating activities in the region. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of the regional air quality standards. Instead, a project's emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, present, and future development within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. When assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect, the Lead Agency shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. "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 [CCR §15064(h)(1)]. Per CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3) 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) Attachment A of Kern County's Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports states "The following threshold are defined for purposes of determining cumulative effects as the baseline for "considerable". Projects in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District ... will be subject to the following significance thresholds". The thresholds outlined in the guidelines mirror the individual project significance thresholds of 15 tons per year for PM10 and 10 tons per year for NOx and ROG. Therefore, owing to the inherently cumulative nature of air quality impacts, the threshold for whether a project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact is simply whether the project would exceed project-level thresholds. Based on the analysis conducted for this Project, it is individually less than significant This AQIA, however, also considered impacts of the proposed Project in conjunction with the impacts of other projects previously proposed in the area. The following cumulative impacts were considered: ► Cumulative 03 Impacts (ROG and NOx) from numerous sources within the region including transport from outside the region. 03 is formed through chemical reactions of ROG and NOx in the presence of sunlight. ► Cumulative co Impacts produced primarily by vehicular emissions. ► Cumulative PM10 Impacts from within the region and locally from the various projects. Such projects may cumulatively produce a significant amount of PM10 if several projects conduct grading or earthmoving activities at the same time; and ► Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Impacts on sensitive receptors. 5.1 Cumu lative Regional Air Qual ity Impacts The most recent, certified SJVAB Emission Inventory data available from the SJVAPCD is based on data gathered for the 2020 annual inventory1• This data will be used to assist the SJVAPCD in demonstrating attainment of Federal 1-hour 03 Standards (SJVAPCD 2007). Table 5-1 provides a comparative look at the impacts proposed by the proposed Project to the SJVAB Emissions Inventory. 1 SJVAPCD Emissions for Aggregated Stationary, Area-Wide, Mobile, and Natural Sources Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 5-1 Table 5-1. Comparative Analysis Based on SJV Air Basin 2020 Inventory -Tons per Year ROG NOx co SOX PM10 PM2.s Kern Countv -2020 22,740 16,316 39)74 548 14,637 4)71 SJVAB-2020 114,939 72,015 241,630 2,336 99,390 24,966 Proposed Proiect 2.49 2.97 21.68 0.06 2.42 0.50 Proposed Project's % of Kern 0.011% 0.018% 0.055% 0.011% 0.017% 0.012% Prooosed Proiect's % of SJVAB 0.002% 0.004% 0.009% 0.003% 0.002% 0.002% Note: This is the latest inventory available as of May 2023 Source: CARB 2023b As shown in Table 5-1 the proposed Project does not pose a substantial increase to basin emissions, as such basin emissions would be essentially the same if the Project is approved. Table 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 provide CARB Emissions Inventory projections for the year 2025 for both the SJVAB and the Kern County portion of the air basin. Looking at the SJVAB Emissions predicted by the CARB year 2025 emissions inventory, the Kern County portion of the air basin is a moderate source of the emissions. The proposed Project produces a small portion of the total emissions in both Kern County and the entire SJVAB. Table 5-2. Emission Inventory SJVAB 2025 Projection -Tons per Year ROG NOx co SOX PM10 PM2.5 Total Emissions 107,346.5 52,450.5 145,963.5 2,920.0 95,922.0 21,279.5 Percent Stationary Sources 32.78% 19.28% 6.93% 85.00% 5.97% 15.44% Percent Area-Wide Sources 52.70% 5.15% 13.30% 3.75% 89.38% 71.87% Percent Mobile Sources 14.52% 75.57% 79.77% 11.25% 4.68% 12.86% Total Stationarv Source Emissions 35,186.0 10,110.5 10,110.5 2,482.0 5,730.5 3,285.0 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 56,575.0 2,701.0 19,418.0 109.5 85,738.5 15,293.5 Total Mobile Source Emissions 15 585.5 39 639.0 116.435.0 328.5 4 489.5 2 737.5 Source: CARB 2023b Note: Total mav not add due to roundinq Table 5-3. Emission Inventory SJVAB -Kern County Portion 2025 Projection -Tons per Year ROG NOx Total Emissions 21,352.5 10,804.0 Percent Stationary Sources 53.50% 25.68% Percent Area-Wide Sources 34.70% 4.05% Percent Mobile Sources 11.97% 70.27% Total Stationarv Source Emissions 11.424.5 2,774.0 Total Area -Wide Source Emissions 7 409.5 438.0 Total Mobile Source Emissions 2 555.0 7,592.0 Source: CARB 2023b Note: Total mav not add due to roundina Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential/ Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants co SOx PM10 PM2.5 24,674.0 474.5 13 651.0 3,686.5 15.83% 84.62% 11.76% 31.68% 7.69% 0.00% 82.62% 56.44% 76.33% 15.38% 5.61% 10.89% 3,905.5 401.5 1.606.0 1,168.0 1.898.0 0.0 11 278.5 2,080.5 18 834.0 73.0 766.5 401.5 5-2 Table 5-4. 2025 Emissions Projections -Proposed Project, Kem County, and SJVAB ROG NOx PM10 Proposed Project 2.49 2.97 2.42 Kern County 21,353 10,804 13,651 SJVAB 107,347 52 451 95 922 Prooosed Project Percent of Kern Countv 0.012% 0.027% 0.018% Proposed Proiect Percent of SJVAB 0.002% 0.006% 0.003% Kern County Percent of SJVAB 19.89% 20.60% 14.23% Source: CARB 2023b As shown above, the proposed Project would pose an inconsequential impact on regional 03. and PM10 formation. The regional contribution to these cumulative impacts would be negligible and additionally, the Project would not exceed cumulatively considerable thresholds since the Project would be less than thresholds outlined in Kern County's Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports. Therefore, this Project would not be considered cumulatively considerable in its contribution to regional Q3 and PM10 impacts. 5.2 Cumulative Local Air Quality Impacts Tentative development projects within a one-mile radius of the proposed Project area were identified; however, the details provided for these projects do not provide enough information to accurately estimate their potential emissions. The cumulative projects are typically listed only as geographical reference to demonstrate the construction activity within a one-mile radius of the proposed Project . The number and sizes of these projects are of no particular significance since the cumulative considerable thresholds established by Kern County are based on Project specific thresholds which are inherently cumulative in nature. As details regarding the various cumulative projects were not readily available, emissions estimates were not calculated. As these projects are either currently under construction or, at a minimum, approved by the planning department for consistency with applicable regulation, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that they are in conformance with the regional AQAP. The cumulative projects are already approved or pending approval it is assumed that these projects are in conformance with the regional AQAP. Additionally, the proposed Project would generate less-than-significant impacts to criteria air pollutants, the Project's incremental contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3); (SJVAPCD 2015). 5.3 Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants The GAMAQI also states that when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs, "impacts of local pollutants (CO, HAPs) are cumulatively significant when modeling shows that the combined emissions from the project and other existing and planned projects will exceed air quality standards." Because the Project would not be a significant source of HAPs, the proposed Project would also not be expected to pose a significant cumulative CO or HAPs impact 5.4 Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (CO) -Mobile Sources The SJVAPCD's GAMAQI has identified CO impacts from impacted traffic intersections and roadway segments as being potentially cumulatively considerable. Traffic increases and added congestion caused by a project can combine to cause a violation of the SJVAPCD's CO standard also known as a "Hotspot". There are two criteria established by the GAMAQI by which CO "Hot Spot" modeling is required: Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential I Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 5-3 ► A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOSE or F; or ► A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity. According to the Project proponent, at the time of this analysis no traffic generation assessment impact study was prepared for this Project. However, due to the location and traffic increase anticipated from this Project, impacted intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at a LOS of C or better. Therefore, CO "Hotspot" Modeling was not conducted for this Project and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed. Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 5-4 6. CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN Air quality impacts from proposed projects within Kern County are controlled through policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the Kern County General Plan (KCPD 2009). In order to demonstrate that a proposed project would not cause further air quality degradation in either the SJVAPCD's plan to improve air quality within the air basin or the federal requirements to meet certain air quality compliance goals, each project should also demonstrate consistency with the SJVAPCD's adopted Air Quality Attainment Plans (AQAP) for Q3 and PM10. The SJVAPCD is required to submit a "Rate of Progress" document to CARB that demonstrates past and planned progress toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires air pollution control districts with severe or extreme air quality problems to provide for a 5% reduction in non~attainment emissions per year. The AQAP prepared for the San Joaquin Valley by the SJVAPCD complies with this requirement. CARB reviews, approves or amends the document and forwards the plan to the EPA for final review and approval within the SIP. Air pollution sources associated with stationary sources are regulated through the permitting authority of the SJVAPCD under the New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule (SJVAPCD Rule 2201). Owners of any new or modified equipment that emits, reduces or controls air contaminants, except those specifically exempted by the SJVAPCD, are required to apply for an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate (SJVAPCD Rule 2010). Additionally, best available control technology (BACD is required on specific types of stationary equipment and are required to offset both stationary source emission increases along With increases in cargo carrier emissions if the specified threshold levels are exceeded (SJVAPCD Rule 2201, 4.7.1). Through this mechanism, the SJVAPCD would ensure that all stationary sources within the project area would be subject to the standards of the SJVAPCD to ensure that new developments do not result in net increases in stationary sources of criteria air pollutants. 6.1 Required Eval uation Guidelines State CEQA Guidelines and the Federal Clean Air Act (Sections 176 and 316) contain specific references on the need to evaluate consistencies between the proposed project and the applicable AQAP for the project site. To accomplish this, CARS has developed a three-step approach to determine project conformity with the applicable AQAP: 1. Determination that an AQAP is being implemented in the area where the project is being proposed The SJVAPCD has implemented the current, modified AQAP as approved by CARB. 2. The proposed project must be consistent with the growth assumptions of the applicable AQAP. The proposed Project land use type was not anticipated in the current growth assumptions. Therefore, growth assumptions in the Kern County General Plans will be modified with the approval of the proposed Project. 3. The project must contain in its design all reasonably available and feasible air quality control measures. The proposed project incorporates various policy and rule-required implementation measures that will reduce related emissions. The CCAA and AQAP identify transportation control measures as methods to further reduce emissions from mobile sources. Strategies identified to reduce vehicular emissions such as reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle. use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, and traffic congestion, in order to reduce vehicular emissions, can be implemented as control measures under the CCAA as well. Additional measures may also be implemented through the building process such as providing electrical outlets on exterior walls of structures to encourage use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment or measures such as electrical outlets for electrical systems on diesel trucks to reduce or eliminate idling time. Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential I Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 6-1 As the growth represented by the proposed Project will be updated in the Kern County General Plan and incorporated into the AQAP, conclusions may be drawn from the following criteria: 1. That, by definition, the proposed emissions from the Project are below the SJVAPCD's established emissions impact thresholds; 2. That the primary source of emissions from the Project will be motor vehicles that are licensed through the State of California and whose emissions are already incorporated into CARB's San Joaquin Valley Emissions Inventory. Based on these factors, the Project appears to be consistent with the AQAP. 6.2 Consistency with the Kern County Council of Government's Regional Conformity Analysis The Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) Regional Conformity Analysis (Kern COG 2018) Determination demonstrates that the regional transportation expenditure plans (Destination 2042 Regional Transportation Plan and Federal Transportation Improvement Program) in the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley air quality attainment areas would not hinder the efforts set out in CARB's SIP for each area's non-attainment pollutants (CO, 03, and PM10). The analysis uses an adopted regional growth forecast, governed by both the adopted Kern COG Policy and Procedure Manual and a Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Kern and Kern COG (representing itself and outlying municipal member agencies). The Kern COG Regional Conformity Analysis considers General Plan Amendments (GPA) and zone changes that were enacted at the time of the analysis as projected growth within the area based on land use designations incorporated within the Kern County General Plan. Land use designations that are altered based on subsequent GPAs that were not included in the Regional Conformity Analysis were not incorporated into the Kern COG analysis. Consequently, if a proposed project is not included in the regional growth forecast using the latest planning assumptions, it may not be said to conform to the regional growth forecast. Under the current City of Bakersfield Zoning, the Project site is designated as "LR: Low Density Residential" (see Figure 6-1). Figure 6-1. City of Bakersfield Zoning Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 6-2 Table 6-1 provides the projected growth rates for the TAZ analysis area. Table 6-1. TAZ Analysis Area Projected Growth Analysis2 Years 2017 2020 2030 Population 19,863 23,339 29,073 Households 5,303 6,313 8,249 Employment 2,184 2,632 4,199 Table 6-2 provides the percent increase/decrease for the analysis area population, households, and employment. Table 6-2. Percent Increase/Decrease on TAZ Analysis Area Years Percent Increase ' Decrease Population Households Emolovment 2017* 0 0 0 2020 17% 19% 21% 2030 25% 31% 60% *Baseline vear of 2017 was valued at "O" to measure net oercent increase/decrease. 2 Kern Council of Governments Regional Conformity Analysis Data, 2018 Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 6-4 7. MITIGATION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED MEASURES As the estimated construction and operational emissions from the proposed Project would be less than significant, no specific mitigation measures would be required. However, to ensure that Project is in compliance with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations and emissions are further reduced, the applicant should implement and comply with a number of measures that are either recommended as a "good operating practice" for environmental stewardship or they are required by regulation. Some of the listed measures are regulatory requirements or construction requirements that would result in further emission reductions through their inclusion in Project construction and long-term design. The following measures either have been applied to the Project through the CalEEMod model and would be incorporated into the Project by design or would be implemented in conjunction with SJVAPCD rules as conditions of approval. 7.1 SJVAPCD Required PM 10 Reduction Measures As the Project would be completed in compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, dust control measures would be taken to ensure compliance specifically during grading and construction phases. The required Regulation VIII measures are as follows: ► Water previously exposed surfaces (soil) whenever visible dust is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity. ► Water all unpaved haul roads a minimum of three-times/day or whenever visible dust from such roads is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity. ► Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. ► Install and maintain a track out control device that meets the specifications of SJVAPCD Rule 8041 if the site exceeds 150 vehicle trips per day or more than 20 vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or more axles. ► Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for production purposes using water, chemical stabilizers or by covering with a tarp or other suitable cover. ► Control fugitive dust emissions during land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, leveling, grading, or cut and fill operations with application of water or by presoaking. ► When transporting materials offsite, maintain a freeboard limit of at least 6 inches and cover or effectively wet to limit visible dust emissions. ► Limit and remove the accumulation of mud and/or dirt from adjacent public roadways at the end of each workday. (Use of dry rotary brushes is prohibited except when preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit visible dust emissions and use of blowers is expressly forbidden). ► Stabilize the surface of storage piles following the addition or removal of materials using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants. ► Remove visible track-out from the site at the end of each workday. ► Cease grading or other activities that cause excessive (greater than 20% opacity) dust formation during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one-hour period). 7 .2 Recommended Measures to R.educe Equipment Exhaust In addition, the GAMAQI guidance document lists the following measures as approved and recommended for construction activities. These measures are recommended: ► Maintain all construction equipment as recommended by manufacturer manuals. ► Shut down equipment when not in use for extended periods. ► Use electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment. Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 7-1 ► Curtail use of high-emitting construction equipment during periods of high or excessive ambient pollutant concentrations. ► All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce NOx emissions. ► On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under manufacturer's guidelines. ► On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) if permitted under manufacturer's guidelines. ► All construction workers shall be encouraged to shuttle (car-pool) to retail establishments or to remain on-site during lunch breaks. ► All construction activities within the project area shall be discontinued during the first stage smog alerts. ► Construction and grading activities shall not be allowed during first stage Q3 alerts. First stage Q3 alerts are declared when the Q3 level exceeds 0.20 ppm (1-hour average). 7.3 Other Measures to Reduce Project Impacts The following measures are recommended to further reduce the potential for long-term emissions from the Project. These measures are required as a matter of regulatory compliance: ► The Project design shall comply with applicable standards set forth in Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code to minimize total consumption of energy. ► Applicants shall be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures in the AQAP, SJVAPCD Rules, Traffic Control Measures, Regulation VIII and Indirect Source Rules for the SJVAPCD. ► The developer shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4601 -Architectural Coatings, during the construction of all buildings and facilities. Application of architectural coatings shall be completed in a manner that poses the least emissions impacts whenever such application is deemed proficient. ► The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4641 during the construction and pavement of all roads and parking areas within the project area. Specifically, the applicant shall not allow the use of: • Rapid cure cutback asphalt; • Medium cure cutback asphalt; • Slow cure cutback asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.3); or Emulsified asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.4). • The developer shall comply with applicable provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review). Pensinger-5. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Anafysis Trinity Consultants 7-2. 8 . LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The proposed Project would have short-term air quality impacts due to facility construction activities as well as vehicular emissions. Both of these impacts would be mitigated and were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation. The proposed Project would result in long-term air quality impacts due to operational and related mobile source emissions. These impacts would be mitigated and were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation. The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative short-term and long-term impacts to air quality. The proposed Project's incremental contribution to these impacts would be mitigated, are below thresholds of significance, and would not be considered cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts were found to be less than significant The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative long-term impacts to global climate change. The proposed Project's incremental contribution to these impacts will be mitigated to the extent feasible and are considered less than significant Pensinger-5. Allen Multi-Family Residential I Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 8-1 9. REFERENCES California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model™ (CalEEMod), version 2022.1, released April 2022. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2023a. website -Background Emissions Data. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam, accessed April 2023. --------. 2019. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. 2019. https: //ww3.arb.ca .gov /cc/inventOly/pubs/reports/2000 2017 /ghg inventory trends 00-17. pdf --------, 2023b. Almanac Emission Projection Data. https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/2017/emssumcat.php, accessed September 2022. --------. 2016. "Ambient Air Quality Standards." May 4, 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf --------. 2015. Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) User Guide. https: //ww2.arb.ca .gov /sites/default/files/classic//toxics/harp/docs2/harp2admrtuserguide. pdf, accessed November 2022. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2006. Climate Action Team (CAT) Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. http://www.climatechange.ca .gov/ climate action team/reports/2006report/2006-04- 03 FINAL CAT REPORT.PDF. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. 2023. (Public Resources Code 21000 to 21177) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 -15387). --------. 2018. Appendix G -Environmental Checklist Form, Final Text. December 28, 2018. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR ARS FINAL full wcover.pdf ---------. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. Kern County GIS. 2022. Bakersfield, CA. Interactive County Map (GIS Tool) I Kern County, CA, Accessed November 2022. Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG). August 2018. Draft Air Quality Conformity Analysis. Kern County Planning Department (KCPD). 2009. Kern County General Plan Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2022a. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm, accessed September 2022. Pensinger-5. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 9-1 --u------. 2022b. Air Monitoring Location Map. http://valleyair.org/aginfo/air-monitoring.htm, accessed September 2022. ----------. 2017. UStar Meteorological Datasets for Bakersfield 2013-2017. https: //www.valleyair.org/busind/ptoITox Resources/AirOualityMonitoring. htm#met data ----------. 2019. APR 1925 Policy for District Rule 2201 AAQA Modeling. March 10, 2019. ----------. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015. ----------. 2007. SJVAB Emissions Inventory to Demonstrating Attainment of Federal 1-hour 03 Standards, SJVAPCD. September 2007. United Nations, 2011. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoa1s/pdf /(2011 E)%20MDG%20Report%202011 Book%20LR.pdf United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2019. International Energy Outlook 2019. https: //www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf /ieo2019. pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2019. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2017. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas- emissions-and-sinks. April 11, 2019. United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. http://nca2014.qlobalchange.gov/, accessed September 2019. Western Regional Climate Center, 2023. Bakersfield, California, Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 10/01/1937 to 6/09/2016. https://wrcc,dri.edu/cgj-bin/cljMAIN.pl?ca0444, accessed February 2023. Pensinger-5. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 9-2 APPEN DIX A. EXISTING AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants A-1 ■rl~lmlil ~ CALIFORNIA tf r\\"\ AIR RESOURCES BOARD About Our Work Resources Business Assistance Rulemaking News Top 4 Summary: Highest 4 Daily 24-Hour PM2.5 Averages --.-~~·---·- at Bakersfield-Golden State Highway ... 2019 2020 2021 Date 24-Hr Date 24-Hr Date 24-Hr Average Average Average National: First High: Jan 27 66.1 Aug 22 150.2 Oct4 78.5 Second High: Jan 30 47.4 Sep 15 81.5 Dec4 63.3 Third High: Nov 8 44.3 Oct 3 76.9 Nov 19 59.1 Fourth High: Nov 17 36.7 Aug 19 50.2 Nov 20 59.1 California: First High: Jan 27 66.1 Aug 22 150.2 Oct4 78.5 Second High: Jan 30 47.4 Sep 15 81.5 Dec4 63.3 Third High: Nov8 44.3 Oct 3 76.9 Nov 19 59.1 Fourth High: Nov 17 36.7 Aug 19 50.2 Nov 20 59.1 National: '06 Estimated # Days > 24-12.2 33.9 45.6 Hr Std: '06 Measured # Days > 24-4 10 43 Hr Std: 2006 24-Hr Std Design 59 61 59 Value: 2006 24-Hr Std 98th 44.3 76.9 54.3 Percentile: 2006 Annual Std Design 15.5 16.6 16.6 Value: 2012 Annual Std Design 15.5 16.6 16.6 Value: '06 Annual Average: 12.3 19.4 17.8 California: Annual Std Designation 18 18 • Value: Annual Average: 12.4 . • Year Coverage: 99 91 91 Notes: Daily PM2.5 averages and related statistics are available at Bakersfield-Golden State Highway between 1999 and 2021. Some years in this range may not be represented. All averages expressed in micrograms per cubic meter. An exceedance of a standard is not necessarily related to a violation of the standard. State statistics are based on California approved samplers, whereas national statistics are based on samplers using federal reference or equivalent methods. State and national statistics may therefore be based on different samplers. Year Coverage indicates the extent to which available monitoring data represent the time of the year when concentrations are expected to be highest. 0 means that data represent none of the high period; 100 means that data represent the entire high period. A high Year Coverage does not mean that there was sufficient data for annual statistics to be considered valid. • means there was insufficient data available to determine the value. 111:J[EllmliJ C4.. CALIFORNIA rf ~ AIR RESOURCES BOARD About Our Work Resources Business Assistance Rulemaking News Top 4 Summary: Highest 4 Daily Maximum Hourly Nitrogen Dioxide Measurements at Shafter-Walker Street 2019 2020 2021 iADlllf Date Measurement Date Measurement Date Measurement National: First High: Nov8 Second High: Nov 1 Third High: Nov 18 Fourth High: Nov9 California: First High: Nov 8 Second High: Nov 1 Third High: Nov 18 Fourth High: Nov9 National: 1-Hour Standard Design Value: 1-Hour Standard 98th Percentile: # Days Above the Standard: Annual Standard Design Value: California: 1-Hour Std Designation Value: Expected Peak Day Concentration: # Days Above the Standard: Annual Std Designation Value: Annual Average: Year Coverage: Notes: 49.3 45.8 43.3 40.8 49 45 43 40 38 36.9 0 9 50 46 0 9 8 98 Dec2 Oct 30 Nov 16 Nov 28 Dec 2 Oct 30 Nov 16 Nov 2 40.9 39.7 35.3 34.2 40 39 35 34 36 32.5 0 9 40 44 0 9 8 99 Dec 1 Nov30 Dec2 Sep30 Dec 1 Nov30 Dec 2 Sep 30 47.8 46.0 37.5 36.7 47 46 37 36 34 32.9 0 8 40 42 0 8 8 87 Hourly nitrogen dioxide measurements and related statistics are available at Shafter-Walker Street between 1989 and 2021. Some years in this range may not be represented. All concentrations expressed in parts per billion. An exceedance of a standard is not necessarily related to a violation of the standard. Year Coverage indicates the extent to which available monitoring data represent the time of the year when concentrations are expected to be highest. 0 means that data represent none of the high period; 100 means that data represent the entire high period. A high Year Coverage does not mean that there was sufficient data for annual statistics to be considered valid. • means there was insufficient data available to determine the value. llr.Jl:llmEI ~ CALIFORNIA if~ AIR RESOURCES BOARD About Our Work Resources Business Assislance Rulemaking News Top 4 Summary: Highest 4 Daily 24-Hour PM2.5 Averages •· --___. .•. .--·-···--··-·-·-·-··-·-·· -·~·· ----·-··•--·•--·•-·· .. ••·········--··-·~--··~·-•-'·-·•-_.,..,,.,,.,-~----·-·-~-~-..... ..,. ··--------·- at Bakersfield-5558 California Avenue __, 2019 2020 2021 Date 24-Hr Date 24-Hr Date 24-Hr Average Average Average National: First High: Jan 27 59.1 Aug 22 150.7 Oct 30 72.3 Second High: Jan 29 57.6 Jul4 141.9 Oct4 69.4 Third High: Jan 28 53.1 Aug 21 130.2 Oct 29 66.4 Fourth High: Jan 26 52.3 Aug 20 82.7 Nov 19 59.5 California: First High: Jan 27 59.1 Aug 22 159.7 Oct 30 72.3 Second High: Jan 29 57.6 Jul 4 143.9 Oct 4 70.5 Third High: Jan 28 53.1 Aug 21 136.8 Oct 29 66.4 Fourth High: Jan 26 52.3 Aug 23 88.9 Nov 19 59.5 National: '06 Estimated # Days > 24-12.3 46.4 43.2 Hr Std: '06 Measured # Days > 24-12 44 40 Hr Std: 2006 24-Hr Std Design 61 64 60 Value: 2006 24-Hr Std 98th 43.4 79.2 56.9 Percentile: 2006 Annual Std Design 15.2 16.4 16.1 Value: 2012 Annual Std Design 15.2 16.4 16.1 Value: '06 Annual Average: 11 .8 19.7 16.5 California: Annual Std Designation 16 20 20 Value: Annual Average: 11.5 19.7 16.6 Year Coverage: 98 97 95 Notes: Daily PM2.5 averages and related statistics are available at Bakersfield-5558 California Avenue between 1999 and 2021. Some years in this range may not be represented. All averages expressed in micrograms per cubic meter. An exceedance of a standard is not necessarily related to a violation of the standard. State statistics are based on California approved samplers, whereas national statistics are based on samplers using federal reference or equivalent methods. State and national statistics may therefore be based on different samplers. Year Coverage indicates the extent to which available monitoring data represent the time of the year when concentrations are expected to be highest. O means that data represent none of the high period; 100 means that data represent the entire high period. A high Year Coverage does not mean that there was sufficient data for annual statistics to be considered valid. * means there was insufficient data available to determine the value. ■r.l~mllil ~ CALIFORNIA If~ AIR RESOURCES BOARD About Our Work Resources Business Assistance Rulemaking News Top 4 Summary: Highest 4 Daily Maximum Hourly Ozone Measurements ----·--··· . ·••-................. ., ................................................. -········ .-.................. -. ·-··-···· ............... '"······ ... ·• ................... _............................ . at Bakersfield-5558 California Avenue 2019 Date First High: Jul25 Second High: Jun 4 Third High: Jun 11 Fourth High: Jun 18 California: # Days Above the Standard: California Designation Value: Expected Peak Day Concentration: National: # Days Above the Standard: 3-Year Estimated Expected Number of Exceedance Days: 1-Year Estimated Expected Number of Exceedance Days: Notes: Nat'/ Standard Design Value: Year Coverage: Measurement 0.097 0.095 0.092 0.092 2 0.10 0.102 0 0.0 0.0 0.104 99 Date Aug 21 Aug 19 Aug 22 Aug 24 2020 Measurement 0.110 0.107 0.107 0.091 3 0.10 0.101 0 0.0 0.0 0.107 99 Date Jun 29 Aug 28 Jul27 Sep 7 iADaM 2021 Measurement 0.090 0.087 0.083 0.083 0 0.1 0 0.095 0 0.0 0.0 0.097 99 Hourly ozone measurements and related statistics are available at Bakersfield-5558 California Avenue between 1994 and 2021. Some years in this range may not be represented. All concentrations expressed in parts per million. The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked in June 2005. Statistics related to the national 1-hour ozone standard are shown in or . An exceedance of a standard is not necessarily related to a violation of the standard. Year Coverage indicates the extent to which available monitoring data represent the time of the year when concentrations are expected to be highest. O means that data represent none of the high period; 100 means that data represent the entire high period. A high Year Coverage does not mean that there was sufficient data for annual statistics to be considered valid. * means there was insufficient data available to determine the value. llr.Jl::JHiHil ~ CALIFORNIA rf ~ AIR RESOURCES BOARD About OurWork Resources BusinessAssistance Rulemaking News Top 4 Summary: Highest 4 Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Averages at Bakersfield-5558 California Avenue iA1DIIM 2019 2020 2021 Date 8-Hr Average Date 8-Hr Average Date 8-Hr Average National 2015 Std (0.070 ppm): First High: JuI 25 0.088 Aug 21 0.098 Aug 28 0.080 Second High: Jun 4 0.085 Aug 22 0.094 Jun 17 0.079 Third High: Jun 5 0.081 Aug 19 0.085 Aug 29 0.079 Fourth High: Jun 18 0.081 Sep5 0.083 Jun 18 0.077 California Std (0.070 ppm): First High: Jul25 0.088 Aug 21 0.098 Aug 28 0.081 Second High: Jun 4 0.086 Aug 22 0.094 Aug 29 0.080 Third High: Jun 5 0.082 Aug 19 0.086 Jun 17 0.079 Fourth High: Jun 18 0.082 Sep 5 0.083 Jun 18 0.077 National 2015 Std (0.070 ppm): # Days Above the Standard: 24 25 11 Nat'I Standard Design 0.087 0.085 0.080 Value: National Year Coverage: 99 99 100 California Std (0.070 ppm): # Days Above the Standard: 28 25 11 California Designation 0.096 0.094 0.088 Value: Expected Peak Day 0.096 0.095 0.090 Concentration: California Year Coverage: 97 97 99 Notes: Eight-hour ozone averages and related statistics are available at Bakersfield-5558 California Avenue between 1994 and 2021. Some years in this range may not be represented. All averages expressed in parts per million. An exceedance of a standard is not necessarily related to a violation of the standard. State and national statistics may differ for the following reasons: National 8-hour averages are truncated lo three decimal places; State 8-hour averages are rounded to three decimal places. State criteria for ensuring that data are sufficiently complete for calculating 8-hour averages are more stringent than the natloRa1 criteria. Daily maximum 8-hour averages associated with the National 0.070 ppm standard exclude those 8-hour averages that have first hours between midnight and 6:00 am, Pacific Standard Time. Daily maximum 8-hour averages associated with the National 0.070 ppm standard include only those 8-hour averages from days that have sufficient data for the day to be considered valid. Year Coverage indicates the extent to which available monitoring data represent the time of the year when concentrations are expected to be highest. 0 means that data represent none of the high period; 100 means that data represent the entire high period. A high Year Coverage does not mean that there was sufficient data for annual statistics to be considered valid. * means there was insufficient data available to determine the value. IIC liltmlil C4.. CALIFORNIA f -~ AIR RESOURCES BOARO About Our Work Resources Business Assistance Rutemaking News Top 4 Summary: Highest 4 Daily 24-Hour PM10 Averages ----------- ------· at Bakersfield-Golden State Highway iADIIM 2019 2020 2021 Date 24-Hr Date 24-Hr Date 24-Hr Average Average Average National: First High: Oct30 652.2 Oct 6 1468 Oct25 175.0 Second High: Nov 5 116.4 Sep 12 143.1 Oct 1 134.9 Third High: Nov 11 98.7 Aug19 127.3 Aug 20 126.5 Fourth High: Oct24 90.3 Nov 5 127.2 Sep 25 112.4 California: First High: Oct30 664.2 Oct 6 144.0 Oct 25 176.3 Second High: Nov5 117.4 Sep 12 140.8 Oct 1 133.1 Third High: Nov 11 99.5 Nov 5 128.4 Aug 20 122.8 Fourth High: Nov 17 90.2 Oct30 127.2 Sep 25 110.3 National: Estimated # Days > 24-Hr 6.6 0.0 Std: Measured # Days > 24-Hr 0 Std: 3-Yr Avg Est# Days > 24-Hr 6.0 4.0 • Std: Annual Average: 55.6 60.8 51.0 3-Year Average: 52 56 56 California: Estimated # Days > 24-Hr 129.7 * Std: Measured # Days > 24-Hr 21 26 25 Std: Annual Average: 55.6 3-Year Maximum Annual 56 56 56 Average: Year Coverage: 98 94 95 Notes: Daily PM10 averages and related statistics are available at Bakersfield-Golden State Highway between 1994 and 2021. Some years in this range may not be represented. All averages expressed in micrograms per cubic meter. The national annual average PM10 standard was revoked in December 2006 and is no longer in effect. Statistics related to the revoked standard are shown in italics or italtr.:s . An exceedance of a standard is not necessarily related to a violation of the standard. All values listed above represent midnight-to-midnight 24-hour averages and may be related to an exceptional event. State and national statistics may differ for the following reasons: State statisbcs <1re based on Ca•tom,a approved samp1ers, whereas national statistics al'8 based or, samplers using federal reference or equivalent methods. Slate and nallonal stahstics may therefore be based on different samµle111. Slate staUttlcs for 1996 and Iller ere bes&d on loc.81 condiHons {except for sites In the Soulh Coait Air Basin, wh&t'EI Slate atallsllcs for 2002 end later are based on beat oonditions). National statisHcs ere basod on sland~rd com.fllir,ms. State criteria for ensuring that data are sufficient~ cornp'leta for ca1cubting valid annual averages ore more stringent than the national criteria. Measurements are usually collected every six days. Measured days counts the days that a measurement was greater than the level of the standard; Estimated days mathematically estimates how many days concentrations would have been greater than the level of the standard had each day been monitored. 3-Year statistics represent the listed year and the 2 years before the listed year. Year Coverage indicates the extent to which available monitoring data represent the time of the year when concentrations are expected to be highest. 0 means that data represent none of the high period; 100 means that data represent the entire high period. A high Year Coverage does not mean that there was sufficient data for annual statistics to be considered valid. • means there was insufficient data available to determine the value. llrJl::JHi11D ~ CA L IFORNIA tf ~ AIR RESOURCES BOARD About Our Work Resources Business Assistance Rulemaking News Top 4 Summary: Highest 4 Daily Maximum Hourly Ozone Measurements ••· "•'•"-•""••-~-• .. • 000 ·• •M-__ ,,, .. ., ...... ~U ... •-•-~ •••••---'""•---•--·•-,. at Oildale-3311 Manor Street 2019 First High: Date Jul25 Aug 6 Aug 14 Aug 31 Second High: Third High: Fourth High: California: # Days Above the Standard: California Designation Value: Expected Peak Day Concentration: National: # Days Above the Standard: 3-Year Estimated Expected Number of Exceedance Days: 1-Year Estimated Expected Number of Exceedance Days: Notes: Nat'/ Standard Design Value: Year Coverage: Measurement 0.099 0.091 0.089 0.086 1 0.10 0.098 0 0.0 0.0 0.100 99 Date Aug 21 Aug 22 Aug 19 Sep 5 2020 Measurement 0.109 0.107 0.101 0.093 3 0.10 0.099 0 0.0 0.0 0.102 99 Date Aug 28 Aug 29 Aug 3 Sep 9 iADIM 2021 Measurement 0.107 0.102 0.099 0.099 6 0.10 0.099 0 0.0 0.0 0.102 98 Hourly ozone measurements and related statistics are available at Oildale-3311 Manor Street between 1983 and 2021. Some years in this range may not be represented. All concentrations expressed in parts per million. The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked in June 2005. Statistics related to the national 1-hour ozone standard are shown in or . An exceedance of a standard is not necessarily related to a violation of the standard. Year Coverage indicates the extent to which available monitoring data represent the time of the year when concentrations are expected to be highest. 0 means that data represent none of the high period; 100 means that data represent the entire high period. A high Year Coverage does not mean that there was sufficient data for annual statistics to be considered valid. * means there was insufficient data available to determine the value. lltlLEJm11:!1 C):... CALIFORNIA r '~ AIR RESOURCES BOARD About Our Work Resources Busiooss Assistance Rulemakiog News Top 4 Summary: Highest 4 Daily 24-Hour PM10 Averages at Oildale-3311 Manor Street 2019 Date National: First High: Oct30 Second High: Oct27 Third High: Nov 25 Fourth High: Oct 28 California: First High: Oct 30 Second High: Oct27 Third High: Nov25 Fourth High: Oct28 National: Estimated # Days > 24-Hr Std: Measured # Days > 24-Hr Std: 3-Yr Avg Est# Days> 24-Hr Std: Annual Average: 3-Year Average: California: Estimated # Days > 24-Hr Std: Measured # Days > 24-Hr Std: Annual Average: 3-Year Maximum Annual Average: Year Coverage: Notes: 24-Hr Average 389.3 382.7 339.6 233.7 392.1 384.2 344.1 238.0 8.1 8 46.6 52 118 0 2020 Date Sep 8 Nov6 Aug 22 Sep 14 Nov6 Aug22 Sep 15 Sep 14 24-Hr Average 517.2 277.8 230.4 225.3 277.3 221.0 219.6 219.3 17.4 15 10.0 57.3 53 • 123 0 2021 Date Oct 11 Oct4 Oct 25 Oct 1 Oct 11 Oct4 Oct 25 Oct 1 24-Hr Average 421.4 164.3 150.2 137.6 423.0 161.1 149,3 135.2 2.2 2 9.0 50.0 51 135.6 129 49.4 49 0 Daily PM10 averages and related statistics are available at Oildale-3311 Manor Street between 1988 and 2021. Some years in this range may not be represented. All averages expressed in micrograms per cubic meter. The national annual average PM10 standard was revoked in December 2006 and is no longer in effect. Statistics related to the revoked standard are shown in italics or italics . An exceedance of a standard is not necessarily related to a violation of the standard. All values listed above represent midnight-to-midnight 24-hour averages and may be related to an exceptional event. State and national statistics may differ for the following reasons: Stale statistics are based on Cal fornia approved samplers, whereas national statistics are baM!d on samplsrS us1r1g federal raferenoo Ot equivalent methods. Sla!Ei and national statistics may therefcra be bc1se<l on dCfferent samplers. Slate statistics for 1998 and later are based on bcalcond►tmris (except for sites tn the South Coasl AJr Basln, where Stale staltstics for 2002 and later are based on bcal conditions). Naltonal statistjcs are based on standard conditions. Stal8 etOOria for ens'-Jring that data are sufficiently oompklte for calculating vatid annual averages are more stringent than the national criteria. Measurements are usually collected every six days. Measured days counts the days that a measurement was greater than the level of the standard; Estimated days mathematically estimates how many days concentrations would have been greater than the level of the standard had each day been monitored. 3-Year statistics represent the listed year and the 2 years before the listed year. Year Coverage indicates the extent to which available monitoring data represent the time of the year when concentrations are expected to be highest O means that data represent none of the high period; 100 means that data represent the entire high period. A high Year Coverage does not mean that there was sufficient data for annual statistics to be considered valid. • means there was insufficient data available to determine the value. IID[:JHil~ ~ CALIFORNIA rf ~ AIR RESOURCES BOARD About Our Work Resources Business Assistance Rulemaking News Top 4 Summary: Highest 4 Daily Maximum Hourly Ozone Measurements •• _ .. _.,., •••-, . .,.-.• _,.,,_ •• .~,.u~,,.~,,~.,•-• __ ,._u,,..__ •• _,.,_,.u,.,., ......... ,._ -• •• -• •·• '•"""'''"" ---••P--i.amM at Shafter-Walker Street 2019 Date Measurement First High: Nov9 Jun 4 Aug 14 Aug 15 Second High: Third High: Fourth High: California: # Days Above the Standard: California Designation Value: Expected Peak Day Concentration: National: # Days Above the Standard: 3-Year Estimated Expected Number of Exceedance Days: 1-Year Estimated Expected Number of Exceedance Days: Notes: Nat'/ Standard Design Value: Year Coverage: 0.087 0.085 0.085 0.083 0 0.09 0.093 0 0.0 0.0 0.095 98 Date Aug 21 Aug 22 Aug 24 Aug 19 2020 Measurement 0.11 6 0.108 0.102 0.098 6 0.10 0.097 0 0.0 0.0 0.098 97 Date Aug 28 Aug 29 Jun 27 Jun 18 2021 Measurement 0.104 0.093 0.092 0.091 1 0.10 0.096 0 0.0 0.0 0.102 100 Hourly ozone measurements and related statistics are available at Shafter-Walker Street between 1989 and 2021. Some years in this range may not be represented. All concentrations expressed in parts per million. The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked in June 2005. Statistics related to the national 1-hour ozone standard are shown in or . An exceedance of a standard is not necessarily related to a violation of the standard. Year Coverage indicates the extent to which available monitoring data represent the time of the year when concentrations are expected to be highest. 0 means that data represent none of the high period; 100 means that data represent the entire high period. A high Year Coverage does not mean that there was sufficient data for annual statistics to be considered valid . .. means there was insufficient data available to determine the value. APPENDIX B. PROJECT EMISSION CALCULATIONS Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants B-1 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report r able of Contents I . Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector ~-Emissions Summary 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated 2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Site Preparation (2026) -Unmitigated 3.2. Site Preparation (2026) -Mitigated 3.3. Grading {2026) -Unmitigated 3.4. Grading (2026) -Mitigated 1175 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 3.5. Building Construction (2026) -Unmitigated 3.6. Building Construction (2026) -Mitigated 3.7. Building Construction (2027) -Unmitigated 3.8. Building Construction (2027) -Mitigated 3.9. Building Construction (2028) -Unmitigated 3.10. Building Construction (2028) -Mitigated 3.11 . Building Construction (2029) -Unmitigated 3.12. Building Construction (2029) -Mitigated 3.13. Paving (2029) -Unmitigated 3.14. Paving (2029) -Mitigated 3.15. Architectural Coating (2029) -Unmitigated 3.16. Architectural Coating {2029) -Mitigated i. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated 4.1.2. Mitigated 4.2. Energy TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 2/75 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use -Unmitigated 4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use -Mitigated 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use -Unmitigated 4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use -Mitigated 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.2. Unmitigated 4.3.1. Mitigated 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.2. Unmitigated 4.4.1. Mitigated 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.2. Unmitigated 4.5.1. Mitigated 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1 . Unmitigated 4.6.2. Mitigated 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 3/75 4. 7 .1. Unmitigated 4. 7 .2. Mitigated 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated 4.8.2. Mitigated 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1 . Unmitigated 4.9.2. Mitigated 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type -Unmitigated 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type -Unmitigated 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species -Unmitigated 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type -Mitigated 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type -Mitigated 4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species -Mitigated 5. Activity Data 5.1 . Construction Schedule 4/75 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated 5.2.2. Mitigated 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated 5.3.2. Mitigated 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 5.5. Architectural Coatings 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies 5.7. Construction Paving 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated 5.9.2. Mitigated TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 5/75 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.1 0.1.1 . Unmitigated 5.10.1.2. Mitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment 5.10.4. Landscape Equipment -Mitigated 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated 5.11 .2. Mitigated 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated 5.12.2. Mitigated 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1 . Unmitigated 5.13.2. Mitigated 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 6/75 5.14.1. Unmitigated 5.14.2. Mitigated 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.15.2. Mitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 7 /75 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2.2. Mitigated 3. User Changes to Default Data TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 8/75 1 . Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field Project Name Construction Start Date Operational Year Lead Agency Land Use Scale Analysis Level for Defaults Windspeed (m/s) Precipitation (days) Location County City Air District Air Basin TAZ EDFZ Electric Utility Gas Utility App Version 1.2. Land Use Types Land Use Subtype I I Size I Unit I Lot Acreage TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Value TRACT7408 1/2/2026 2029 Project/site County 2.70 18.0 35.30656458464 719, -119.14339736332865 Kern-San Joaquin Bakersfield San Joaquin Valley APCD San Joaquin Valley 2890 5 Pacific Gas & Electric Company Southern California Gas 2022 .1 .1 .1 2 I: Building Area (sq ft) 9/75 I Landscape Area (sq ft) I ' Special Landscape Area (sq ft) Population Description TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 2029 1.49 1.24 9.78 16.6 0.03 0.29 1.33 1.62 0.27 0.32 0.59 -4,169 4,169 0.12 0.18 4,225 Average Daily 2026 1.80 1.52 12.8 15.9 0.03 0.50 4.13 4.63 0.46 1.73 2.19 -3,698 3,698 0.13 0.10 3,731 2027 1.15 0.99 7.63 12.5 0.02 0.25 0.94 1.19 0.23 0.23 0.46 -3,065 3,065 0.09 0.13 3,108 2028 1.11 0.93 7.27 12.3 0.02 0.22 0.94 1.17 0.21 0.23 0.43 -3,044 3,044 0.09 0.13 3,086 2029 0.41 8.67 2.78 4.77 0.01 0.09 0.29 0.37 0.08 0.07 0.15 -1,028 1,028 0.03 0.03 1,040 Annual 2026 0.33 0.28 2.33 2.91 0.01 0.09 0.75 0.85 0.08 0.32 0.40 -612 612 0.02 0.02 618 2027 0.21 0.18 1.39 2.28 < 0.005 0.05 0.17 0.22 0.04 0.04 0.08 -507 507 0.01 0.02 515 2028 0.20 0.17 1.33 2.24 < 0.005 0.04 0.17 0.21 0.04 0.04 0.08 -504 504 0.01 0.02 511 2029 0.08 1.58 0.51 0.87 < 0.005 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.03 -170 170 0.01 0.01 172 2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated ::;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ------lllllllii&IN·MiHIMMiHi1WiH41·1i#U4il~=EIIHi=B+◄---- Daily- Summer (Max) 2026 3.72 3.13 27.3 29.0 0.06 1.12 2.64 3.76 1.03 1.01 2.04 -6,863 6,863 0.27 0.18 6,889 2027 1.64 1.42 10.6 19.0 0.03 0.35 1.33 1.68 0.32 0.32 0.64 -4,393 4,393 0.12 0.18 4,456 2028 1.58 1.36 10.1 18.6 0.03 0.31 1.33 1.65 0.29 0.32 0.61 -4,349 4,349 0.12 0.18 4,412 2029 0.86 55.4 6.50 10.7 0.01 0.24 0.22 0.42 0.22 0.05 0.26 -1,697 1,697 0.06 0.02 1,705 Daily- Winter (Max) 2026 3.82 3.21 29.2 29.6 0.06 1.24 5.32 6.57 1.14 2.68 3.82 -6,830 6,830 0.27 0.18 6,856 2027 1.60 1.38 10.7 17.1 0.03 0.35 1.33 1.68 0.32 0.32 0.64 -4,252 4,252 0.12 0.18 4,310 2028 1.54 1.29 10.2 16.9 0.03 0.31 1.33 1.65 0.29 0.32 0.61 -4,211 4,211 0.12 0.18 4,269 11 / 75 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 2029 1.49 1.24 9.78 16.6 0.03 0.29 1.33 1.62 0.27 0.32 0.59 -4,169 4,169 0.12 0.18 4,225 Average Daily 2026 1.80 1.52 12.8 15.9 0.03 0.50 1.54 2.04 0.46 0.56 1.02 -3,698 3,698 0.13 0.10 3,731 2027 1.15 0.99 7.63 12.5 0.02 0.25 0.94 1.19 0.23 0.23 0.46 -3,065 3,065 0.09 0.13 3,108 2028 1.11 0.93 7.27 12.3 0.02 0.22 0.94 1.17 0.21 0.23 0.43 -3,044 3,044 0.09 0.13 3,086 2029 0.41 8.67 2.78 4.77 0.01 0.09 0.29 0.37 0.08 0.07 0.15 -1,028 1,028 0.03 0.03 1,040 Annual 2026 0.33 0.28 2.33 2.91 0.01 0.09 0.28 0.37 0.08 0.10 0.19 -612 61 2 0.02 0.02 618 2027 0.21 0.18 1.39 2.28 < 0.005 0.05 0.17 0.22 0.04 0.04 0.08 -507 507 0.01 0.02 515 2028 0.20 0.17 1.33 2.24 < 0.005 0.04 0.17 0.21 0.04 0.04 0.08 -504 504 0.01 0.02 51 1 2029 0.08 1.58 0.51 0.87 < 0.005 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.03 -170 170 0.01 0.01 172 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated Jriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ------rlll-•Hii+MiHIMMii4MWiHhM·MiH~iiiEIIHi=ik-tW1!111llllmlllBIIII Daily, Summer (Max) Mobile 7.16 6.35 5.72 70.8 0.17 0.10 6.34 6.44 0.09 1.09 1.18 -17,884 17,884 0.83 0.69 18,1 51 Area 1.29 2.12 0.13 14.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 0.01 -0.01 0.00 37.8 37.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 37.9 Energy 0.29 0.14 2.45 1.04 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -4,406 4,406 0.49 0.03 4,427 Water -- - - -- ---- -19.3 106 125 2.00 0.05 190 Waste -- - --- -----121 0.00 121 12.1 0.00 423 Refrig. ----- -- ---------3.48 Total 8.74 8.61 8.29 86.0 0.19 0.30 6.34 6.64 0.29 1.09 1.39 140 22,433 22,574 15.4 0.77 23,233 Daily, Winter (Max) 12 / 75 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Mobile 6.34 5.51 6.65 53.9 0.16 0.10 6.34 6.44 0.09 1.09 1.18 -15,991 15,991 0.90 0.74 16,236 Area 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- Energy 0.29 0.14 2.45 1.04 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.20 I 0.20 4,406 4,406 0.49 0.03 4,427 --- Water -- --- ------19.3 106 125 2.00 0.05 190 ~-I Waste - --- - -- - - - -121 0.00 121 12.1 0.00 423 Refrig. - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - -3.48 Total 6.62 6.55 9.09 55.0 0.17 0.29 6.34 6.64 0.29 1.09 1.38 140 20,503 20,643 15.5 0.82 21,280 Average Daily Mobile 6.44 5.63 6.17 56.3 0.16 0.10 6.34 6.44 0.09 1.09 1.18 -16,515 16,515 0.86 0.71 16,767 Area 0.64 1.49 0.07 6.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 0.00 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 18.7 --~---. Energy 0.29 0.14 2.45 1.04 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -4,406 4,406 0.49 O.Q3 4,427 --~ Water - - - - ------ -19.3 106 125 2.00 0.05 190 Waste ' ' 121 0.00 121 12.1 0.00 423 --,_ ,-,-- - - - - - -~ Refrig. ----- - - - - -- - - - --3.48 Total 7.37 7.27 8.69 64.4 0.18 0.30 6.34 6.64 0.29 1.09 1.39 140 21,046 21 ,186 15.4 0.79 21,830 Annual Mobile 1.18 1.03 1.13 10.3 0.03 0.02 1.16 1.18 0.02 0.20 0.22 -2,734 2,734 0.1 4 0.12 2,776 Area 0.12 0.27 0.01 1.27 < 0.005 <0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 0.00 3.08 3.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.09 Energy 0.05 0.03 0.45 0.19 < 0.005 0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -729 729 0.08 0.01 733 ' Water -- - - -- - - - --3.20 17.5 20.7 0.33 0.01 31.4 -I • 1-Waste -I -I_ --- - - --20.0 0.00 20.0 2.00 0.00 70.0 ,_ __._ - Refrig. I - --I ----- -0.58 -- - ---- Total 1.34 1.33 1.59 11.7 0.03 0.05 1.16 1.21 0.05 0.20 0.25 23.2 3,484 3,508 2.56 0.13 3,614 2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated :riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 13/75 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ --------•Hii+M•HihM•HiiWiMUii·MiHlil-Hi:B+◄1lal ___ Daily, Summer (Max) Mobile 7.16 6.35 5.72 70.8 0.17 0.10 6.34 6.44 0.09 1.09 1.18 -17,884 17,884 0.83 0.69 18,151 Area 1.29 2.12 0.13 14.2 < 0.005 <0.005 -< 0.005 0.01 -0.01 0.00 37.8 37.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 37.9 Energy 0.29 0.14 2.45 1.04 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -3,487 3,487 0.34 0.01 3,500 Water - --- - - - - - --19.3 106 125 2.00 0.05 190 Waste - - -- - ------121 0.00 121 12.1 0.00 423 Refrig. - --- - - - --- - - - - - -3 .48 Total 8.74 8.61 8.29 86.0 0.19 0.30 6.34 6.64 0.29 1.09 1.39 140 21,515 21,655 15.3 0.75 22,306 Daily, Winter (Max) Mobile 6.34 5.51 6.65 53.9 0.16 0.10 6.34 6.44 0.09 1.09 1.18 -15,991 15,991 0.90 0.74 16,236 Area 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.29 0.14 2.45 1.04 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -3,487 3,487 0.34 0.01 3,500 Water - - - - - - - - - - -19.3 106 125 2.00 0.05 190 Waste --------- --121 0.00 121 12.1 0.00 423 Refrig. ------ --- - ------3.48 Total 6.62 6.55 9.09 55.0 0.17 0.29 6.34 6.64 0.29 1.09 1.38 140 19,584 19,725 15.3 0.80 20,352 Average Daily Mobile 6.44 5.63 6.17 56.3 0.16 0.10 6.34 6.44 0.09 1.09 1.18 -16,515 16,515 0.86 0.71 16,767 Area 0.64 1.49 0.07 6.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 0.00 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 18.7 Energy 0.29 0.14 2.45 1.04 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -3,487 3,487 0.34 0.01 3,500 Water ---------- -19.3 106 125 2.00 0.05 190 Waste - -- --- -- ---121 0.00 121 12.1 0.00 423 Refrig. -- - --- - -- - ------3.48 14/75 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Total 7.37 7.27 8.69 64.4 0.18 0.30 6.34 6.64 0.29 1.09 1.39 140 20,127 20,268 15.3 0.77 20,902 Annual Mobile 1.18 1.03 1.13 10.3 0.03 0.02 1.16 1.18 0.02 0.20 0.22 -2,734 2,734 0.14 0.12 2,776 Area 0.12 0.27 0.01 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 0.00 3.08 3.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.09 Energy 0.05 0.03 0.45 0.19 < 0.005 0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -577 577 0.06 < 0.005 579 Water -- --- - - - - - -3.20 17.5 20.7 0.33 0.01 31.4 Waste - - - - - - - - - - -20.0 0.00 20.0 2.00 0.00 70.0 Refrig. -- --- - - --- - - - - --0.58 Total 1.34 1.33 1.59 11.7 0.03 0.05 1 .16 1.21 0.05 0.20 0.25 23.2 3,332 3,356 2.53 0.13 3,461 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Site Preparation (2026) -Unmitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) il·i&IIH,il!llmllllll--mlll•HM·MiHIMMiHi1MiHi41·1•Hi4ii•=•Hi=M-tM!IIIEIIIIIIIIIIII Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 3.74 3.14 29.2 28.8 0.05 1.24 -1.24 1.14 -1.14 -5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 5,316 Equipmen1 Dust ----- -19.7 19.7 -10.1 10.1 From Material Movement Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck 15 / 75 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -2.86 2.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.90 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.2. Site Preparation (2026) -Mitigated :)riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) il·iiiii•i,i_lilll ___ lllliHii+MiHIMNiiM&i◄iHii·MiHiii•=•Hi=M+Walllmll-B!II Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 3.74 3.14 29.2 28.8 0.05 1.24 1.24 1.14 1.14 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 5,316 Equipmen1 Dust 5.11 5.11 2.63 2.63 From Material Movement Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Off-Road 0.31 0.26 2.40 2.37 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 435 435 0.02 < 0.005 437 Equipmen1 Dust 0.42 0.42 0.22 0.22 From Material Movement 17 /75 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 3.3. Grading (2026) -Unmitigated )riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual} and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ii·i¥\ii·iillZlllll!llllllll--lllll•Hh+MiHIMMi4~41Wihti·Mi4UiiillllHi=M+W-mlmlll- Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Off-Road 3.62 3.04 27.2 27.6 0.06 1.12 -1.12 1.03 -1.03 -6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 6,621 Equipmenl Dust -- - - - -9.20 9.20 -3.65 3.65 From Material Movement Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 3.62 3.04 27.2 27.6 0.06 1.12 -1.12 1.03 -1.03 -6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 6,621 Equipmen1 Dust --- ---9.20 9.20 -3.65 3.65 From Material Movement Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Off-Road 0.74 0.63 5.59 5.67 0.01 0.23 -0.23 0.21 -0.21 -1,356 1,356 0.06 0.01 1,361 Equipmeni Dust --- ---1.89 1.89 -0.75 0.75 From Material Movement 19 / 75 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.4. Grading (2026) -Mitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) i+i¥M·i:l-mlllmll--m•Hittlli•Hlt-iM•Hi1◄1HM+MiHiii•=EIIHi=B-tWBIIIIII-IIII Onsite Daily, Summer (Max} Off-Road 3.62 3.04 27.2 27.6 0.06 1.12 -1.12 1.03 -1.03 -6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 6,621 Equipment Dust -- --- -2.39 2.39 -0.95 0.95 From Material Movement Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 3.62 3.04 27.2 27.6 0.06 1.12 -1.12 1.03 -1.03 -6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 6,621 Equipment Dust ----- -2.39 2.39 -0.95 0.95 From Material Movement Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Off-Road 0.74 0.63 5.59 5.67 0.01 0.23 -0.23 0.21 -0.21 -1,356 1,356 0.06 0.01 1,361 Equipment 21 / 75 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202( Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -8.1 8 8.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 8 .30 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.5. Building Construction (2026) -Unmitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ii-1¥iii•i,i_mal _____ ,Hh+MiHIMMi4MMWi4M&i·MiHiiiEaHi=B-t◄mlllllllllllllllllll Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Off-Road 1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 -0.38 0.35 -0.35 -2,397 2,397 0.1 0 0.02 2 ,405 Equipment Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 -0.38 0.35 -0.35 -2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 2,405 Equipmenl Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Off-Road 0.54 0.45 4.18 5.51 0.01 0.16 -0.16 0.15 -0.15 -1,018 1,018 0.04 0.01 1,021 Equipmen1 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Annual Ott-Road 0.10 0.08 0.76 1.00 < 0.005 0.03 -0.03 0.03 -0.03 -169 169 0.01 < 0.005 169 Equipment 23 / 75 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Worker 0.43 0.39 0.33 6.22 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.10 0.00 0.26 0.26 -1,183 1,183 0.01 0.04 1,199 Vendor 0.04 0.03 0.95 0.31 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.08 -856 856 0.01 0.12 895 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.39 0.34 0.41 4.25 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.10 0.00 0.26 0.26 -1,038 1,038 0.02 0.04 1,051 Vendor 0.04 0.02 1.02 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.08 -857 857 0.01 0.12 894 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker 0.17 0.15 0.16 1.97 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.11 0.11 -458 458 0.01 0.02 464 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.42 0.13 < 0 .005 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.03 -364 364 < 0.005 0.05 380 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 -75.8 75.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 76.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 <0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 -60.2 60.2 < 0.005 0.01 62.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.6. Building Construction (2026) -Mitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ii·l&M·i,1-IDIIZlllllll-•HIM iHIM·MiHIMMi#MiiWiH41·1i#UHM•a-Hi:B+W1BIN--EII Onsite 24/75 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.39 0.34 0.41 4.25 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.10 0.00 0.26 0.26 -1,038 1,038 0.02 0.04 1,051 Vendor 0.04 0.02 1.02 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.08 -857 857 0.01 0.12 894 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker 0.17 0.15 0.16 1.97 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.11 0.11 -458 458 0.01 0.02 464 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.42 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.03 -364 364 < 0.005 0.05 380 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 -75.8 75.8 <0.005 < 0.005 76.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 O.Q1 0.01 -60.2 60.2 <0.005 0.01 62.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.7. Building Construction (2027) -Unmitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ii-MM·i,1·-lilllmll-llllm-ii~li+MiHIMMiiM&i◄iHtii·Mi#Uf.iiaaHi=B-tM1-mll-- onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Off-Road 1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.31 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 2,405 Equipmen1 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Daily, Winter (Max) 26 /75 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 -125 125 < 0.005 < 0.005 127 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 -99.0 99.0 < 0.005 0.01 103 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.8. Building Construction (2027) -Mitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ii·liili·i,1·-------•H@•MiHIMMiifii1Mi4Mi·MiiMiii-Hi=i+W1Bll-mll- Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Off-Road 1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 -0.34 0.31 -0.31 -2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 2,405 Equipmen1 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 -0.34 0.31 -0.31 -2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 2,405 Equipmen1 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Off-Road 0.88 0.74 6.71 9.24 0.02 0.24 -0.24 0.22 -0.22 -1,712 1,71 2 0.07 0.01 1,71 8 Equipmen1 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Annual 28 /75 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Ott-Road 0.16 0.13 1.22 1.69 < 0.005 0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -283 283 0.01 < 0.005 284 Equipment Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Worker 0.37 0.37 0.30 5.73 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.10 0.00 0.26 0.26 -1,159 1,159 0.01 0.04 1,175 Vendor 0.04 0.03 0.92 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.08 -837 837 0.01 0.12 876 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.34 0.33 0.37 3.90 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.10 0.00 0.26 0.26 -1,017 1,017 0.02 0.04 1,030 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.98 0.30 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.08 -838 838 0.01 0.12 875 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker 0.24 0.24 0.24 3.05 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.18 0.18 -755 755 0.01 0.03 765 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.68 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.06 -598 598 0.01 0.09 625 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 -125 125 < 0.005 < 0.005 127 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 -99.0 99.0 < 0.005 0.01 103 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.9. Building Construction (2028) -Unmitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ii-Sili·i:1·1111----•Hli-i 1Hli-i•l1#MMM1Hii◄i#¥tii·Mi#Uiii•=B-HHB+Wllllmlil-EIII 29/75 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.32 0.28 0.34 3.63 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.10 0.00 0.26 0.26 -998 998 0.02 0.04 1,011 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.95 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.08 -81 6 816 0.01 0.12 853 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker 0.23 0.20 0.21 2.83 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.18 0.18 -742 742 0.01 0.03 752 Vendor 0.03 O.Q1 0.66 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.06 -584 584 0.01 0.09 611 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 -123 123 < 0.005 < 0.005 125 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 -96.7 96.7 < 0.005 0.01 101 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.10. Building Construction (2028) -Mitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1+1¥M·i,llalllll ___ DlllliHii+MihiMMi#Ui◄i#Mi1·MiH4ii•=B-iii=B•tWBlllmlllEIIIIIII Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Off-Road 1.18 0.99 8.92 12.9 0.02 0.30 0.30 0.28 0.28 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 2,406 Equipmenl Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Daily, Winter (Max) 31 / 75 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 -123 123 < 0.005 < 0.005 125 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 -96.7 96.7 < 0.005 0.01 101 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11. Building Construction (2029) -Unmitigated ::;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) d-iiiil·i,l~-----•Hlt•j •Hlt+M•Hlt-•M•Hii1Wi@Ui1·1•4~iiii•=BIPHi=R-tMBIIIIIIIIBII- Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 1.15 0.97 8.58 12.9 0.02 0.28 -0.28 0.25 -0.25 -2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 2,405 Equipmen1 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Off-Road 0.20 0.17 1.48 2.22 < 0.005 0.05 -0.05 0.04 -0.04 -413 413 0.02 < 0.005 414 Equipmen1 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Annual Off-Road 0.04 0.03 0.27 0.41 < 0.005 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 -68.3 68.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 68.6 Equipmen1 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck 33/ 75 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max} Worker 0.30 0.26 0.30 3.37 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.10 0.00 0.26 0.26 -980 980 0.02 0.04 992 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.90 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.08 -793 793 0.01 0.12 828 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 -175 175 < 0.005 0.01 178 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 -136 136 < 0.005 0.02 143 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 -29.0 29.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 29.4 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 -22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.12. Building Construction (2029) -Mitigated '.:;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) il·i¥\li·i,1·-------•Hii+MiHlhMiH41WiPUi1·1•#UiilallHi=R+Wallll--BIII Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) 34/75 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Vendor < 0.005 <0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 -22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.13. Paving (2029) -Unmitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) il·i¥M·i,1·-1111mlll-EDlllll-iHii+MiHIMMiH41◄i4Mi1·1i4Mi-iillllllHi:@-►#1-lllllal- Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Off-Road 0.80 0.67 6.46 9.92 0.01 0.24 -0.24 0.22 -0.22 -1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 1,516 Equipment Paving -0.00 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Daily, Winter {Max) Off-Road 0.80 0.67 6.46 9.92 0.01 0.24 -0.24 0.22 -0.22 -1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 1,516 Equipment Paving -0.00 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Off-Road 0.12 0.1 0 0.97 1.49 < 0.005 0.04 -0.04 0.03 -0.03 -228 228 0.01 < 0.005 228 Equipment Paving -0.00 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Annual 36/ 75 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ ~ ~ Off-Road 0.02 0.02 0.18 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 -37.7 37.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 37.8 Equipmen1 Paving -0.00 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 -187 187 < 0.005 0.01 189 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 -164 164 < 0.005 0.01 166 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ,_ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 -25.7 25.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ,-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -4.25 4.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.30 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.14. Paving (2029) -Mitigated :riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 37 /75 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ ;;.4;;;.;,1■-----•-nno++•HihM•Hi1WiiUi·MilMl-iilllllHi=B+W1!111--- Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Off-Road 0.80 0.67 6.46 9.92 0.01 0.24 -0.24 0.22 -0.22 -1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 1,516 Equipmen1 Paving -0.00 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 0.80 0.67 6.46 9.92 0.01 0.24 -0.24 0.22 -0.22 -1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 1,516 Equipmen1 Paving -0.00 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Off-Road 0.12 0.10 0.97 1.49 < 0.005 0.04 -0.04 0.03 -0.03 -228 228 0.01 < 0.005 228 Equipmen1 Paving -0.00 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Annual Off-Road 0.02 0.02 0.18 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 -37.7 37.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 37.B Equipment Paving -0.00 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Offsite 38 /75 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Daily, Summer (Max) Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 -187 187 < 0.005 0.01 189 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 -164 164 < 0.005 0.01 166 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 -25.7 25.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -4.25 4.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.30 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.15. Architectural Coating (2029) -Unmitigated :)riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1;.;;;;;.;,; _____ lllll1HH+M1HIMMi#4MWi#h4i·Mi4M&ii~lltHi:S-t◄BIIIIIIIEIII- Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) 39 / 75 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Daily, Winter (Max) Average Daily Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 -30.7 30.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 31.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -5.08 5.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.14 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.16. Architectural Coating (2029) -Mitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ;;.;;;;;.;,;_l!ll_allml-i4Ultl iWlltl•lihiMMi4Mi◄iH41•MiHiil•:lmHi:B•tM ___ _ Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Off-Road 0.12 Equipmenl 0.10 Architectu -55.3 ral Coatings Onsite truck Daily, Winter (Max) Average Daily 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 1.11 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41175 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Operations Emissions Details i.1 . Mobile Emissions by Land Use i.1.1. Unmitigated ::;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual} liiii·i'M _______ ,nn+■iiMMM•Hi1Mi#❖ii•M•H~iii•=atfo=M+◄---- Daily, Summer (Max) Single 7.16 6.35 5.72 70.8 0.17 0.10 6.34 6.44 0.09 1.09 1.18 -17,884 17,884 0.83 0.69 18,151 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 7.16 6.35 5.72 70.8 0.17 0.10 6.34 6.44 0.09 1.09 1.18 -17,884 17,884 0.83 0.69 18,151 Daily, Winter (Max) Single 6.34 5.51 6.65 53.9 0.16 0.10 6.34 6.44 0.09 1.09 1.18 -15.991 15,991 0.90 0.74 16,236 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 6.34 5.51 6.65 53.9 0.16 0.10 6.34 6.44 0.09 1.09 1.18 -15,991 15,991 0.90 0.74 16,236 Annual Single 1.18 1.03 1.13 10.3 0.03 0.02 1.16 1.18 0.02 0.20 0.22 -2,734 2,734 0.14 0.12 2,776 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43 /75 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Total 1.18 1.03 1.13 10.3 0.03 0.02 1.16 1.18 0.02 0.20 0.22 -2,734 2,734 0.14 0.12 2,776 t 1 .2. Mitigated :)riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) iii:i·l•M•l+ll-lllll--llll-•Hh+M•HihM•H41WiH41·1•H4iimmlllHi:S+WallllllEIIEIII Daily, Summer (Max) Single 7.16 6.35 5.72 70.8 0.17 0.10 6.34 6.44 0.09 1.09 1.18 -17,884 17,884 0.83 0.69 18,151 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 7.16 6.35 5.72 70.8 0.17 0.10 6.34 6.44 0.09 1.09 1.18 -17,884 17,884 0.83 0.69 18,151 Daily, Winter (Max) Single 6.34 5.51 6.65 53.9 0.16 0.10 6.34 6.44 0.09 1.09 1.18 -15,991 15,991 0.90 0.74 16,236 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 6.34 5.51 6.65 53.9 0.16 0.10 6.34 6.44 0.09 1.09 1.18 -15,991 15,991 0.90 0.74 16,236 Annual Single 1.18 1.03 1.13 10.3 0.03 0.02 1.16 1.18 0.02 0.20 0.22 -2,734 2,734 0.14 0.12 2,776 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.18 1.03 1.13 10.3 0.03 0.02 1.16 1.18 0.02 0.20 0.22 -2,734 2,734 0.14 0.12 2,776 i.2. Energy t2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use -Unmitigated 44 /75 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) iil:i··•M■-------•HIN·M•HIMM•Ht·M◄iHl1·1•Ut4ii•a.Hi=B-tW1mllmlll-- oaily. Summer (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Daily, Winter (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Annual Single Family Housing City Park Total i.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use -Mitigated :)riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1,301 0.00 1,301 1,301 0.00 1,301 215 0.00 215 1,301 0.00 1,301 1,301 0.00 1,301 21 5 0.00 215 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 1,313 0.00 1,313 1,313 0.00 1,313 < 0.005 217 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 217 iil,i·11M■-------•Hii+M•HIMMi4Hi◄iiM41·1•4M4il~ma-Hi=B-►W1mllmlll-- oaily, Summer (Max) 45/75 Single Family Housing City Park Total Daily, Winter (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Annual Single Family Housing City Park Total k2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use -Unmitigated 382 0.00 382 382 0.00 382 63.3 0.00 63.3 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 382 0.00 382 382 0.00 382 63.3 0.00 63.3 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 386 0.00 386 386 0.00 386 < 0.005 63.9 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 63.9 :riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ;;;,,.pffl~-----~•Hb+MiHIMM1H41Mi#Ui1·11Hiilallliii=S-t◄----- oaily. Summer (Max) Single Family Housing 0.29 City Park 0.00 Total 0.29 0.14 0.00 0.14 2.45 0.00 2.45 1.04 0.00 1.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 46/75 0.20 0.00 0.20 3,105 0.00 3,105 3,105 0.00 3,105 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.01 0.00 0.01 3,114 0.00 3,114 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Daily, Winter (Max) Single 0.29 0.14 2.45 1.04 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -3,105 3,105 0.27 0.01 3,114 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.29 0.14 2.45 1.04 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -3,105 3,105 0.27 0.01 3,114 Annual Single 0.05 0.03 0.45 0.19 < 0.005 0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -514 514 0.05 < 0.005 516 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.05 0.03 0.45 0.19 < 0.005 0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -514 514 0.05 < 0.005 516 t2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use -Mitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) iii:i·i'l ______ iHIM iHit+M•HIMM•Hi1WiH41-MiH4ii•=lltiii=H+WIIII--- Daily, Summer (Max) Single 0.29 0.14 2.45 1.04 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -3,105 3,105 0.27 0.01 3,114 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.29 0.14 2.45 1.04 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -3,105 3,105 0.27 0.01 3,114 Daily, Winter (Max) Single 0.29 0.14 2.45 1.04 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -3,105 3,105 0.27 0.01 3,114 Family Housing 47 /75 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.29 0.14 2.45 1.04 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -3,105 3,105 0.27 0.01 3,114 Annual Single 0.05 0.03 0.45 0.19 < 0.005 0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -514 514 0.05 < 0.005 516 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.05 0.03 0.45 0.19 < 0.005 0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -514 514 0.05 < 0.005 516 t3. Area Emissions by Source t3.2. Unmitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) H+iiiM·-----•auHb+MiHIMMiHt-MMiiMi·MiiM&il-iii=B-tW1!111IIIIIBI- Daily, Summer (Max} Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consume -0.06 r Products Architectu -0.83 ral Coatings Landscap 1 .29 1.23 0.13 14.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 0.01 -0.01 -37.8 37.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 37.9 e Equipme nt Total 1.29 2.12 0.13 14.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 0.01 -0.01 0.00 37.8 37.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 37.9 Daily, Winter (Max} 48 /75 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consume -0.06 r Products Architectu -0.83 ral Coatings Total 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consume -0.01 r Products Architectu -0.15 ral Coatings Landscap 0.12 0.11 0.01 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 -3.08 3.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.09 e Equipme nt Total 0.12 0.27 0.01 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 0.00 3.08 3.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.09 t3.1. Mitigated :riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ;.;:;;;p------•HU-l·MiHIMMiiU,MWiiM&+Mi@M&il•=Elllmi=B•tWllllllllmmllBI- Daily, Summer (Max) Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consume -0.06 r Products 49 /75 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Architectu -0.83 r- ral -. ,- Landscap 1.29 1.23 0.13 14.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 0.01 -0.01 -37.8 37.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 37.9 e Equipme nt - Total 1.29 2.12 0.13 14.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 0.01 -0.01 0.00 37.8 37.8 <0.005 < 0.005 37.9 Daily, Winter (Max) Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Consume -0.06 r Products - Architectu -0.83 ral Coatings ~-- Total 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 I -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ~ ,~ Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ,-0.00 0.00 I-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consume -0.01 r Products Architectu -0.15 ral Coatings - Landscap 0.12 0.11 0.01 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 <0.005 -< 0.005 -3.08 3.08 <0.005 < 0.005 3.09 e Equipme I nt ---- Total 0.12 0.27 0.01 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -<0.005 0.00 3.08 3.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.09 i.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 50 /75 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ i.4.2. Unmitigated :)riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) iii,i·i'l _______ ,44N·MiHIMMi44MMi4Mi·MilMiil•=•Hi=A+◄BII--EII Daily, Summer (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Daily, Winter (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Annual Single Family Housing City Park Total i.4.1 . Mitigated 19.3 0.00 19.3 19.3 0.00 19.3 3.20 0.00 3.20 101 4.50 106 101 4.50 106 16.8 0.75 17.5 121 4.50 125 121 4.50 125 20.0 0.75 20.7 2.00 0.05 185 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.55 2.00 0.05 190 2.00 0.05 185 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.55 2.00 0.05 190 0.33 0.01 30.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.75 0.33 0.01 31.4 ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) lii,i·i'l------•HO-i iHii+MiHIMMiH41Mi4¾1·1iH4ii•=•Hi=A+WBII __ _ 51175 Daily, Summer (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Daily, Winter (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Annual Single Family Housing City Park Total t5. Waste Emissions by Land Use t5.2. Unmitigated 19.3 0.00 19.3 19.3 0.00 19.3 3.20 0.00 3.20 101 4.50 106 101 4.50 106 16.B 0.75 17.5 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 121 4.50 125 121 4.50 125 20.0 0.75 20.7 2.00 0.05 185 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.55 2.00 0.05 190 2.00 0.05 185 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.55 2.00 0.05 190 0.33 0.01 30.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.75 0.33 0.01 31.4 :riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) iii,i··•l■-------•Hiil)liiHiMMi#UiiMiPUii·MiPUiii-Hi=M+◄i!falllllllDlll- oaily. Summer (Max) 52/75 Single Family Housing City Park Total Daily, Winter (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Annual Single Family Housing City Park Total k5.1. Mitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 121 0.10 121 121 0.10 121 20.0 0.02 20.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 121 0.10 121 121 0.10 121 20.0 0.02 20.0 12.1 0.01 12.1 12.1 O.Q1 12.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 2.00 0.00 423 0.34 423 423 0.34 423 70.0 0.06 70.0 lilri·i'l------•Hli+MiHIMMiH41WiiUH-1-MiiUiii•=lltiii=B+◄Bllmllmll- oaily. Summer (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total 53/75 121 0.1 0 121 0.00 0.00 0.00 121 0.10 121 12.1 0.01 12.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 423 0.34 423 Daily, Winter (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Annual Single Family Housing City Park Total :1-.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use t6.1 . Unmitigated 121 0.10 121 20.0 0.02 20.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 121 0.10 121 20.0 0.02 20.0 12.1 0.01 12.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 2.00 0.00 423 0.34 423 70.0 0.06 70.0 ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) iiiri··•l■-------•Hh+MiHIMMiHl1MiiUi1·1iH4ii-Hi:B+W1-mllmlll- oaily, Summer (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Daily, Winter (Max) 54/75 3.48 0.00 3.48 Single Family Housing City Park Total Annual Single Family Housing City Park Total t6.2. Mitigated :;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 3.48 0.00 3.48 0.58 0.00 0.58 i;;,; . .uw _______ ,ao++•HIMM•M41Mi4Mi·M•H4ii•=--Oi=A•t#IIIIIIEIIIIEII- Daily, Summer (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Daily, Winter (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Annual 55175 3.48 0.00 3.48 3.48 0.00 3.48 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ • ,. PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T . Daily, Summer (Max) Total Daily, Winter (Max) Total Annual Total t 10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type t 10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type -Unmitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ---------------Daily, Summer (Max) Total Daily, Winter (Max) Total Annual Total t 10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type -Unmitigated 59 /75 1• 1• TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ ::;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ili,i·i'l•-------•Hii-i·M•Mil111M1HiiWiiMi·MiiUiiiEIIIIHi=B•tM1alll-lllllllll Daily, Summer (Max) Total Daily, Winter (Max) Total Annual Total t 10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species -Unmitigated ::;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) S·Mii4◄·-----llll-•Hh+M•HIMM•HIW•Hii·M•HiiiEIIIIHi=R-tM1alll-lllllllll Daily, Summer (Max) Avoided Subtotal Sequeste red Subtotal Removed Subtotal Daily, Winter (Max) Avoided 60 /75 Subtotal Sequeste red Subtotal Removed Subtotal Annual Avoided Subtotal Sequeste red Subtotal Removed Subtotal i.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type -Mitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ ---------------1• Daily, Summer (Max} Total Daily, Winter (Max} Total Annual 61 / 75 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Total t 10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type -Mitigated ::;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) iii:i·l•M■-----•Hh·i iHii+M•HihMi#friW•Hi41·1•#41-ilallHi:B+WlDIEIIII-- Daily, Summer (Max) Total Daily, Winter (Max) Total Annual Total t 10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species -Mitigated Jriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) W·liii4◄•-11111!111--llll-i#ih+MiHIMMi#Ui◄iHl·Mi#41-ilallHi:B•tWIDIIIIIIIIBIIEIIIII Daily, Summer (Max) Avoided Subtotal Sequeste red Subtotal Removed Subtotal 62 /75 Daily, Winter (Max) Avoided Subtotal Sequeste red Subtotal Removed Subtotal Annual Avoided Subtotal Sequeste red Subtotal Removed Subtotal 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule Phase Name I Phase Type I I' Start Date Site Preparation Grading Building Construction Site Preparation Grading Building Construction 1/2/2026 2/13/2026 5/29/2026 I End Date 2/12/2026 5/28/2026 3/29/2029 63 I 75 I Days Per Week 5.00 5.00 5.00 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Work Days per Phase 30.0 75.0 740 I Phase Description Paving Paving Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Equipment Type Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Grading Graders Grading Excavators Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Grading Scrapers Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Building Construction Forklifts Building Construction Generator Sets Building Construction Cranes Building Construction Welders Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Paving Pavers Paving Paving Equipment Paving Rollers Architectural Coating Air Compressors 5.2.2. Mitigated 3/30/2029 6/15/2029 Fuel Type Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel 6/14/2029 8/30/2029 Engine Tier Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average 5.00 5.00 Number per Day 3.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 64/75 Hours Per Day 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 6.00 55.0 55.0 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Horsepower Load Factor 367 0.40 84.0 0.37 148 0.41 36.0 0.38 84.0 0.37 423 0.48 367 0.40 82.0 0.20 14.0 0.74 367 0.29 46.0 0.45 84.0 0.37 81.0 0.42 89.0 0.36 36.0 0.38 37.0 0.48 Phase Name Equipment Type Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Grading Graders Grading Excavators Grading Tractors/Load ers/Backh oes Grading Scrapers Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Building Construction Forklifts Building Construction Generator Sets Building Construction Cranes Building Construction Welders Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Paving Pavers Paving Paving Equipment Paving Rollers Architectural Coating Air Compressors 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Site Preparation Site Preparation Site Preparation I Trip Type Worker Vendor Fuel Type Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Engine Tier I Number per Day Average 3.00 Average 4.00 Average 1.00 Average 2.00 Average 2.00 Average 2.00 Average 1.00 Average 3.00 Average 1.00 Average 1.00 Average 1.00 Average 3.00 Average 2.00 Average 2.00 Average 2.00 Average 1.00 One-Way Trips per Day 17.5 65 / 75 I Hours Per Day 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 6.00 f Miles per Trip 17.3 10.6 TRACT 7408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Horsepower Load Factor 367 84.0 148 36.0 84.0 423 367 82.0 14.0 367 46.0 84.0 81.0 89.0 36.0 37.0 0.40 0.37 0.41 0.38 0.37 0.48 0.40 0.20 0.74 0.29 0.45 0.37 0.42 0.36 0.38 0.48 Vehicle Mix LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT Site Preparation Site Preparation Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Building Construction Building Construction Building Construction Building Construction Building Construction Paving Paving Paving Paving Paving Architectural Coating Architectural Coating Architectural Coating Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5.3.2. Mitigated Phase Name Site Preparation Site Preparation Hauling Onsite truck Worker Vendor Hauling Onsite truck Worker Vendor Hauling Onsite truck Worker Vendor Hauling Onsite truck Worker Vendor Hauling Onsite truck I Trip Type Worker TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 0.00 20.0 HHDT --HHDT 20.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2 -10.6 HHDT,MHDT 0.00 20.0 HHDT --HHDT 89.6 17.3 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2 26.6 10.6 HHDT,MHDT 0.00 20.0 HHDT --HHDT 15.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2 -10.6 HHDT,MHDT 0.00 20.0 HHDT --HHDT 17.9 17.3 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2 -10.6 HHDT,MHDT 0.00 20.0 HHDT --HHDT I One-Way Trips per Day I Miles per Trip I Vehicle Mix 17.5 17.3 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2 66 /75 2029 0.00 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Single Family Housing City Park 5.9.2. Mitigated Trips/Weekday 2,211 0.00 Land Use Type I I Trips/Weekday Single Family Housing City Park 2,211 0.00 Trips/Saturday 2,211 0.00 Trips/Saturday 2,211 0.00 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated Hearth Type Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces Gas Fireplaces Propane Fireplaces Electric Fireplaces No Fireplaces Trips/Sunday 2,211 0.00 I Trips/Sunday 2,211 0.00 204 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 0.03 < 0.005 Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday I VMT/Sunday VMT/Year 807,059 23,499 23,499 23,499 8,577,135 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trips/Year I VMT/Weekday I VMT/Saturday I VMT/Sunday I VMT/Year 807,059 23,499 23,499 23,499 8,577,135 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unmitigated (number) • . 1 .. 0 0 0 0 249 69/75 Conventional Wood Stoves Catalytic Wood Stoves Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves Pellet Wood Stoves 5.10.1.2. Mitigated Hearth Type Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces Gas Fireplaces Propane Fireplaces Electric Fireplaces No Fireplaces Conventional Wood Stoves Catalytic Wood Stoves Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves Pellet Wood Stoves 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) 983238.75 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment Season Snow Days Summer Days Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) 327,746 Unit day/yr day/yr 0 0 0 0 TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Unmitigated (number) 0 0 0 0 249 0 0 0 0 Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) 0.00 70/75 Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) 0.00 Value 0.00 180 Parking Area Coated (sq ft) City Park 5.14.2. Mitigated Land Use Type Single Family Housing Single Family Housing City Park City Park Stand-alone retail refrigerators and freezers Equipment Type Average room A/C & Other residential AJC and heat pumps Household refrigerators and/or freezers Other commercial A/C and heat pumps Stand-alone retail refrigerators and freezers R-134a Refrigerant R-410A R-134a R-410A R-134a 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type . Engine Tier 5.15.2. Mitigated Equipment Type I Fuel Type Engine Tier 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00 Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00 I Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower I Load Factor Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower I Load Factor Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor 73 /75 5.16.2. Process Boilers Equipment Type I Fuel Type 5.17. User Defined Equipment Type 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type 5.18.1.2. Mitigated Vegetation Land Use Type 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.2. Mitigated Biomass Cover Type I Number Vegetation Soil Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Initial Acres TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) I Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) I Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) Fuel Type Initial Acres Final Acres Initial Acres Final Acres Final Acres Final Acres 74/75 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated Tree Type 5.18.2.2. Mitigated Tree Type Number Number 3. User Changes to Default Data Screen Land Use Construction: Construction Phases Operations: Vehicle Data Operations: Fleet Mix Operations: Hearths Operations: Consumer Products TRACT 7 408 Custom Report, 5/8/202~ Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) Justification Residential Landscape Area includes proposed landscape lots. Conservatively assuming total park acreage is landscaped. No proposed demolition. Trip rates provided by Applicant. District Approved Residential Fleet Mix for 2029 Per Rule 4901 and Applicant Derived from CalEEMod Appendix E3 -Consumer Products Use 2003 Survey Residential Data Grouping 75 /75 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report r able of Contents I . Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector ~-Emissions Summary 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated 2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Site Preparation (2029) -Unmitigated 3.2. Site Preparation (2029) -Mitigated 3.3. Grading (2029) -Unmitigated 3.4. Grading (2029) -Mitigated 1 /79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ 3.5. Grading (2030) -Unmitigated 3.6. Grading (2030) -Mitigated 3.7. Building Construction (2030) -Unmitigated 3.8. Building Construction (2030) -Mitigated 3.9. Building Construction (2031) -Unmitigated 3.10. Building Construction {2031) -Mitigated 3.11. Building Construction (2032) -Unmitigated 3.12. Building Construction (2032) -Mitigated 3.13. Paving (2032) -Unmitigated 3.14. Paving (2032) -Mitigated 3.15. Paving (2033) -Unmitigated 3.16. Paving (2033) -Mitigated 3.17. Architectural Coating (2033) -Unmitigated 3.18. Architectural Coating (2033) -Mitigated i. Operations Emissions Details 4.1 . Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ 2/79 4.1.2. Mitigated 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use -Unmitigated 4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use -Mitigated 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use -Unmitigated 4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use -Mitigated 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.2. Unmitigated 4.3.1 . Mitigated 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.2. Unmitigated 4.4.1 . Mitigated 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.2. Unmitigated 4.5.1. Mitigated 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ 3 /79 4.6.2. Mitigated 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated 4.7.2. Mitigated 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated 4.8.2. Mitigated 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated 4.9.2. Mitigated 4.1 O. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type -Unmitigated 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type -Unmitigated 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species -Unmitigated 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type -Mitigated 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type -Mitigated 4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species -Mitigated 4/79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated 5.2.2. Mitigated 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated 5.3.2. Mitigated 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 5.5. Architectural Coatings 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies 5.7. Construction Paving 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/1 0/202~ 5/79 5.9.1. Unmitigated 5.9.2. Mitigated 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.1.2. Mitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment 5.10.4. Landscape Equipment -Mitigated 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated 5.11.2. Mitigated 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated 5.12.2. Mitigated 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated TRACT 7415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ 6/79 5.13.2. Mitigated 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated 5.14.2. Mitigated 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.15.2. Mitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1 . Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1 .1. Unmitigated TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/1 0/202~ 7 /79 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2.2. Mitigated 3. User Changes to Default Data TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ 8/79 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field Project Name Construction Start Date Operational Year Lead Agency land Use Scale Analysis Level for Defaults Windspeed (m/s) Precipitation (days) Location County City Air District Air Basin TAZ EDFZ Electric Utility Gas Utility App Version 1 .2. Land Use Types Land Use Subtype I Size 1 1 Unit TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Value TRACT7415 8/31/2029 2033 Project/site County 2.70 18.0 35.308208161303725, -119.14402953728614 Kern-San Joaquin Bakersfield San Joaquin Valley APCD San Joaquin Valley 2890 5 Pacific Gas & Electric Company Southern California Gas 2022.1.1.12 I Building Area (sq ft) I Lot Acreage I I Landscape Area {sq ft) I Special Landscape Area (sq ft) 9 /79 I Population I Description TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/1 0/202~ 2031 1.35 1.16 8.97 15.2 0.03 0.25 0.87 1.12 0.23 0.21 0.44 -3,535 3,535 0.12 0.13 3,575 2032 1.31 1.12 8.69 15.0 0.03 0.23 0.87 1.10 0.21 0.21 0.42 -3,508 3,508 0.12 0.12 3,547 2033 0.73 55.6 5.94 10.2 0.Q1 0.18 0.14 0.30 0.17 0.03 0.20 -1,610 1,610 0.06 0.01 1,615 Average Daily 2029 0.83 0.70 5.74 6.70 0.Q1 0.23 3.11 3.34 0.22 1.42 1.63 -1,515 1,515 0.06 0.01 1,520 2030 1.10 0.93 7.19 11.7 0.02 0.22 1.01 1.23 0.20 0.31 0.52 -2,710 2,710 0.09 0.09 2,739 2031 0.97 0.83 6.38 11.0 0.02 0.18 0.61 0.79 0.16 0.15 0.31 -2,541 2,541 0.08 0.07 2,566 2032 0.90 0.77 6.00 10.5 0.02 0.16 0.56 0.73 0.15 0.14 0.28 -2,394 2,394 0.08 0.06 2,416 2033 0.08 8.43 0.60 1.04 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 -168 168 0.01 < 0.005 169 Annual 2029 0.15 0.13 1.05 1.22 < 0.005 0.04 0.57 0.61 0.04 0.26 0.30 -251 251 0.01 < 0.005 252 2030 0.20 0.17 1.31 2.13 < 0.005 0.04 0.18 0.22 0.04 0.06 0.09 -449 449 0.02 0.01 454 2031 0.18 0.15 1.16 2.00 < 0.005 0.03 0.11 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.06 -421 421 0.01 0.01 425 2032 0.16 0.14 1.10 1.92 < 0.005 0.03 0.10 0.13 0.03 0.02 0.05 -396 396 0.01 0.01 400 2033 0.01 1.54 0.11 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.Q1 0,01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 -27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 27.9 2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ------lillll•HU+M•HIHM•Hi1M•Hti·MiiMlii-Hi:N-tWGJII-IIIIII- Daily- Summer (Max) 2029 3.59 3.03 26.0 28.7 0.05 1.09 5.25 6.34 1.00 2.66 3.66 -5,436 5,436 0.22 0.05 5,456 2030 1.44 1.23 9.20 16.3 0.03 0.27 0.87 1.14 0.25 0.21 0.46 -3,647 3,647 0.1 2 0.11 3,685 2031 1.40 1.19 8.88 16.0 0.03 0.25 0.87 1.1 2 0.23 0.21 0.44 -3,618 3,618 0.11 0.10 3,654 2032 1.34 1.15 8.61 15.8 0.03 0.23 0.87 1.10 0.21 0.21 0.42 -3,590 3,590 0.11 0.10 3,624 2033 0.16 55.6 0.79 1.62 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.03 0.04 -268 268 0.01 <0.005 270 11 / 79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Daily- Winter (Max) 2029 3.59 3.02 26.0 28.6 0.06 1.09 5.25 6.34 1.00 2.66 3.66 -6,737 6,737 0.27 0.06 6,761 2030 3.29 2.77 21.7 27.4 0.06 0.88 2.55 3.43 0.81 0.99 1.80 - 6,734 6,734 0.27 0.13 6,759 2031 1.35 1.16 8.97 15.2 0.03 0.25 0.87 1.12 0.23 0.21 0.44 -3,535 3,535 0.12 0.13 3,575 2032 1.31 1.12 8.69 15.0 0.03 0.23 0.87 1.10 0.21 0.21 0.42 - 3,508 3,508 0.12 0.12 3,547 2033 0.73 55.6 5.94 10.2 0.01 0.18 0.14 0.30 0.17 0.03 0.20 -1,610 1,610 0.06 0.01 1,615 Average Daily 2029 0.83 0.70 5.74 6.70 0.01 0.23 0.83 1.07 0.22 0.37 0.59 - 1,515 1,515 0.06 0.01 1,520 2030 1.10 0.93 7.19 11.7 0.02 0.22 0.69 0.91 0.20 0.18 0.39 -2,710 2,710 0.09 0.09 2,739 2031 0.97 0.83 6.38 11.0 0.02 0.18 0.61 0.79 0.16 0.15 0.31 -2,541 2,541 0.08 0.07 2,566 2032 0.90 0.77 6.00 10.5 0.02 0.16 0.56 0.73 0.15 0.14 0.28 -2,394 2,394 0.08 0.06 2,416 2033 0.08 8.43 0.60 1.04 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 -168 168 0.01 < 0.005 169 Annual 2029 0.15 0.13 1.05 1.22 <0.005 0.04 0.15 0.20 0.04 0.07 0.11 -251 251 0.01 <0.005 252 2030 0.20 0.17 1.31 2.13 < 0.005 0.04 0.13 0.17 0.04 0.03 0.07 - 449 449 0.02 0.01 454 2031 0.18 0.1 5 1.16 2.00 < 0.005 0.03 0.11 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.06 -421 421 0.01 0.01 425 2032 0.16 0.14 1.10 1.92 < 0.005 0.03 0.10 0.13 0.03 0.02 0.05 - 396 396 0.01 0.01 400 2033 0.01 1.54 0.11 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.D1 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 -27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 27.9 ~.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated :riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ------•Hii·i •Hh+M•Hli-iM•Hii◄•Htii·Mi@Miil•=B-Hi=i❖t#rllllllllllDIIIIII Daily, Summer (Max) Mobile 5.84 5.24 4.70 58.5 0.16 0.08 6.36 6.44 0.07 1.10 1.17 -16,754 16,754 0.64 0.60 16,973 12 / 79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Area 1.29 2.13 0.13 14.2 < 0.005 <0.005 -< 0.005 0.01 -0.01 0.00 37.9 37.9 <0.005 < 0.005 38.1 - Energy 0.29 0.14 2.46 1.05 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 I 0.20 -4,424 4,424 0.49 0.03 4,445 ....1:.::-__ Water I 106 -=--~-=---,--f--- - - -19.4 125 2.01 0.05 190 ---t_ )~ Waste --r--·-- - ,_ -121 0.00 121 12.1 0.00 425 ,.__ __ ·-------~ t .. I Refrig. --- - - - --- - --- ---3.49 Total 7.42 7.52 7.29 73.8 0.18 0.28 6.36 6.64 0.28 1.10 1.38 141 21,321 21,462 15.3 0.68 22,075 Daily, Winter (Max) Mobile 5.25 4.63 5.42 44.2 0.15 0.08 6.36 6.44 0.08 1.10 1.17 -14,982 14,982 0.70 0.65 15,193 Area 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy r-0.29 0.14 2.46 1.05 0.02 0.20 ,-0.20 0.20 -0.20 -4,424 4,424 0.49 0.03 4,445 • t-- - Water -- -r -I --~ ,-- -19.4 106 125 2.01 0.05 190 i--· .. c -'~ --I---- Waste - - --- -I-- - I_ 121 0.00 121 12.1 0.00 425 ~ ---~ -. -r + -- Refrig. --- - I 3.49 ----------- Total 5.54 5.68 7.88 45.3 0.16 0.28 6.36 6.64 0.27 1.10 1.37 141 19,511 19,652 15.3 0.73 20,257 Average Daily ---i--- - - Mobile 5.32 4.71 5.06 46.3 0.15 0.08 6.36 6.44 0.07 1.10 1.17 -15,473 15,473 0.67 0.62 15,686 Area 0.64 1.51 0.06 7.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -<0.005 0.00 18.7 18.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 18.8 ---- Energy 0.29 0.14 2.46 1.05 0.02 0.20 ' -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -4,424 4,424 0.49 0.03 4,445 -----Water l - - - --t--. -----19.4 106 125 2.01 0.05 190 --""'-·-----~ -,. Waste -- -- - - -- - --121 0.00 121 12.1 0.00 425 --i-----· t-_.,_ - Refrig. -- - - -- -- -- ------3.49 Total 6.25 6.37 7.58 54.4 0.17 0.28 6.36 6.64 0.28 1.10 1.37 141 20,021 20,162 15.3 0.70 20,768 Annual - Mobile 0.97 0.86 0.92 8.45 0.03 0.01 1.16 1.17 0,01 0.20 0.21 -2,562 2,562 0.11 0.10 2,597 Area 0.12 0.28 0.01 1.28 <0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 <0.005 -< 0.005 0.00 3.10 3.10 <0.005 < 0.005 3.11 -- Energy 0.05 0.03 0.45 0.19 < 0.005 0.04 -0.04 ~-0.04 -0.04 -732 732 0.08 0.01 736 13 / 79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/1 0/202~ Water ---- -------3.22 17.6 20.8 0.33 0.01 31.5 Waste - ----------20.1 0.00 20.1 2.01 0.00 70.3 Refrig. ---- ------------0.58 Total 1.14 1.16 1.38 9.93 0.03 0.05 1.16 1.21 0.05 0.20 0.25 23.3 3,315 3,338 2.53 0.12 3,438 2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ------mllliiilM·liHIMMiHhi-1◄iiM#·MiH4ii•=mllHi=B+W-llllmlllllll Daily, Summer (Max} Mobile 5.84 5.24 4.70 58.5 0.16 0.08 6.36 6.44 0.07 1.10 1.17 -16,754 16,754 0.64 0.60 16,973 Area 1.29 2.13 0.13 14.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 0.01 -0.01 0.00 37.9 37.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 38.1 Energy 0.29 0.14 2.46 1.05 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -3,501 3,501 0.34 0.01 3,514 Water - - -- ----- --19.4 106 125 2.01 0.05 190 Waste - --- ------ -121 0.00 121 12.1 0.00 425 Refrig. - -- -- -- -- -------3.49 Total 7.42 7.52 7.29 73.8 0.18 0.28 6.36 6.64 0.28 1.10 1.38 141 20,399 20,540 15.1 0.66 21 ,144 Daily, Winter (Max) Mobile 5.25 4.63 5.42 44.2 0.15 0.08 6.36 6.44 0.08 1.10 1.17 -14,982 14,982 0.70 0.65 15,193 Area 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.29 0.14 2.46 1.05 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -3,501 3,501 0.34 0.01 3,514 Water ---- -- - -- - -19.4 106 125 2.01 0.05 190 Waste - - ---------121 0.00 121 12.1 0.00 425 Refrig. ---- - - --- -- -- ---3.49 Total 5.54 5.68 7.88 45.3 0.16 0.28 6.36 6.64 0.27 1.10 1.37 141 18,589 18,730 15.2 0.71 19,325 14 / 79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Average Daily Mobile 5.32 4.71 5.06 46.3 0.15 0.08 6.36 6.44 0.07 1.10 1.17 -15,473 15,473 0.67 0.62 15,686 Area 0.64 1.51 0.06 7.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 0.00 18.7 18.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 18.8 Energy 0.29 0.14 2.46 1.05 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -3,501 3,501 0.34 0.01 3,514 Water - - ---- --- --19.4 106 125 2.01 0.05 190 Waste -- -- -- -- ---121 0.00 121 12.1 0.00 425 Refrig. ---- -- -- -- ------3.49 Total 6.25 6.37 7.58 54.4 0.17 0.28 6.36 6.64 0.28 1.10 1.37 141 19,099 19,240 15.2 0.69 19,837 Annual Mobile 0.97 0.86 0.92 8.45 0.03 0.01 1.16 1.17 0.01 0.20 0.21 -2,562 2,562 0.11 0.10 2,597 Area 0.12 0.28 0.01 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 0.00 3.10 3.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.11 Energy 0.05 0.03 0.45 0.19 < 0.005 0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -580 580 0.06 < 0.005 582 Water --- -- ---- --3.22 17.6 20.8 0.33 0.01 31.5 Waste --- --- -----20.1 0.00 20.1 2.01 0.00 70.3 Refrig. --- ---- - --------0.58 Total 1.14 1.16 1.38 9.93 0.03 0.05 1.16 1.21 0.05 0.20 0.25 23.3 3,162 3,185 2.51 0.11 3,284 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Site Preparation (2029) -Unmitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ;;.;;;;;.;.;.m11111-----•Hii+MiHIMMi#Ml1WiiM-i+MiHiii-Oi:B+◄a!fllllmllEIII- Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Off-Road 3.53 2.97 25.9 28.1 0.05 1.09 -1.09 1.00 -1.00 -5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04 5,314 Equiprnen1 15 / 79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ ---------;-,-Dust - -----19.7 19.7 -10.1 10.1 From Material Movement I Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 3.53 2.97 25.9 28.1 0.05 1.09 -1.09 1.00 -1.00 -5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04 5,314 Equipmen1 Dust - -- -- -19.7 19.7 -10.1 10.1 From Material Movement Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ,-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Off-Road 0.29 0.24 2.13 2.31 < 0.005 0.09 -0.09 0.08 -0.08 -435 435 0.02 < 0.005 437 Equipment Dust - ---- -1.62 1.62 -0.83 0.83 From Material Movement Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Annual Off-Road 0.05 0.04 0.39 0.42 < 0.005 0.02 -0.02 0.02 -0.02 -72.1 72.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 72.3 Equipmen1 Dust - --1-I --0.29 0.29 -0.15 0.15 From Material Movement Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck 16 /79 TRACT 7415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 O.Q3 -140 140 < 0.005 0.01 142 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 -123 123 <0.005 0.01 125 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -10.5 10.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -1.74 1.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.76 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.2. Site Preparation (2029) -Mitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) li-iliii·l,i--lllll--•4Hlll iHii+MiHIMMiH41WiH41·1•4Miii•-Hi:S+W1flllmll-- Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) 17179 TRACT 7415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 -140 140 < 0.005 0.01 142 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 -123 123 < 0.005 0.01 125 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker < 0.005 <0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -10.5 10.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker < 0.005 <0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -1.74 1.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.76 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.3. Grading (2029) -Unmitigated :;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ii·l¥\li·l,1 __ 1!111_111111111-i#!IH iHiitlliiHIMM•HiMW•Hti·Mi#MHM-Hi=B-tW ____ Onsite 19 / 79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 -141 141 < 0.005 0.01 143 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 -23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -3.83 3.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.89 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.4. Grading (2029) -Mitigated :;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ii·1¥M·iil•alllilll-----•H@·MiHIMMiH41MiiUi1·1i4Miii-Hi=ti-tW~llll-- onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 3.32 Equipmen1 2.79 22.7 26.9 0.06 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.84 6,596 6,596 0.27 0.05 6,619 21 / 79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Average Daily Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 -23.2 23.2 <0.005 < 0.005 23.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -3.83 3.83 <0.005 < 0.005 3.89 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.5. Grading (2030) -Unmitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ;;.;;;;;.;,1■-------•HU+N•HmiM•Hi1WiiMi·liiMiiillmHii=ii-tW1BI--- Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 3.23 2.72 21.7 26.9 0.06 0.88 -0.88 0.81 -0.81 -6,596 6,596 0.27 0.05 6,619 Equipmen1 Dust ---- - -9.20 9.20 -3.65 3.65 From Material Movement Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Off-Road 0.15 0.13 1.02 1.26 < 0.005 0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -310 310 0.01 < 0.005 311 Equipment 23 /79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ ----~- Dust -- -- --0.43 0.43 -0.17 0.17 I ' ' I From Material Movement Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Annual Off-Road 0.03 0.02 0.19 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 -51.3 51.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 51.5 Equipmen1 Dust - --- --0.08 0.08 -0.03 0.03 From Material Movement I Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 -138 138 <0.005 0.01 140 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -6.73 6.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.83 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -1.11 1.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24/79 TRACT 7415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.6. Grading (2030) -Mitigated :riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ii-MM·iil·-------•Hii+MiHlhMii¥4i◄iH4i-MiMUl-iilmlfii=B+WalllDIIIIIIIIIIIIII Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 3.23 2.72 21.7 26.9 0.06 0.88 -0.88 0.81 -0.81 -6,596 6,596 0.27 0.05 6,619 Equipmenl Dust ------2.39 2.39 -0.95 0.95 From Material Movement Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Off-Road 0.15 0.13 1.02 1.26 < 0.005 0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -310 310 0.01 < 0.005 311 Equipmen1 Dust ------0.11 0.11 -0.04 0.04 From Material Movement Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Annual Off-Road 0.03 0.02 0.19 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 -51.3 51.3 <0.005 < 0.005 51.5 Equipmen1 25 /79 TRACT 7 41 5 Custom Report, 5/1 0/202~ Dust - -----0.02 0.02 -0.01 0.01 From Material Movement Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Offsite Daily, Summer (Max} Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 -138 138 < 0.005 0.01 140 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -6.73 6.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.83 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -1.11 1.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. 7. Building Construction (2030) -Unmitigated :)riteria Pollutants (lb/day fo r daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) il·iiili·i,1·1111-ll!ll--m•HIN·MiHIMMiiiii1◄iHi41·1•Htiii•=a-Hi=R-►WBIII-EII- Onsite 26/79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.27 0.24 0.19 2.29 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.16 0.16 -622 622 0.02 0.03 630 Vendor 0.02 0.02 0.69 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 0.17 0.01 0.05 0.05 -545 545 0.01 0.08 570 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker 0.18 0.16 0.12 1.62 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.11 0.11 -431 431 0.01 0.02 437 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.45 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.04 -363 363 < 0.005 0.06 380 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 -71.3 71.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 72.3 Vendor <0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 -60.1 60.1 < 0.005 0.01 62.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 3.8. Building Construction (2030) -Mitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) il·M\li·i,i ______ ,wntll+uiiMMiH41◄•Hii·M•#Miii-Hi=B-tW---- Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Off-Road 1.12 0.94 8.39 12.9 0.02 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.24 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 2,405 Equipmenl Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Daily, Winter (Max) 28/79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202( Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 -71.3 71.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 72.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 -60.1 60.1 < 0.005 0.01 62.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.9. Building Construction (2031) -Unmitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ·+MM·irl·Bl------•Hh+MiHIMMiHl1Wi#Ui1·1iHiii•_.Hi=M+W1GIIIIII-- Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Off-Road 1.10 0.92 8.12 12.8 0.02 0.24 -0.24 Equipmen1 0.22 -0.22 -2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 2,405 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 1.10 0.92 8.12 12.8 0.02 0.24 -0.24 0.22 -0.22 -2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 2,405 Equipmen1 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Oft-Road 0.78 0.66 5.80 9.18 0.02 0.17 -0.17 0.16 -0.16 -1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01 1,71 8 Equipmen1 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Annual 30 /79 TRACT 7415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Off-Road 0.14 0.12 1.06 1.67 < 0.005 0.03 -0.03 0.03 -0.03 -283 283 0.01 < 0.005 284 Equipmenl Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Worker 0.28 0.25 0.13 2.94 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.1 6 0.16 -695 695 0.01 0.01 698 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.63 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 -526 526 0.01 0.08 550 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.23 0.22 0.19 2.15 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.16 0.16 -611 611 0.01 0.03 620 Vendor 0.02 0.02 0.67 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 -527 527 0.01 0.08 550 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker 0.17 0.16 0.11 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.12 0.12 -453 453 0.01 < 0.005 455 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.47 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 0.1 2 0.12 < 0.005 O.Q3 0.04 -376 376 0.01 0.06 393 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 -75.0 75.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 75.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 O.Q1 0.01 -62.3 62.3 < 0.005 0.01 65.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.10. Building Construction (2031) -Mitigated :riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) i+i&iii·i,1·-------•Hii+MiHIMMiHi1Wiiil·MiW4iimlllHi=ii+◄-.mlll-BII 31 179 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/1 0/202~ Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.23 0.22 0.19 2.15 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.16 0.16 -611 611 0.01 0.03 620 Vendor 0.02 0.02 0.67 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 0.1 7 0.17 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 -527 527 0.01 0.08 550 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker 0.17 0.16 0.11 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.12 0.12 -453 453 0.01 < 0.005 455 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.47 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.12 <0.005 0.03 0.04 -376 376 0.01 0.06 393 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 -75.0 75.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 75.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 -62.3 62.3 <0.005 0.01 65.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11. Building Construction (2032) -Unmitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) i+i&M·i,1·-------•Hii+MiHIMMi#UMWi#bM·li#Uiii-iii:B-tW1-lllllmll- onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Off-Road 1.07 0.90 7.87 12.8 0.02 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 2,405 Equipment Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Daily, Winter (Max) 33/79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/1 0/202~ Off-Road 1.07 0.90 7.87 12.8 0.02 0.22 -0.22 0.21 -0.21 -2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 2,405 Equipment Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Off-Road 0.69 0.58 5.08 8.26 0.02 0.14 -0.14 0.13 -0.13 -1,548 1,548 0.06 0.01 1,553 Equipment Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Annual Off-Road 0.13 0.11 0.93 1.51 < 0.005 0.03 -0.03 0.02 -0.02 -256 256 0.01 < 0.005 257 Equipment Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Worker 0.24 0.24 0.13 2.78 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.16 0.16 -684 684 0.01 0.01 687 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.61 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 -509 509 0.01 0.07 531 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.22 0.21 0.16 2.02 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.16 0.16 -602 602 0.01 0.03 611 Vendor 0.02 0.02 0.65 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 -509 509 0.01 0.07 532 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker 0.14 0.14 0.09 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.10 0.10 -403 403 0.01 < 0.005 405 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.41 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 -329 329 < 0.005 0.05 343 34/79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/1 0/202~ Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 -66.8 66.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 67.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 -54.4 54.4 < 0.005 0.01 56.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.12. Building Construction (2032) -Mitigated :;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) !i·l&iii•i,i_mlll ___ m,HU+MiHIMMiHl1Wi#Mi·li#M&ii•IDIHi:M+W1-mlllBIIBIII Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Off-Road 1.07 0.90 7.87 12.8 0.02 0.22 -0.22 0.21 -0.21 -2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 2,405 Equipment Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 1.07 0.90 7.87 12.8 0.02 0.22 -0.22 0.21 -0.21 -2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 2,405 Equipment Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Off-Road 0.69 0.58 5.08 8.26 0.02 0.14 -0.14 0.13 -0.13 -1,548 1,548 0.06 0.01 1,553 Equipment Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Annual 35/79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Off-Road 0.13 0.11 0.93 1.51 < 0.005 0.03 -0.03 0.02 -0.02 -256 256 0.01 < 0.005 257 Equipmen1 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 truck Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Worker 0.24 0.24 0.13 2.78 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.16 0.16 -684 684 0.01 0.01 687 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.61 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 -509 509 0.01 0.07 531 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.22 0.21 0.16 2.02 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.16 0.16 -602 602 0.01 0.03 611 Vendor 0.02 0.02 0.65 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 -509 509 0.01 0.07 532 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker 0.14 0.14 0.09 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.10 0.10 -403 403 0.01 < 0.005 405 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.41 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 -329 329 < 0.005 0.05 343 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 -66.8 66.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 67.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 -54.4 54.4 < 0.005 0 01 56.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.13. Paving (2032) -Unmitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) i;.;;;;;.;,; ______ ,nn++•HIMM•H4i◄i4ki·M•MUJ.il•=-Hi=A•tMBIIIIIIIIIIIII- 36 /79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/1 0/202~ Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -7.33 7.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.37 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.22 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.14. Paving (2032) -Mitigated :riteria Pollutants {lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual} and GHGs {lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ii·i&M·i,Y_IBl ____ iHii+MiiiiMMiNbiWiNMi·Mi4Uiii•=llltHi=B+W-rmllEllrlllll Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 0.72 0.61 6.00 9.86 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.1 8 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 1,516 Equipmen1 Paving -0.00 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily 38 / 79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ 3.15. Paving (2033) -Unmitigated '.;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ii./¥\li•i,i•mllilllllll--mlll•HIM·MiHIMMiH41Wi#4&i-MiiMiii•=B-HH3-&WBIIIIII-BIII Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 0.70 0.59 5.91 9.84 0.01 0.18 -0.18 0.17 -0.17 -1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 1,51 6 Equipmen1 Paving -0.00 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Off-Road 0.06 0.05 0.47 0.79 < 0.005 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 -121 121 < 0.005 < 0.005 122 Equipmen1 Paving -0.00 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Annual Off-Road 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 -20.1 20.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 20.1 Equipment Paving -0.00 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) 40 /79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 -99.0 99.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 99.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -8.24 8.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.27 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 <0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -1.36 1.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.37 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.16. Paving (2033) -Mitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day tor daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) il·i&ili·irl·-------•Hii+Mi@!i111M1#¥4i◄•H4i·M•l!!l#"~"h+l!!l!+!l+■-•11=B+Wl ___ _ Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 0.70 Equipmenl Paving 0.59 0.00 5.91 9.84 0.01 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 1,516 41 / 79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/1 0/202~ Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Off-Road 0.06 0.05 0.47 0.79 < 0.005 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 -121 121 < 0.005 < 0.005 122 Equipmen1 Paving -0.00 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Annual Off-Road 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 -20.1 20.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 20.1 Equipmen1 Paving -0.00 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 -99.0 99.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 99.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -8.24 8.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.27 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -1.36 1.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.37 ---42/79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.17. Architectural Coating (2033) -Unmitigated :;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1;.;;;;;.;,1■-----~•Hit+M•HIMMiM64iMiM!41-MiH4ii•ZIIHi=t❖t#lBIIIIIIIIIIIE1111 Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Off-Road 0.1 1 0.09 0.76 1.10 < 0.005 0.01 -0,01 0.01 -0.01 -134 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Equipmen1 Architectu -55.5 ral Coatings Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 0.11 0.09 0.76 1.10 < 0.005 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 -134 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Equipmen1 Architectu -55.5 ral Coatings Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Off-Road 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.1 7 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 -20.1 20.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 20.2 Equipmen1 43/79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/1 0/202~ -------~ - ------------ Architectu -8.36 ral Coatings Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Annual Off-Road < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 <0.005 -< 0.005 -3.33 3.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.34 Equipment Architectu -1.53 ral Coatings Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Worker 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 -135 135 < 0.005 < 0.005 136 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 -119 119 < 0.005 < 0.005 119 -·~-- Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 18.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual 44 /79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 -3.08 3.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.18. Architectural Coating (2033) -Mitigated :;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ii·liili·i:l_mlll ___ ._.Hli+Mi4iiMMi4Mi1◄1Hi1•MiHtiii•Bhhi=ik+◄1-llllmlll-lllll Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Off-Road 0.11 0.09 0.76 1.10 < 0.005 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 -134 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Equipmen1 Architectu -55.5 ral Coatings Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Daily, Winter (Max) Off-Road 0.11 0.09 0.76 1.10 < 0.005 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 -134 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Equipment Architectu -55.5 ral Coatings Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck Average Daily Off-Road 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 -20.1 20.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 20.2 Equiprnenl 45 /79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Operations Emissions Details i.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use t 1.1 . Unmitigated :)riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) iii:i·i'Mi•-IIIIIIBlll--llll-•Hii-i·M•HihMiHi1Wi#bM·M•464ii-Oi=B+W1llll--BIII Daily, Summer (Max) Single 5.84 5.24 4.70 58.5 0.16 0.08 6.36 6.44 0.07 1.10 1.17 -16,754 16,754 0.64 0.60 16,973 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 5.84 5.24 4.70 58.5 0.16 0.08 6.36 6.44 0.07 1.10 1.17 -16,754 16,754 0.64 0.60 16,973 Daily, Winter (Max) Single 5.25 4.63 5.42 44.2 0.15 0.08 6.36 6.44 0.08 1.10 1.17 -14,982 14,982 0.70 0.65 15,193 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 5.25 4.63 5.42 44.2 0.15 0.08 6.36 6.44 0.08 1.10 1.1 7 -14,982 14,982 0.70 0.65 15,193 Annual Single 0.97 0.86 0.92 8.45 0.03 0.01 1.16 1.17 0.01 0.20 0.21 -2,562 2,562 0.11 0.10 2,597 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47 /79 TRACT 7415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Total 0.97 0.86 0.92 8.45 0.03 0.01 1.16 1.17 0.01 0.20 0.21 -2,562 2,562 0.11 0.10 2,597 t 1.2. Mitigated :::;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1;;,;.■11-lilllmll--lllll•Hii+MihiMMiHl◄iHl1·1•Hiii~iii=ii•t◄---- Daily, Summer (Max) Single 5.84 5.24 4.70 58.5 0.16 0.08 6.36 6.44 0.07 1.10 1.17 -16,754 16,754 0.64 0.60 16,973 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 5.84 5.24 4.70 58.5 0.16 0.08 6.36 6.44 0.07 1.10 1.17 -16,754 16,754 0.64 0.60 16,973 Daily, Winter (Max) Single 5.25 4.63 5.42 44.2 0.15 0.08 6.36 6.44 0.08 1.10 1.17 -14,982 14,982 0.70 0.65 15,193 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 5.25 4.63 5.42 44.2 0.15 0.08 6.36 6.44 0.08 1.10 1.17 -14,982 14,982 0.70 0.65 15,193 Annual Single 0.97 0.86 0.92 8.45 0.03 0.01 1.16 1.17 0.01 0.20 0.21 -2,562 2,562 0.11 0.10 2,597 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.97 0.86 0.92 8.45 0.03 0.01 1.16 1.17 0.01 0.20 0.21 -2,562 2,562 0.11 0.10 2,597 t2. Energy i.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use -Unmitigated 48/79 TRACT 7415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ :)riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ;;;,;.■11■-----llll-•Hli-i•M1Hl111Mi4Ml1◄i4M41·1iH4iilllliii=B•tM1 ___ _ Daily, Summer (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Daily, Winter (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Annual Single Family Housing City Park Total t2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use -Mitigated 1,306 0.00 1,306 1,306 0.00 1,306 216 0.00 216 1,306 0.00 1,306 1,306 0.00 1,306 216 0.00 216 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 1,319 0.00 1,319 1,319 0.00 1,319 < 0.005 218 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 218 :)riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ii/:i·Pl•-------•Hbl]lliHl111MiHtii◄iiUi1·1iH4iillllHi=H+M-.--- Dai1y. Summer (Max) 49/79 Single Family Housing City Park Total Daily, Winter (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Annual Single Family Housing City Park Total i.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use -Unmitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/1 0/202~ 384 0.00 384 384 0.00 384 63.5 0.00 63.5 384 0.00 384 384 0.00 384 63.5 0.00 63.5 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 388 0.00 388 388 0.00 388 < 0.005 64.2 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 64.2 iii,i•i'l ______ iiM1111M1Hl111M1H41◄i#b8-1-Mill.!l§·n·+•+111+•m11-,1,:S•t◄---- Daily, Summer (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.14 0.00 0.14 2.46 0.00 2.46 1.05 0.00 1.05 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 50/ 79 0.20 0.00 0.20 3,118 0.00 3,118 3,1 18 0.00 3,118 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.01 0.00 0.01 3,1 26 0.00 3,126 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Daily, Winter (Max) Single 0.29 0.14 2.46 1.05 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -3,118 3,118 0.28 0.01 3,126 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.29 0.14 2.46 1.05 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -3,118 3,118 0.28 0.01 3,126 Annual Single 0.05 0.03 0.45 0.19 < 0.005 0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -516 516 0.05 < 0.005 518 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.05 0.03 0.45 0.19 < 0.005 0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -516 516 0.05 < 0.005 518 t2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use -Mitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ;;;,;.■11■-------•HiitlliiHIMMiWUl1WiHl1·1iHt4il-hi:H+W1BII_IIII_ Daily, Summer (Max) Single 0.29 0.14 2.46 1.05 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -3,118 3,118 0.28 0.01 3,126 Family Housing City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.29 0.14 2.46 1.05 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -3,118 3,1 18 0.28 0.01 3,126 Daily, Winter (Max) Single 0.29 0.14 2.46 1.05 0.02 0.20 -0.20 0.20 -0.20 -3,118 3,1 18 0.28 0.01 3,126 Family Housing 51 / 79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consume -0.07 r Products Architectu -0.84 ral Coatings Total 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consume -0.01 r Products Architectu -0.15 ral Coatings Landscap 0.12 0.11 0.01 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 -3.10 3.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.1 1 e Equipme nt Total 0.12 0.28 0.01 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 0.00 3.10 3.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.11 t3.1. Mitigated ::)riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) A+@◄-lllllll!lll--m•Hh+Miif.lMMiiWMWiH41•MiH4ii•a-Hi=B+W1-la ___ Daily, Summer (Max) Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consume -0.07 r Products 53 /79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Architectu -0.84 ral Landscap 1.29 1.23 0.13 14.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 0.01 -0.01 -37.9 37.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 38 .1 e Equipme nt Total 1.29 2.13 0.13 14.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 0.01 ' -0.01 0.00 37.9 37.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 38.1 Daily, Winter (Max) Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consume -0.07 r Products Architectu -0.84 ral Coatings Total 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 Consume -0,01 r Products Architectu -0.15 ral Coatings Landscap 0.12 0.11 0.01 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 -3.10 3.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.11 e Equipme nt Total 0.12 0.28 0.01 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 < 0.005 -< 0.005 0.00 3.10 3.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.11 i.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 54/79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ t4.2. Unmitigated '.:;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) iii:i·i■M _______ ,Hmi·FiHIMMiiMi1WiiMi·Mii41-ii•IDIHi=B+W1almll-- Daily, Summer (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Daily, Winter (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Annual Single Family Housing City Park Total t4.1. Mitigated 19.4 0.00 19.4 19.4 0.00 19.4 3.22 0.00 3.22 100 5.68 106 100 5.68 106 16.6 0.94 17.6 120 5.68 125 120 5.68 125 19.8 0.94 20.B 2.01 0.05 185 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.74 2.01 0.05 190 2.01 0.05 185 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.74 2.01 0.05 190 0.33 0.01 30.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.95 0.33 0.01 31.5 :)riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) iii:i·i'M _____ ,Hilll iHIM·F•HIMMiiMii◄i4M4i·M•H~4ii•IDIHi=B+W1almll-- 55 /79 Daily, Summer (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Daily, Winter (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Annual Single Family Housing City Park Total t5. Waste Emissions by Land Use t5.2. Unmitigated 19.4 0.00 19.4 19.4 0.00 19.4 3.22 0.00 3.22 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/1 0/202~ 100 5.68 106 100 5.68 106 16.6 0.94 17.6 120 5.68 125 120 5.68 125 19.8 0.94 20.8 2.01 0.05 185 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.74 2.01 0.05 190 2.01 0.05 185 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.74 2.01 0.05 190 0.33 0.01 30.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.95 0.33 0.01 31.5 ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) i4iri·i'M ______ ,Hllll•M•HIMMi4M&iMi4frM·Mi#Uiill!a-Hi:@+W-■l--- oaily. Summer (Max) 56/79 Single Family Housing City Park Total Daily, Winter {Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Annual Single Family Housing City Park Total t5.1. Mitigated :;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 121 0.12 121 121 0.12 121 20.1 0.02 20.1 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/1 0/202~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 121 0.12 121 121 0.12 121 20.1 0.02 20.1 12.1 0.01 12.1 12.1 0.01 12.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.01 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 2.01 0.00 424 0.43 425 424 0.43 425 70.2 0.07 70.3 lii:i·i'I_Ell _____ ,HM·M•HihMiHtii◄i4MM·MiHtiii•-Oi=M+◄1DIIIIIIBIEIIIIII Daily, Summer (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total 57 /79 121 0.12 121 0.00 0.00 0.00 121 0.12 121 12.1 0.01 12.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 424 0.43 425 Daily, Winter (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Annual Single Family Housing City Park Total t6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use t6.1. Unmitigated 121 0.12 121 20.1 0.02 20.1 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/"I 0/202~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 121 0.12 121 20.1 0.02 20.1 12.1 0.01 12.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.01 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 2.01 0.00 424 0.43 425 70.2 0.07 70.3 '.:;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) iii,i•i'M ______ ,nu++•HIMM•Hii◄i#Ui·Mi#MHl•=-Hi=M-t#BII __ _ Daily, Summer (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Daily, Winter (Max) 58/79 3.49 0.00 3.49 Single Family Housing City Park Total Annual Single Family Housing City Park Total t6.2. Mitigated TRACT 7415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ 3.49 0.00 3.49 0.58 0.00 0.58 '.;riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) lii:i·i'M _______ ,no++•UIMM•Hi1Wi4U-M·M•Hiii•EIIIHi=B+W1mlllmlll!IIBIIII Daily, Summer (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Daily, Winter (Max) Single Family Housing City Park Total Annual 59/79 3.49 0.00 3.49 3.49 0.00 3.49 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/1 0/202~ -PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T . Daily, Summer (Max) Total Daily, Winter (Max) Total Annual Total t 10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type t 10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type -Unmitigated :riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ---------------Daily, Summer (Max) Total Daily, Winter (Max) Total Annual Total t 10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type -Unmitigated 63/79 1• 1• TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ :riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) iii,i·i'M _____ llll•Wii-i·MiPMMMiiUli◄iPMi1·1•#Mi-ii-Hi=B-t◄--IBIIIII Daily, Summer (Max) Total Daily, Winter (Max) Total Annual Total i.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species -Unmitigated :riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ¥·Mli4◄-----llll•Hb+MihiMMi#Mi◄iH41·1iH4ii-Hi=B-t◄-mlllBIIIII Daily, Summer (Max) Avoided Subtotal Sequeste red Subtotal Removed Subtotal Daily, Winter (Max) Avoided 64 /79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Total t 10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type -Mitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) iii,i·Pl ______ ,un++·HIMM14411iiH¥·1•4UMMDIIIIUi=R+----- Daily, Summer (Max) Total Daily, Winter (Max) Total Annual Total t 10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species -Mitigated ~riteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ®·iliiii-ralllmll--llla•HlitlliiHIMMiH41WiHt41·1iHM·ilDIIIIHi=B+WBIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Daily, Summer (Max) Avoided Subtotal Sequeste red Subtotal Removed Subtotal 66 179 Daily, Winter (Max) Avoided Subtotal Sequeste red Subtotal Removed Subtotal Annual Avoided Subtotal Sequeste red Subtotal Removed Subtotal 5. Activity Data 5.1 . Construction Schedule Phase Name Site Preparation Grading Building Construction Phase Type I Site Preparation Grading Building Construction Start Date 8/31/2029 10/12/2029 1/25/2030 End Date 10/11/2029 1/24/2030 11/25/2032 67 /79 I Days Per Week 5.00 5.00 5.00 TRACT 7415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ I Work Days per Phase 30.0 75.0 740 Phase Description Paving Paving Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Equipment Type Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Grading Graders Grading Excavators Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Grading Scrapers Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Building Construction Forklifts Building Construction Generator Sets Building Construction Cranes Building Construction Welders Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Paving Pavers Paving Paving Equipment Paving Rollers Architectural Coating Air Compressors 5.2.2. Mitigated 11/26/2032 2/11/2033 Fuel Type Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel 2/10/2033 4/28/2033 Engine Tier Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average 5.00 5.00 I Number per Day 3.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 68/79 Hours Per Day 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 6.00 55.0 55.0 TRACT 7415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ I Horsepower Load Factor 367 0.40 84.0 0.37 148 0.41 36.0 0.38 84.0 0.37 423 0.48 367 0.40 82.0 0.20 14.0 0.74 367 0.29 46.0 0.45 84.0 0.37 81.0 0.42 89.0 0.36 36.0 0.38 37.0 0.48 Phase Name I Equipment Type I Fuel Type Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel oes Grading Graders Diesel Grading Excavators Diesel Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel oes Grading Scrapers Diesel Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Building Construction Cranes Diesel Building Construction Welders Diesel Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel oes Paving Pavers Diesel Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Paving Rollers Diesel Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Site Preparation Site Preparation Site Preparation I Trip Type Worker Vendor I Engine Tier I Number per Day Average 3.00 Average 4.00 Average 1.00 Average 2.00 Average 2.00 Average 2.00 Average 1.00 Average 3.00 Average 1.00 Average 1.00 Average 1.00 Average 3.00 Average 2.00 Average 2.00 Average 2.00 Average 1.00 One-Way Trips per Day 17.5 69 /79 I Hours Per Day 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 6.00 Miles per Trip 11.0 7.37 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ I Horsepower I Load Factor 367 84.0 148 36.0 84.0 423 367 82.0 14.0 367 46.0 84.0 81.0 89.0 36.0 37.0 0.40 0.37 0.41 0.38 0.37 0.48 0.40 0.20 0.74 0.29 0.45 0.37 0.42 0.36 0.38 0.48 [ Vehicle Mix LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT Site Preparation Site Preparation Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Building Construction Building Construction Building Construction Building Construction Building Construction Paving Paving Paving Paving Paving Architectural Coating Architectural Coating Architectural Coating Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5.3.2. Mitigated Phase Name I Site Preparation Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 Onsite truck - Worker 20.0 Vendor - Hauling 0.00 Onsite truck - Worker 90.0 Vendor 26.7 Hauling 0.00 Onsite truck - Worker 15.0 Vendor - Hauling 0.00 Onsite truck - Worker 18.0 Vendor - Hauling 0.00 Onsite truck - Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Worker 17.5 70/ 79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ 20.0 HHDT -HHDT 11.0 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2 7.37 HHDT,MHDT 20.0 HHDT -HHDT 11.0 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2 7.37 HHDT,MHDT 20.0 HHDT -HHDT 11.0 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2 7.37 HHDT,MHDT 20.0 HHDT -HHDT 11.0 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2 7.37 HHDT,MHDT 20.0 HHDT -HHDT Miles per Trip I Vehicle Mix 11.0 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2 2032 2033 0.00 0.00 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Single Family Housing City Park 5.9.2. Mitigated Trips/Weekday 2,218 0.00 Land Use Type I I Trips/Weekday Single Family Housing City Park 2,218 0.00 I Trips/Saturday 2,218 0.00 I' Trips/Saturday 2,218 0.00 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1 . Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated Hearth Type Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces Gas Fireplaces Propane Fireplaces Electric Fireplaces I Trips/Sunday 2,218 0.00 I Trips/Sunday 2,218 0.00 204 204 Trips/Year 809,388 0.00 Trips/Year 809,388 0.00 0.03 0.03 VMT/Weekday 23,567 0.00 VMT/Weekday 23,567 0.00 Unmitigated (number) 0 0 0 0 73/79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/1 0/202::: I VMT/Saturday 23,567 0.00 I VMT/Saturday 23,567 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 I VMT/Sunday 23,567 0.00 I VMT/Sunday 23,567 0.00 VMT/Year 8,601,884 0.00 l'vMT/Year 8,601,884 0.00 No Fireplaces Conventional Wood Stoves Catalytic Wood Stoves Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves Pellet Wood Stoves 5.10.1.2. Mitigated Hearth Type Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces Gas Fireplaces Propane Fireplaces Electric Fireplaces No Fireplaces Conventional Wood Stoves Catalytic Wood Stoves Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves Pellet Wood Stoves 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) 987187.5 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment Season Snow Days Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) 329,063 Unit day/yr 250 0 0 0 0 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Unmitigated (number) 0 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 0 Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) 0.00 74/79 Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) 0.00 Parking Area Coated (sq ft) .. ,, Value , n, , .. 0.00 5.12.2. Mitigated Land Use Single Family Housing City Park 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated Land Use Single Family Housing City Park 5.13.2. Mitigated Land Use Single Family Housing City Park Indoor Water (gal/year) 10,136,963 0.00 Waste (ton/year) 225 0.23 Waste (ton/year) 225 0.23 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant Single Family Housing Average room A/C & R-410A 2,088 Other residential A/C and heat pumps Single Family Housing Household refrigerators R-134a 1,430 and/or freezers City Park Other commercial A/C R-410A 2,088 and heat pumps Quantity (kg) < 0.005 0.12 < 0.005 76/ 79 TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Outdoor Water (gal/year) 57,727,388 4,199,560 Cogeneration (kWh/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year) Operations Leak Rate I Service Leak Rate 2.50 2.50 0.60 0.00 4.00 4.00 I Times Serviced 10.0 1.00 18.0 5.16.2. Process Boilers Equipment Type 5.17. User Defined Equipment Type 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type 5.18.1.2. Mitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Fuel Type 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.2. Mitigated Biomass Cover Type Number Vegetation Soil Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Initial Acres TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtuiday) I Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) Fuel Type Initial Acres Final Acres ; .sf; Initial Acres Final Acres Final Acres Final Acres 78 /79 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated Tree Type 5.18.2.2. Mitigated Tree Type Number Number 3. User Changes to Default Data Screen Land Use Construction: Construction Phases Operations: Vehicle Data Operations: Fleet Mix Operations: Hearths Operations: Consumer Products TRACT 7 415 Custom Report, 5/10/202~ Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) Justification Residential Landscape Area includes proposed landscape lots. Conservatively assuming total park acreage is landscaped. No proposed demolition. Trip rates provided by Applicant. District Approved Residential Fleet Mix for 2033 Per Rule 4901 and Applicant Derived from CalEEMod Appendix E3 -Consumer Products Use 2003 Survey Residential Data Grouping 79/79 APPENDIX C. CARB 2020 AND 2025 ESTIMATED EMISSION INVENTORIES Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants C-1 Secretary for Environmental Pro\eclion Jared Blurnenfeld Visit his Website Chair, California Air Resources Board Liane M. Randolph Visit her Website The California Air Resources Board is one of six boards, departments. and offices under the California Environmental Protection Agency. CalEPA CalRecycle I DPR DTSC OEHHA SWRCB Copyright© 2019 State of California ■rll:JHil~ ~ CALI FORNIA If~ AIR RESOURCES BOARD About Our Work Resources Services Rulemaking News Equity 2016 SIP EMISSION PROJECTION DATA 2025 Estimated Annual Average Emissions KERN COUNTY All emissions are represented in Tons per Day and reflect the most current data provided to ARB. 0 See detailed information. Start a new query. KERN COUNTY COUNTY -MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN I STATIONARY SOURCES ITOG OG I co llNoxIIsoxII PM IIPM1 ollPM2.sllNH3I FUEL COMBUSTION 0.1 [Q]O][~)II o.4II 0.411 0.41[]] WASTE DISPOSAL 0.1 []]□[[qll 0.011 0.011 o.o[Q]] CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGS 1.0 0.9 D□□[]]IToll 0 .01□ PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND 0.1 0.1 -□□□□□□ MARKETING !INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 1mm 11.0 119.11m 1 3.911 3.211 1.91[]:J] I* TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES 11 f!J:]IT4ll 11.a11 22.2IITaII 4.411 =:[sll 2.21[~] I AREAWIDE SOURCES IIToGIIRoGII co IINox11soxll PM IIPM1 ollPM2.sl 11 !SOLVENT EVAPORATION l@[TI]□DDDC-I1 -I !MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES II ]][TI]ITD][]]~oll1a.sI1 9.711 2.6[Q] I* TOTAL AREAWIDE SOURCES II TIIT1I111.1II ]]IT0II1a.slf~II 2.611 2.01 I MOBILE SOURCES ITOG IROGII co IINoxJlsoxll PM IIPM10IIPM2.slINH3I ION-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES I o.9 [Q]][]]CTIJ[Q]@JIT3II 0.1 I1]:J] !OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 1 s.o ITaJI24.2lt ]][])II 3.011 ~]=911 2.9[Q] I* TOTAL MOBILE SOURCES 11 TIIT6ll29.2II }][})JI 3.311 =:[211 3.0[~ ITOTAL KERN COUNTY IN MOJAVE II 22. {~jis2.1ii 29.{~~2Ji2s.1ii 1s.4il 3G DESERT KERN COUNTY COUNTY -SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN I STATIONARY SOURCES II TOG IIROGll ~]INoxIIsoxll PM IIPM1ollPM2.sllNH3I !FUEL COMBUSTION II 12.4II~TirnmmI 2.611 2.511 2.4[]] !WASTE DISPOSAL 11241.011 13.411 ~[Q][Q]CQJJIToll 0.01[]] lCLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGS Irnrn□□□[]]IT~JI 0.01□ PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND I 45·0 11 ~GGG[~13GG MARKETING JINDUSTRIAL PROCESSES Irnrnrnmm1 4.0113711 0.6[Q] I 11-11 11111111 II 111 Secretary fur Em,1ronrrent1! Prutcct,on Ja,ed BlumcnfeU Chair. Col,fornia Air Resources B'Jard Liane M Randolph The Cal1forn1a Air Resources Board is one of six boards. departments, and offices under the California Environmental Protection Agency Galt.PA 1.;a1 e<ecyc1e u.-n DTSC OEHHA SWRCB Copyright O 2019 State of California 0 APPENDIX D. HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT MODELING FILES (Electronic Files) Pensinger-S. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants D-1 APPENDIX E. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT MODELING FILES (Electronic Files) Pensinger-5. Allen Multi-Family Residential / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants E-1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION General Plan Amendment/Zone Change Assessor’s Parcel Map Numbers 535-010-01, -03, and -04 County of Kern Bakersfield, California Prepared for: New Gen Engineering Group, Inc. dba McIntosh & Associates 10800 Stockdale Highway, Suite 103 Bakersfield, California 93309 Prepared by: Pruett Biological Resource Consulting 8819 Latera Court Bakersfield, California 93314 661.421.0006 05 July 2023 Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc. (PruettBio) has prepared this biological resource evaluation for a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 535-010-01, -03, and -04. The project consists of 79.81 gross acres (32.30 hectares)(project) Section 24, Township 30 South, Range 26 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. The project is northeast of the intersection of South Allen Road and Pensinger Road within the limits of the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, California. The Owner has submitted an application to the County of Kern for a proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The project is located within the geographic range of several federal-, and state-listed, threatened and/or endangered plant and animal taxa. Several non-listed, special-status species also have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project. The purpose of this report is to document biological resources identified during a reconnaissance-level field study of the project site and include potential biological resources identified during a literature review of the site and vicinity, identify potential impacts to biological resources resulting from the project. Evaluation of potential impacts to plant and animal species are required under federal and state regulation during a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Appendix G thresholds have been used to evaluate potential impacts to the biological resources from the proposed project development. Avoidance and minimization measures for implementation prior to and during project activities are recommended as appropriate. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have not been contacted regarding the preparation of this report. Appendix B, Special-Status Plant and Animal Evaluations, satisfy the requirements for an initial determination of potential impacts under the CEQA Appendix G thresholds. If CEQA threshold determinations warrant, further consultation may be required with CDFW and USFWS. If additional consultation with the agencies results in the need for Application for a California Incidental Take Permit, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 outlines requirements for detailed species-specific take analysis, proposed measures to minimize and fully mitigate impacts, compliance monitoring, and funding. A detailed description satisfying Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 is not required to meet the CEQA Appendix G thresholds. A literature review was conducted of the site and vicinity, prior to the field study, of the biological resources known to occur based on recorded, direct observation, or potentially occurring in the project impact area based on current or historical habitat conditions. During the field study, existing habitat conditions, direct observations and/or species sign was recorded to assess the potential for occurrence of special-status species. This report includes an evaluation of the potential for those special-status biological resources not observed during the field study, with the potential to occur on the property based on the habitat conditions observed. The project is in northwest Bakersfield in an area historically farmed. Urban development has increased along the margins of Metropolitan Bakersfield in the past 30 years and has resulted in the conversion of farmland to residential and commercial properties. The project was under almond production at the time of the field study. The site is surrounded by mixed use residential, agricultural, and commercial development with scattered oil production. No undisturbed, native, or recovering habitat is present on the site or adjacent parcels. The literature review and database queries yielded 21 special-status plant species and 32 special-status animal species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. Of these, 5 plant species, and 16 animal species have federal-, and/or state-listed and are afforded protection under federal or state law. Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 The project will not conflict with existing or adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, local or regional conservation plans, or local ordinances protecting biological resources. Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT SETTING AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 1 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 2 FIELD STUDY ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER ...................................................................................................... 3 SOILS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Special-Status Plant Species ................................................................................................................................ 3 Special-Status Animal Species ............................................................................................................................. 4 Designated Critical Habitat ................................................................................................................................. 4 Jurisdictional Water Resource Features .............................................................................................................. 4 Special-Status Natural Communities ................................................................................................................... 5 Wildlife Migration Corridors and Nursery Sites ................................................................................................... 5 Regional and Local Policies .................................................................................................................................. 5 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................................... 5 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 PROJECT VICINTY AND SITE ................................................................................................................................ 11 APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................................................................ 17 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND ANIMAL EVALUATION ........................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................................................................ 31 PLANTS AND ANIMALS OBSERVED ON THE PROJECT .......................................................................................... 31 Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 1 INTRODUCTION Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc. (PruettBio) has prepared this biological resource evaluation for the proposed development of APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04. The project consists of 79.81 gross acres (32.30 hectares)(project) Section 24, Township 30 South, Range 26 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. The project is northeast of the intersection of South Allen Road and Pensinger Road within the limits of the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, California. The report documents biological resources identified during fieldwork conducted on the project site and those identified through a literature search as potentially occurring based on known observations or historic habitat conditions. The report uses the information collected during the field study and literature search to evaluate potential impacts to biological resources, resulting from the project. The report is intended to assist in the analysis of the proposed project for a GPA and ZC. Listed plant and animal species are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Protection of other non-listed, special-status species is afforded under additional regulation including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impacts to non-listed, special-status species must be evaluated. Where necessary, the report recommends avoidance and minimization measures for implementation prior to and during project activities. The report is intended to provide technical information in support of a CEQA preliminary review. For the purposes of this report, potential impacts to the biological resources of the proposed project were evaluated in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (2021). PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION The project consists of 79.81.55 gross acres (32.30 hectares)(project) of APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04. The project site is located northeast of the intersection of South Allen Road and Pensinger Road, Section 24, Township 30 South, Range 26 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. PROJECT SETTING AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The project site is in the southern San Joaquin Valley; a broad, treeless plain in the rain shadow of the Inner Coast Ranges. The region’s climate can be characterized as Mediterranean; with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Summer high temperatures typically exceed 100 °Fahrenheit (°F); with an average of 110 days per year over 90 °F. Winter temperatures in the San Joaquin Valley are mild, with an average of only 16 days per year with frost (Twisselmann 1967). Rainfall varies, increasing from west to east, with the west side of the valley receiving an average of around 4 inches (10 centimeters) per year and the east side averaging about 6 inches (15 centimeters) per year. Winter fog, called Tule fog, sometimes forms during the months of November, December, and January, supplementing the annual precipitation. Approximately 90% of the rainfall in the region occurs between November 1 and April 1. Drought cycles occur periodically, becoming severe enough that plant and animal populations can experience large fluctuations. The vegetation communities in the San Joaquin Valley are distinguishable from the Mojave Desert to the east due to Tule fog, higher humidity, and isolation from continental climatic influences by mountain ranges (Twisselmann 1967). The general topography of the area slopes very subtly south with the project generally flat at about 341 feet (104 meters) above mean sea level. The project and vicinity have been historically farmed for decades. The project site was under almond production at the time of the field study. The project site is surrounded by mixed use residential, agricultural, and commercial development with scattered oil production. No undisturbed, native, or recovering habitat is present on the project site or adjacent parcels. Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 2 METHODS LITERATURE REVIEW PruettBio conducted a literature review to identify known observations and potential for listed, or otherwise special-status, species to occur in the vicinity of the project site. A standard, 10-mile (16-kilometer) radius query was performed. Database records reviewed included: • United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) iPac: The iPac report generates a list of federal-listed species and other resources under the jurisdiction of the USFWS, including designated critical habitat for listed species, National Wildlife Refuge lands, and Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory. The list includes resources that are outside of the project site, but that have the potential to be impacted by project activities. • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory: The Wetlands Mapper is an online inventory integrating digital map data and other resources to provide current information regarding the status of national wetlands, riparian, and deepwater habitats. • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) WebSoil Survey: The report is an online database providing soil data produced by the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the USDA and other federal, state, and local agencies. The information drawn for the Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Northwestern Part was originally drawn from fieldwork completed in 1981 with soil names and descriptions approved in 1982. • California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB-RareFind 5): The CNDDB is a database of listed, or otherwise special-status, plant and animal species and sensitive communities maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The information queried for this report included a standard 10-mile radius of the project site. • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants: CNPS is a private, professional organization that maintains a database evaluating the current conservation status of California’s rare, threatened, and endangered plant species. The information queried for this report included a standard 10-mile radius of the project site. The list includes resources that are outside of the project site, but that have the potential to be impacted by project activities based on known historic or current habitat features. FIELD STUDY A reconnaissance-level, biological field study was conducted by Steven P. Pruett on 11 May 2023. The project was surveyed by walking the perimeter and random transects to evaluate all representative habitat features of the site. The field study conducted, allowed for 100% visual coverage of the project site habitat types. Field notes included observations of all plant and wildlife species observed. Direct observations and/or species sign was recorded to assess the potential for occurrence. Land cover types and general habitat conditions were recorded and photographed. Special-status species and habitat features, such as vegetation communities or ephemeral channels, were also recorded and photographed if observed. Coordinates for important biological resource elements and direct observations of special-status species were recorded using a handheld geographic positioning system unit. If observed, San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) dens were classified as defined by the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011). All plant taxa encountered were identified to the extent possible given the diagnostic features present. Identifications were made using keys contained in The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California and online updates containing revisions to taxonomic treatments (Baldwin et al. 2012; Jepson Flora Project 2015). Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 3 RESULTS This section summarizes the results of the field study conducted on the project site and evaluates those results for the known or potential for occurrence of special-status species based on the literature review and database queries and pursuant to statutory regulation. Discussions are provided describing the existing habitat conditions including vegetation communities, land cover and current use; soils; special- status biological resources potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project site; the potential for jurisdictional resources including designated critical habitat and riparian/wetland/water resource features; the potential for wildlife migration corridors and nursery sites; and regional and local policy. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER The project site is located at the western edge of urban development of Metropolitan Bakersfield. The original vegetive communities of the project site were Non-native Grassland (Holland 42200) and Valley Saltbush Scrub (Holland 36220). The project has been farmed for decades. The project was under almond production at the time of the survey. Invasive herbaceous species dominate the uncultivated vegetative cover. SOILS The USGS soil survey map describes the soil of the project site as Unit 174, Kimberlina fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (NRCS 2020). Unit 174 is alluvium derived from igneous and sedimentary rock found on alluvial fans. It is comprised of fine sandy loam and silt loam to a depth of about 71 inches. The depth to the restrictive feature is more than 80 inches and the available water storage in profile is listed as moderate (about 8.7 inches). This soil has a prime farmland classification and is of statewide importance. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The literature review and database queries yielded 21 special-status plant species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. Thirty-two animal species were identified as potentially occurring in the region of the project site. No evidence of any listed animal species was observed during the field study. No evidence of otherwise special-status plant or animal species, or animal species sign was observed during the field study. The evaluation of special-status species that were found during the literature review with a potential to occur in the region are included in Appendix B. Special-Status Plant Species Special-status plant species considered in this evaluation include all plant species that meet one or more of the following criteria: • Listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under ESA or candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA (50 CFR §17.12). • Listed or candidates for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under CESA (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.). A species, subspecies, or variety of plant is endangered when the prospects of its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors (Fish and Game Code §2062). A plant is threatened when it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management measures (Fish and Game Code §2067). • Listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code §1900 et seq.). A plant is rare when, although not presently threatened with extinction, the species, Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 4 subspecies, or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens (Fish and Game Code §1901). • Meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA §15380(b) and (d). Species that may meet the definition of rare or endangered include the following: o Species considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” (Lists 1A, 1B and 2); o Species that may warrant consideration on the basis of local significance or recent biological information. o Some species included on the California Natural Diversity Database’s (CNDDB) Special Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (California Department of Fish and Game 2008). • Considered a locally significant species, that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA §15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). Examples include a species at the outer limits of its known range or a species occurring on an uncommon soil type. Precipitation has been well above average to date, resulting in a good year for annual plant species observations. Of the 21 special-status plant species returned during database queries for the project vicinity, 5 species are either federally- or state-listed as threatened or endangered. Although CEQA requires consideration for impacts to locally significant plant species, no mitigation is legally required to compensate for impacts to non-listed plant species. No listed, or otherwise special-status plant species was observed during the fieldwork conducted for the preparation of this report. No listed, or otherwise special-status plant species, has been recorded as occurring within the project site. Special-Status Animal Species Special-status animal species considered in this evaluation include those that may occur in the project vicinity that have statutory protections. This includes federal- and state-listed (rare, threatened, or endangered; fully protected) species and candidates for listing under the respective endangered species acts. Species that are of special concern to the CDFW or the USFWS are included in this evaluation. Special-status bird species that are afforded protection under the MBTA which may nest on or within an approximate 10-mile (16-kilometer) radius of the project site are also evaluated. No evidence of any listed animal species was observed during the field study. No evidence of otherwise special-status animal species, or animal species sign was observed during the field study Designated Critical Habitat The USFWS iPac report and USFWS Designated Critical Habitat Mapper lists no Designated Critical Habitat (USFWS 2023). Designated Critical Habitats closest to the project site include California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) approximately 22-miles south/southwest and Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) west of the project site. No suitable habitat for either species exists on the project site. Jurisdictional Water Resource Features Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates discharge of dredged and fill material into Waters of the United States. Wetlands are included under this jurisdiction. Proposed activities that may result in discharge of material into Waters of the U.S. require a permit review process by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as set forth under CWA section 404(b)(1). Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify CDFW before beginning any activity that will substantially modify a river, stream, or lake. Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 5 A search of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory resulted in no riparian, wetlands, or other jurisdictional water features mapped on the project site (USFWS 2023). These results are consistent with the observed conditions within the survey area. Special-Status Natural Communities No special-status vegetation communities on the project site were identified by the USFWS iPac query, the CNDDB, or the CNPS Inventory (USFWS 2023, CDFW 2023, CNPS 2023). These results are consistent with the observed conditions within the survey area. Wildlife Migration Corridors and Nursery Sites Wildlife corridors can be defined as connections between wildlife blocks that meet specific habitat needs for species movement generally during migratory periods but seasonally as well. Wildlife corridors generally contain habitat dissimilar to the surrounding vicinity and include examples such as riparian areas along rivers and streams, washes, canyons, or otherwise undisturbed areas within urbanization. Corridor width requirements can vary based on the needs of the species utilizing them. Development of the project would not impact wildlife migration corridors or nursery sites. Regional and Local Policies The proposed, modified project will not conflict with existing or adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, local or regional conservation plans, or local ordinances protecting biological resources. IMPACT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES CEQA Appendix G thresholds have been used to evaluate potential impacts to the biological resources from the proposed project. Appendix G provides an analysis of the impacts of the proposed project following the standards of CEQA and provides recommendations that, when implemented, would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. It is important to note that potential take of any federal- or state-listed species from project activities would require contacting the appropriate wildlife agency (the USFWS and/or the CDFW). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have not been contacted regarding the preparation of this report. Appendix B, Special-Status Plant and Animal Evaluations, satisfy the requirements for an initial determination of potential impacts under the CEQA Appendix G thresholds. If CEQA threshold determinations warrant, further consultation may be required with CDFW and USFWS. If additional consultation with the agencies results in the need for Application for a California Incidental Take Permit, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 outlines requirements for detailed species-specific take analysis, proposed measures to minimize and fully mitigate impacts, compliance monitoring, and funding. A detailed description satisfying Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 is not required to meet the CEQA Appendix G thresholds. The project would create a significant impact to biological resources, based on the specifications in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, if the following were to occur: 1. 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 6 3. 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; 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The following analysis discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides recommendations where appropriate to further reduce potential impacts. 1. Would the project 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, by the CDFW, or the USFWS? Direct and indirect impacts, in the form of “incidental take” of a threatened, endangered, or otherwise protected species, are not expected as a result of the development of the proposed project. Implementation of standard measures for the protection of biological resources are recommended to avoid and minimize potential impact to general wildlife. These measures include, but may not be limited to: • A biological resource pre-activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more that 30-days before the start of construction activities, • Biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance, • Compliance reporting provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted. If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance. The project is within the historic range of Tipton kangaroo rat. The project was not included in the southwest focus area for the species in the previous habitat conservation plan. The most recent habitat suitability modeling (Cypher 2020) does not include the project in any of the four tiers enumerated for suitability. Trapping would be required to confirm small mammal species occupying the project. 2. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS? No 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 United States Fish and Wildlife Service exists on the project site. No adverse effect will occur as a result of the development of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are recommended. 3. Would the project 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? Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 7 No features, identified in wetland categories, appear on the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory mapping (USFWS 2021) on the proposed, modified project site. No federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act were identified during the field study conducted for the preparation of this report. No substantial adverse effect will occur as a result of the development of the project. No mitigation measures are recommended. 4. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No migratory wildlife corridors were identified during the literature search or field study. The project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native fish of wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The following recommendations are provided for the general protection of bird species that may occur on the project site or vicinity in compliance with the MBTA: If ground-disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance should occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist. Appropriate avoidance should be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests should be implemented as follows: 1) ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters); 2) burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW may be warranted. 3) Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers); 3) other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters). 5. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? There are no biological resources on the site which are protected by local policies. Impacts from conflicts with local policies will not occur. No additional mitigation measures are recommended. 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project does not conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No additional mitigation measures are recommended. Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 8 REFERENCES Baldwin, B. G., Goldman, D. H., Keil, D. J., Patterson, R., Rosatti, T. J., & Wilken, D. H. (Eds.). (2012). The Jepson manual: Vascular plants of California (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1568 pp. CDFG. (2009). Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and natural communities. Sacramento, CA: Author. 7 pp. CDFG. (2012). Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Sacramento, CA: Author. CNDDB. (2023). Occurrence for U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5 minute quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: CDFW California Endangered Species Act of 1970, C.F.G.C § 2050 et seq. (2023). California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, 13 P.R.C. § 21000 et seq. (2023). California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 Guidelines, 14 C.C.R. § 15000 et seq. (2023). California Native Plant Society (CNPS). (2023). Inventory of rare and endangered plants (Online edition, v8-01a) 7.5 minute quadrangles and corresponding plant species accounts. Sacramento, CA: Author. California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977, C.F.G.C § 1904 et seq. (2023). Clean Water Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (2014). Dunn, J. L., & Alderfer, J., (Eds.). (2008). Field guide to the birds of western North America. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society. 447 pp. Ehrlich, P. R., Dobkin, D. S., & Wheye, D. (1988). The birder’s handbook: A field guide to the natural history of North American birds. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc. 785 pp. Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. (2023). Harris, J. H., & Stearns, D. M. (1991). Population density, census methods, habitat relationships, and home range of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel, 1988–89. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section, Report 91-02. Oakland, CA: CDFG. Retrieved from http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2953 Jennings, M. R., Hayes, M. P., & Metro Washington Park Zoo. (1994). Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California (Final report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Contract No. 8023). Rancho Cordova, CA: CDFG. 255 pp. Jepson Flora project (Eds.). (2015). Jepson eFlora. Retrieved from http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html Luce, B. (2005). Eumops perotis: Western mastiff bat. In C. Chambers & M. Herder, (Eds.), Species accounts. Portland, OR: Western Bat Working Group. 5 pp. Retrieved from http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/molossidae/eupe.pdf Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. (2023). Nafis, G. (2000–2021a). North American legless lizards - Anniella. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Retrieved from http://www.californiaherps.com/lizards/pages/a.pulchra.html Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 9 Nafis, G. (2000–2021b). San Joaquin coachwhip – Coluber flagellum ruddocki. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Retrieved from http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/pages/c.f.ruddocki.html Nafis, G. (2000–2021c). Blainville’s horned lizard – Phrynosoma blainvillii. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Retrieved from http://www.californiaherps.com/lizards/pages/p.blainvillii.html Native Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species, 32 Fed. Reg. 4001 (Mar. 11, 1967). Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr18.pdf Papenfuss, T. J., Parham, J. F. (2013). Four new species of California legless lizards (Anniella). Breviora 536, 1–17. Retrieved from http://mczbase.mcz.harvard.edu/specimen_images/publications/Breviora_536.pdf Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, C.W.A. § Section 13000 et seq. (2023). Reid, F. A. (2006). Mammals of North America (Peterson field guide). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 579 pp. Sherwin, R. (2005). Antrozous pallidus: Pallid bat. In D. A. Rambaldini, (Eds.). Species accounts. Portland, OR: Western Bat Working Group. 5 pp. Retrieved from http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/anpa.pdf Shuford, W. D., Gardali, T., (with Comrack, L.A.). (Eds.). (2008). California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Sacramento, CA: CDFG. Stebbins, R. C. (1985). A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians (Peterson field guide), (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 336 pp. Stebbins, R. C. (2003). A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians (Peterson field guide), (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 533 pp. Twisselmann, E. C. (1967). A flora of Kern County, California. The Wasmann Journal of Biology, 25, 1–395. Uptain, C. E. (1989). Survey for Tipton kangaroo rats (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides) on the proposed Delano prison site, Kern County, California (Prepared for the California Department of Corrections). Sacramento, CA: 11 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (1996). California condor recovery plan, third revision. Portland, OR: Author. 62 pp. USFWS. (1998). Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Portland, OR: Author. Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/980930a.pdf USFWS. (2011). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service standardized recommendations for protection of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance. Sacramento, CA: Author. 9 pp. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-Protocols-Guidelines/Documents/kitfox_standard_rec_2011.pdf USFWS. (2013). California condor recovery program population size and distribution, December 31, 2013 overview page. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_8/NWRS/Zone_1/Hopper_Mountain_Complex/Hopper_Mountain/Sections/News/News_Items/PDFs/2013-12-31.pdf Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 10 USFWS. (2023a). Federal endangered and threatened species that may occur in or may be affected by project in the counties and/or USGS 7 ½ minute quads you requested: quadrangle [August]. Author. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species_lists-form.cfm USFWS. (2023b). National Wetlands Inventory Website [August]. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ Williams, D. F. (1980). Distribution and population status of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel and giant kangaroo rat. (Nongame Wildlife Investigation Final Report E-W-4). Sacramento, CA: CDFG. 48 pp. Williams, D. F. (1986). Mammalian species of special concern in California (Prepared for the State of California, The Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game). Turlock, CA: CSUS. 112 pp. Retrieved from http://esrp.csustan.edu/resources/publications/pdf/mammalian_scc_ca_esrp5.pdf Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer, W. F., Jr., Mayer, K. E., & White, M., (Eds.). (1990a). California’s wildlife volume II birds (California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System). Sacramento, CA: CDFG. Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer, W. F., Jr., Mayer, K. E., & White, M., (Eds.). (1990b). California’s wildlife volume III mammals (California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System). Sacramento, CA: CDFG. APPENDIX A PROJECT VICINTY AND SITE Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 Figure A-1. Aerial photograph of the project and vicinity (Google Earth Pro 2023). Bakersfield Project Site Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 June 2023 13 Figure A-2. Aerial photograph of the project site (Google Earth Pro 2023). Project Site Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 Figure A-3 Soil map of the project site (USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2023). Soil Map—Kern County, California, Northwestern Part Natural ResourcesConservation Service Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey 6/2/2023Page 1 of 33908800390890039090003909100390920039093003909400390950039096003909700390880039089003909000390910039092003909300390940039095003909600304800304900305000305100305200305300305400305500 304800 304900 305000 305100 305200 305300 305400 35° 18' 41'' N 119° 8' 51'' W35° 18' 41'' N119° 8' 21'' W35° 18' 9'' N 119° 8' 51'' W35° 18' 9'' N 119° 8' 21'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS840200400800 1200 Feet050100 200 300 MetersMap Scale: 1:4,830 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 Figure A-4. Photograph of the project site taken from the southeast corner facing northwest (11May23). Figure A-5. Photograph of the project site taken from near the southwest corner facing northeast (11May23). Biological Resource Evaluation APN 463-160-11, -13, and -53 June 2023 16 Figure A-6. Photograph taken in about the middle of the east edge facing west (11May23). Figure A-7. Photograph of the project site taken from near the northwest corner facing south/southeast (11May23). APPENDIX B SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND ANIMAL EVALUATION Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 Table B-1: Special-status Plants That May Occur in the Vicinity of the Project. Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State/CNPS Description Blooming Period Field Study Results/Potential for Occurrence Astragalus hornii var. hornii Horn’s milk vetch S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Fabaceae found in meadows and seeps and on playas and lake margins on alkaline soils between 197 and 2,789 feet (60–850 meters) in elevation. Known from occurrences in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, the Tehachapi Mountains and the Western Transverse Ranges in Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino Counties. May to October Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata Heartscale S/-/1B.2 Herbaceous annual in the Chenopodiaceae found in chenopod scrub, meadows and weeps, and valley and foothill grasslands in sandy, saline or alkaline soils below 1,837 feet (560 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in the Great Central Valley from Kern County north to Southern Butte County. April to October Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Atriplex coronata var. vallicola Lost Hills crownscale S/-/1B.2 Herbaceous annual in the Chenopodiaceae found in valley and foothill grasslands, playas, and vernal pools on alkaline soils between 456 and 1,640 feet (139–500 meters) in elevation. April to August Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Atriplex tularensis Bakersfield smallscale -/E/1A Annual herb in the Chenopodiaceae found in valley and foothill grasslands, between 131 and 328 feet (40–100 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in the San Joaquin Valley from Northwestern Kern County north to Southern Merced County and in the Sacramento Valley in Southern Butte County. June to August (occasionally October) Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Calochortus striatus Alkali mariposa lily S/-/1B.2 Bulbiferous perennial herb in the Liliaceae found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grasslands on sandy often granitic, sometimes serpentine soils, between 1,296 and 3,281 feet (395–1,000 meters). Known to occur in the Outer South Coast Ranges in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. April to May Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Caulanthus californicus California jewelflower E/E/1B.1 Annual herb in the Brassicaceae family found on serpentinite soils in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, and cismontane woodland between 1,542 and 4,003 feet (470–1,220 meters) in elevation. May to July Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 19 Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State/CNPS Description Blooming Period Field Study Results/Potential for Occurrence Chloropyron molle ssp. hispidum Hispid bird’s-beak S/-/1B.1 Hemiparasitic annual herb in the Orobanchaceae family found on coastal dunes and coastal saltwater marshes and swamps below 98 feet (30 meters) in elevation. May to October Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Delphinium recurvatum Recurved larkspur S/-/1B.2 Perennial herb in the Ranunculaceae family found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and pinyon and juniper woodland on rocky, carbonate soils between 984 and 4,396 feet (300–1,340 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Kern and Tulare Counties. April to May Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Diplacus pictus Calico monkeyflower -/-/1B.2 Annual herb in the Phrymaceae family found in upland and cismontane woodland on granitic soils between 328 and 4690 feet (100-1430 meters). Known to occur in Kern and Tulare Counties. March to May Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Eremalche parryi ssp. kernensis Kern mallow E/-/1B.1 Perennial, stoloniferous herb in the Onagraceae family found in meadows ad seeps, and subalpine coniferous forest in mesic soils between 6,562 and 10,236 feet (2,000–3,120 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Alpine, El Dorado, Fresno, Madera, Mono, Nevada, Sierra, and Tuolumne Counties. July to August Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Eriastrum hooveri Hoover’s eriastrum D/-/4.2 Annual herb in the Polemoniaceae family that occurs between 164 and 3,002 feet (50–915 meters) in elevation in pinyon-juniper woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands, occasionally on gravelly soils. Known to occur in the Southern San Joaquin Valley in Kern and Fresno Counties and on the Carrizo Plain in San Luis Obispo County. March to July Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Eschscholzia lemmonii ssp. kernensis Tejon poppy -/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Papaveraceae family found in chaparral, cismontane woodland and valley and foothill grassland on serpentinite clay soil between 656 and 4,921 feet (200–1,500 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Fresno, Imperial, Mendocino, Monterey, San Benito, and San Luis Obispo Counties. March to June Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Imperata brevifolia California satintail -/-/2B.1 Perennial herb in the Poaceae family found in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, creosote bush scrub and wetland-riparian communities. Known to occur in Butte, Lake, Fresno, Tulare, Inyo, Kern, Santa Barbara, Ventura, San Bernadino, Orange, Riverside, San Diego and Imperial Counties. September to May Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 20 Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State/CNPS Description Blooming Period Field Study Results/Potential for Occurrence Lasthenia glabrata ssp. Coulteri Coulter’s goldfields -/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family found in vernal pools and saline places at elevations below 1000m. Known to occur in Kern and San Joaquin Counties February to June Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Layia leucopappa Comanche Point layia S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family found in chenopod scrub, and valley and foothill grassland between 328 and 1,148 feet (100–350 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Kern County. March to April Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Monolopia congdonii San Joaquin woolly-threads E/-/1B.2 Perennial, rhizomatous herb in the Ericaceae family found in broadleafed upland forest and North Coast coniferous forest between 328 and 3,609 feet (100–1,100 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Del Norte, Fresno, Humboldt and Siskiyou Counties. May to August Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Navarretia setiloba Piute Mountains navarretia S/-/1B.1 Herbaceous annual in the Polemoniaceae family found on clay or gravelly loam soils in cismontane woodland, pinyon and juniper woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands from 1,001 and 6,890 feet (305–2,100 meters) in elevation. Known from occurrences in the Southern Sierra Nevada in Kern and Tulare Counties. April to June Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei Bakersfield cactus E/E/1B.1 Perennial stem succulent in the Cactaceae family found in chenopod scrub, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands between 394 and 1,804 feet (120–550 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in the Southeast San Joaquin Valley and Southern Sierra Nevada Foothills in Kern County. April to May Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Puccinellia simplex California alkali grass -/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Poaceae family found in meadows and seeps between 2,297 and 3,281 feet (700–1,000 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Kern and San Bernardino Counties. April to May Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Stylocline citroleum Oil neststraw S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family found in chenopod scrub, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands on clay soils between 164 and 1,312 feet (50–400 meters) in elevation. Known from locations in Kern and San Diego Counties. March to April Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 21 Scientific Name Common Name Status Fed/State/CNPS Description Blooming Period Field Study Results/Potential for Occurrence Stylocline masonii Mason’s neststraw S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family found in chenopod scrub, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands on clay soils between 164 and 1,312 feet (50–400 meters) in elevation. Known from locations in Kern and San Diego Counties. March to April Not Observed/Not Expected. Decades of intensive farming has resulted in vegetation limited to invasive/ruderal species. STATUS: Federal and State Listing Code D Delisted E Federally or State-listed Endangered T Federally or State-listed Threatened CNPS 1A Plants presumed extirpated in California, and either rare or extinct elsewhere 1B.1 Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously threatened in California 1B.2 Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly threatened in California 2B.1 Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; seriously threatened in California 4.2 Plants of limited distribution in California; fairly threatened in California Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 22 Table B-2: Special-status Animals That May Occur in the Vicinity of the Project. Scientific Name Common Name Status Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* Invertebrates Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Valley elderberry longhorn beetle T/- Central Valley riparian forest; nearly always found on or close to its host plant, elderberry (Sambucus species). Not Present. No suitable habitat for the species. No host plants present on the project or vicinity. Branchinect lynchi Vernal pool fairy shrimp T/- Found in vernal pools throughout California. Exist as cysts during the dry season and reproduce when pools are filled with water again. Not Present. No suitable habitat present. Fishes Hypomesus transpacificus Delta smelt T/- Found only in the low-salinity and freshwater habitats of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Historically, it was one of the most common pelagic fish in the estuary Not Present. No suitable habitat present. Amphibians Rana draytonii California red-legged frog T/- Found in habitat characterized by dense, shrubby, riparian vegetation and associated still, or slow-moving water that is at least 2.3 feet deep. The arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) cattails (Typha sp.) and bulrushes (Scirpus sp.) provide good habitat. Not Present. No suitable habitat present. Spea hammondii Western spadefoot toad -/ CSC Central valley and adjacent foothills, Coast Ranges from Point Conception south to the Mexico border; valley-foothill grasslands and valley-foothill hardwood, shallow temporary pools used for breeding, below 4,472 feet (1,363 meters). Not Observed/Not Expected. No known records in the vicinity of the project. Marginal habitat present on the project. Reptiles Anniella spp. California legless lizard -/CSC Found in coastal dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, and sandy washes in warm moist loose soils, below 5,085 feet (1550 meters). Not Observed/Not Expected. Suitable habitat absent from the site. Potential habitat in the project vicinity. Arizona elegans occidentalis California glossy snake -/CSC Found in low elevation scrub, grasslands and chaparral habitats. Not Present. No suitable habitat present. Emys marmorata Western pond turtle -/CSC Completely aquatic requiring calm waters such as pools or streams with vegetation banks or logs for basking. Will utilize upland habitat up to about 0.5 km from water. Not Present. No suitable habitat present. Gambelia sila Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (BNLL) E/E,SFP Found only in the San Joaquin Valley, adjacent Carrizo Plain, Elkhorn Plain, Cuyama Valley, and Panoche Valley; inhabits sparsely vegetated plains, lower canyon slopes, on valley floors, and washes; open grassland, saltbush scrub, and alkali sink are more common habitat types. Not Present. No suitable habitat present. Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 23 Scientific Name Common Name Status Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* Masticophis flagellum ruddocki San Joaquin coachwhip -/CSC Found in the San Joaquin Valley in open, dry habitats. Associated with valley grassland and saltbush scrub habitats containing small mammal burrows which are used for refugia and oviposition sites. Not Present. No suitable habitat present. Phrynosoma blainvillii Coast horned lizard -/CSC Inhabits valley-foothill hardwood, coniferous and riparian, as well as pine-cypress, juniper, and annual grasslands, in Sierra Nevada below 3,937 feet (1,200 meters) and in mountains of Southern California and into the adjacent valleys. Not Present. No suitable habitat present. Thamnophis gigas Giant gartersnake T/T Found in areas of freshwater marshes or low-gradient streams. Can also be found in human-made habitats, such as drainage canals and irrigation ditches, especially those associated with rice farming. Not Present. No suitable habitat present. Species believed to be extirpated from Kern County. Birds Agelaius tricolor Tricolored blackbird S/CSC Forages in grasslands, wetlands, rice fields, croplands, and weedy uplands dominated by mustards and thistles, etc.; breeds in marshes containing heavy growth of bulrushes, cattails, and blackberries; found throughout the Central Valley. Not Present/Low Probability of Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. No suitable nesting habitat on the site. Potential for marginal foraging habitat in farmlands in the vicinity of the project. Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl -/CSC Inhabits dry, open grasslands, rolling hills, desert floors, prairies, savannas, agricultural land, and other areas of open, bare ground. These owls will also inhabit open areas near human habitation, such as airports, golf courses, shoulders of roads, railroad embankments, and the banks of irrigation ditches and reservoirs. Not Observed/Moderate Probability of Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging in the vicinity of the project. No burrowing owls or owl burrows observed. Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk -/T Riparian and sometimes large isolated trees used for nesting; grasslands and agricultural lands used for foraging; in California, breeds primarily in the Sacramento Valley, with occasional nesting to the south through Kern County; migrate through the Central and San Joaquin Valleys to their wintering grounds in South America. Not Observed/Low Probability of Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. No suitable nesting sites on the project. Low suitable foraging habitat exists across the row-crop farmland south of metropolitan Bakersfield. Swainson’s hawk are uncommon in Kern County. Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Western snowy plover T/- Nests, feeds, and takes cover on sandy or gravelly beaches along the coast, on estuarine salt ponds, alkali lakes, and at the Salton Sea. On the Pacific coast, it nests on barren to sparsely vegetated sand beaches, dry salt flats in lagoons, dredge spoils deposited on beach or dune habitat, levees and flats at salt-evaporation ponds, and river bars. Not Present. No suitable wintering habitat or foraging habitat exists on the project. Circus cyaneus Northern harrier -/CSC Widespread breeding resident, other than in the Central Valley, most lowland birds are winter migrants; ground nester that forages and nests in a wide variety of open Not Observed/Low Probability of Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. No suitable nesting sites on the project. Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 24 Scientific Name Common Name Status Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* habitats with low perches such as marshes, fields, and other treeless areas. Suitable foraging habitat exists across the row-crop farmland south of metropolitan Bakersfield. Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Western yellow-billed cuckoo T/E Nests in walnut and almond orchards in California, natural nesting habitat is in cottonwood-tree willow riparian forest. Known populations of breeding western yellow-billed cuckoo are several disjunct locations in California, Arizona, and western New Mexico. Not Present. No suitable nesting habitat exists on the project for this species. The site represents poor foraging habitat. Elanus leucurus White tailed kite -/SFP Associated habitats include open grasslands, savannahs, agriculture, wetlands, oak woodland and riparian areas with associated open space. Not Observed/Low Probability of Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. No suitable nesting sites on the project. Suitable foraging habitat exists across the row-crop farmland south of metropolitan Bakersfield. Empidonax traillii Willow Flycatcher -/E Nests and forages in riparian habitats with dense vegetation characterized by willows, buttonbush and coyote brush, with a scattered overstory of cottonwood. Have also been known to nest in thickets dominated by tamarisk. Not Present. No suitable nesting or foraging habitat present. Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike -/CSC Common resident and winter visitor in lowlands and foothills throughout California; species prefers open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility lines, or other perches; nests on stable branches in densely-foliaged shrubs or trees, usually well-concealed. Not Observed/Moderate Probability of Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. No suitable nesting habitat present. Loggerhead shrike occur throughout the southern San Joaquin Valley and undoubtedly forage in the project vicinity. Mammals Ammospermophilus nelsoni San Joaquin antelope squirrel -/T Found in grasslands or open shrublands; formerly more extensive, current range includes southwestern portion of the San Joaquin Valley and in adjacent valleys to the west. Not Present. Beyond the current published range of the species. Dipodomys ingens Giant kangaroo rat E/E Western side of the San Joaquin Valley, including the Carrizo Plain and the Panoche Valley; grassland and shrub-land habitats with sparse vegetative cover and soils that are well-drained, fine sandy loams with gentle slopes. Not Present. Beyond the current published range of the species. Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus Short-nosed kangaroo rat E/E Found in arid communities on the valley floor portions of Kern, Tulare, and Kings counties in scrub and grassland communities in level to near-level terrain with alluvial fan-floodplain soil (fine sands and sandy loams) with sparse grasses and woody vegetation such as iodine bush, saltbush, seep weed, and mesquite. Not Present. Beyond the published range of the species. Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 25 Scientific Name Common Name Status Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides Tipton kangaroo rat E/E Found in arid communities on the valley floor portions of Kern, Tulare, and Kings counties in scrub and grassland communities in level to near-level terrain with alluvial fan-floodplain soil (fine sands and sandy loams) with sparse grasses and woody vegetation such as iodine bush, saltbush, seep weed, and mesquite. Low Probability of Occurrence. Habitat suitable for Dipodomys sp. The project is not within the southwest focus area of the previous Habitat Conservation Plan. Burrows typical of kangaroo rat were observed scattered across the project. Small mammal trapping would be required to determine species occupation. Eumops perotis californicus Greater western mastiff bat -/CSC Open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, annual and perennial grasslands, chaparral, desert scrub, and urban areas; roosts in cliff faces, as well as high buildings, trees, and tunnels; uncommon resident in southwestern San Joaquin Valley. No Roosting Sites Present. No known occurrences in the vicinity of the project. Information on some bat species indicates foraging may occur over 10’s of miles from roosting sites. Impacts not expected. Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat -/CSC Open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, annual and perennial grasslands, chaparral, desert scrub, and urban areas; roosts in cliff faces, as well as high buildings, trees, and tunnels; uncommon resident in southwestern San Joaquin Valley. No Roosting Sites Present. No known occurrences in the vicinity of the project. Information on some bat species indicates foraging may occur over 10’s of miles from roosting sites. Impacts not expected. Onychomys torridus tularensis Tulare grasshopper mouse -/CSC Found in valley grasslands habitats, blue oak savanna, desert associations dominated by annual grasses and California ephedra, alkali sink scrub, saltbush scrub, and upper Sonoran shrub associations, dominated by ephedra. Not Observed/Not Expected. Beyond the current published range of the species. Perognathus inornatus inornatus San Joaquin pocket mouse S/- Found in west-central California in the Upper Sacramento Valley, Tehama County, southward through the San Joaquin and Salinas valleys and contiguous areas to the Mojave Desert in Los Angeles, Kern and extreme western San Bernardino counties. Inhabits dry, open, grassy or weedy areas and annual grasslands, savannas, and desert-scrub associations with sandy washes or finely textured soils. Not Observed/Not Expected. Beyond the current published range of the species. Sorex ornatus relictus Buena Vista Lake shrew E/CSC Formerly occupied marshlands of the San Joaquin Valley and the Tulare Basin. Its range has become much restricted due to the loss of lakes and sloughs in the area. It has been recorded from the Kern Lake Preserve area and the Kern National Wildlife Refuge. Current distribution is unknown but likely to be very restricted due to the loss of habitat. Not Present. No suitable habitat present. Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 26 Scientific Name Common Name Status Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* Taxidea taxus American badger -/CSC Uncommon resident found through California; in less disturbed grassland and shrubland habitats in San Joaquin Valley. Low Probability of Occurrence. Suitable habitat present. Decades of intensive agriculture activities limits likelihood to only margins and remnants of undisturbed habitat in the project vicinity. No observed badger burrows. Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) E/T Found in valley saltbush scrub, valley sink scrub, Interior Coast Range saltbush scrub, upper Sonoran sub-shrub scrub, non-native grassland, and valley sacaton grassland in the Central Valley and adjacent foothills and valleys, infrequently to the outer Coast Ranges; generally not found in densely wooded areas, wetland areas, or areas subject to frequent periodic flooding. Moderate to High Probability of Occurrence. No potential, known, or natal dens were observed. SJKF potential for occurrence moderate to high in the vicinity of the project. STATUS: Federal S Listed as a BLM Sensitive Species D Delisted E Listed as Endangered PT Proposed as Threatened T Listed as Threatened C Candidate for Endangered Status State CSC California Department of Fish and Wildlife Designated Species of Special Concern D Delisted E Listed as Endangered SFP California Department of Fish and Wildlife Designated Fully Protected T Listed as Threatened Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 27 Figure B-1. CNDDB special-status plant species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2023). ^_ 0 52.5 Miles CNDDB Plant Occurrences Map ¯ ! ! Legend ^_Project Location 10-mile Buffer Astragalus hornii var. hornii Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata Atriplex coronata var. vallicola Atriplex tularensis Calochortus striatus Caulanthus californicus Chloropyron molle ssp. hispidum Delphinium recurvatum Eremalche parryi ssp. kernensis Eriastrum hooveri Imperata brevifolia Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Monolopia congdonii Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei Stylocline masonii Valley Sacaton Grassland Valley Saltbush Scrub Valley Sink Scrub Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 28 Figure B-2. CNDDB special-status bird species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2023). ^_ 0 52.5 Miles CNDDB Bird Occurrences Map ¯ ! ! Legend ^_Project Location 10-mile Buffer Agelaius tricolor Ardea alba Athene cunicularia Buteo swainsoni Charadrius nivosus nivosus Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Dendrocygna bicolor Egretta thula Elanus leucurus Eremophila alpestris actia Plegadis chihi Vireo bellii pusillus Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 29 Figure B-3. CNDDB special-status amphibian and reptile species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2023). ^_ 0 52.5 Miles CNDDB Reptile & Amphibian Occurrences Map ¯ ! ! Legend ^_Project Location 10-mile Buffer Anniella grinnelli Anniella spp. Arizona elegans occidentalis Emys marmorata Gambelia sila Masticophis flagellum ruddocki Phrynosoma blainvillii Spea hammondii Thamnophis gigas Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 30 Figure B-4. CNDDB special-status mammal species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2023). ^_ 0 52.5 Miles CNDDB Mammal Occurrences Map ¯ ! ! Legend ^_Project Location 10-mile Buffer Ammospermophilus nelsoni Dipodomys ingens Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides Eumops perotis californicus Lasiurus cinereus Onychomys torridus tularensis Perognathus inornatus Sorex ornatus relictus Taxidea taxus Vulpes macrotis mutica APPENDIX C PLANTS AND ANIMALS OBSERVED ON THE PROJECT FIELD STUDY CONDUCTED 11 May 2023 Biological Resource Evaluation APN 463160-101-11, -13, and -53 June 2023 Table C-1. Vascular plant species observed during the field study conducted on the project site. Scientific Name Common Name Asteraceae Erigeron bonariensis Hairy fleabane Lactuca seriola Prickly lettuce Senecio vulgaris Common groundsel Sonchus sp. Sow thistle Boraginaceae Amsinkia menziesii Fiddleneck Brassicaceae Capsella bursa-pastoris Sheperd’s purse Charyophyllaceae Stellaria media Chickweed Chenopodiaceae Salsola tragus Russian thistle Convolvulaceae Convolvulus arvensis Orchard bindwed Geraniaceae Erodium cicutarium Redstem filaree Malvaceae Malva parviflora Cheeseweed Poaceae Avena sp. Wild oat Bromus diandrus Ripgut Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Red brome Cynodon dactylon Bermudagrass Cyperus rotundus Nut sedge Digitaria sp. Crabgrass Hordeum vulgare Farmer’s foxtail Poa annua Annual bluegrass Rosaceae Prunis dulcis Almond Biological Resource Evaluation APN 535-010-01, -03, and -04 July 2023 33 Scientific Name Common Name Solanaceae Datura wrightii Jimsonweed Zygophyllaceae Tribulus terrestris Punctervine Table C-2. Vertebrate animal species observed during the field study conducted on the project site. Scientific Name Common Name Birds Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk Corvus corax Common raven Haemorhous mexicanus House finch Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird Passer domesticus House sparrow Sturnus vulgaris European starling Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned sparrow Mammals Canis lupus familiaris Domestic dog Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel Thomomys bottae Pocket gopher A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY SOUTH ALLEN ROAD AND PENSINGER, CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: McIntosh and Associates 2001 Wheelan Court Bakersfield, California 93309 Keywords: Stevens 7.5' Quadrangle, City of Bakersfield, California Environmental Quality Act Submitted by: Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates 1405 Sutter Lane Bakersfield, California 93309 Author: Scott M. Hudlow November 2022 Management Summary At the request of McIntosh and Associates, a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was conducted on approximately 80 acres. The property lies at the northeast corner of Pensinger and south Allen Roads, in the City of Bakersfield, California. The Phase I Cultural Resource Survey consisted of a pedestrian survey of the 80- acre site and a cultural resource record search. No cultural resources were identified. No further work is required. If archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, a qualified archaeologist should be consulted for further evaluation. If human remains or potential human remains are observed during construction, work in the vicinity of the remains will cease, and they will be treated in accordance with the provisions of State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The protection of human remains follows California Public Resources Codes, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99. 2 Table of Contents Management Summary .................................................................................................. 2 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. 3 List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... 3 1 .0 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 4 2.0 Survey Location .................................................................................................... 4 3.0 Record Search ...................................................................................................... 4 4.0 Environmental Background ................................................................................ 4 5.0 Prehistoric Archaeological Context .................................................................. 4 6.0 Ethnographic Background .................................................................................. 8 7.0 Field Procedures and Methods ........................................................................ 1 0 8.0 Report of Findings ............................................................................................... 1 0 9.0 Management Recommendations ................................................................... 10 10.0 References .......................................................................................................... 11 Appendix I ....................................................................................................................... 13 List of Figures Project Area Location Map ................................................................................ 5 2 Project Area, View to the Southeast .................................................................. 7 3 Project Area, View to the Northeast .................................................................. 7 3 1.0 Introduction At the request of McIntosh and Associates, Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates conducted a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey on 80 acres for a proposed residential development. The site lies at the northeast corner of Pensinger and south Allen Roads, in the City of Bakersfield, California. This project is being undertaken in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Phase I Cultural Resource Survey consisted of a pedestrian survey of the site and a cultural resource record search. 2.0 Survey Location The project area is in the City of Bakersfield. It is the W ½ of the NW ¼ of Section 24, T.30S., R.26E., Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian, as displayed on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Stevens 7.5-minute quadrangle map (Figure 1). The proposed residential development lies at the northeast corner of Pensinger and south Allen Roads, in the City of Bakersfield, California. 3.0 Record Search A record search of the project area and the environs within one-half mile was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Information Center. Scott M. Hudlow conducted the record search, RS# 22-432 on November 9, 2022. The record search revealed that sixteen cultural resource surveys have been conducted within one mile of the project area. One project has directly addressed the parcel in question (Hudlow 2005). Nine cultural resources have been located within one half-mile of the current project area, including two historic sites which are located within the project area. One of these two sites is a historic structure, a pair of oil tanks and the second is a historic trash scatter. 4.0 Environmental Background The project area is located at elevations between 345 and 350 feet above mean sea level in the Great Central Valley, which is composed of two valleys--the Sacramento Valley and the San Joaquin Valley. The project area is located in the southeastern portion of the southern San Joaquin Valley. The project area was covered in commercial agricultural crops, particularly alfalfa and corn (Figures 2 and 3). 5.0 Prehistoric Archaeological Context Limited archaeological research has been conducted in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Thus, consensus on a generally agreed upon regional cultural chronology has yet to be developed. Most cultural sequences can be summarized into several distinct time periods: Early, Middle, and Late. 4 Sequences differ in their inclusion of various "horizons," "technologies," or "stages." A prehistoric archaeological summary of the southern San Joaquin Valley is available in Moratto (Moratto 1984). Despite the preoccupation with chronological issues in most of the previous research, most suggested chronological sequences are borrowed from other regions with minor modifications based on sparse local data. The following chronology is based on Parr and Osborne's Paleo-Indian, Proto-Archaic, Archaic, Post-Archaic periods (Parr and Osborne 1992:44-47). Most existing chronologies focus on stylistic changes of time-sensitive artifacts such as projectile points and beads rather than addressing the socioeconomic factors, which produced the myriad variations. In doing so, these attempts have encountered similar difficulties. These cultural changes are implied as environmentally determined, rather than economically driven. Paleo-Indians, whom roamed the region approximately 12,000 years ago, were highly mobile individuals. Their subsistence is assumed to have been primarily big game, which was more plentiful 12,000 years ago than in the late twentieth century. However, in the Great Basin and California, Paleo people were also foragers who exploited a wide range of resources. Berries, seeds, and small game were also consumed. Their technology was portable, including ma nos (Parr and Osborne 1992:44). The paleo period is characterized by fluted Clovis and Folsom points, which have been identified throughout North America. The Tulare Lake region in Kings County has yielded several Paleo-Indian sites, which have included fluted points, scrapers, chipped crescents, and Lake Mojave-type points (Morratto 1984:81-2). The Proto-Archaic period, which dates from approximately 11,000 to 8,000 years ago, was characterized by a reduction in mobility and conversely an increase in sedentism. This period is classified as the Western Pluvial Lake Tradition or the Proto-Archaic, of which the San Dieguito complex is a major aspect (Moratto 1984: 90-99; Warren 1967). An archaeological site along Buena Vista Lake in southwestern Kern County displays a similar assemblage to the San Dieguito type-site. Claude Warren proposes that a majority of Proto-Archaic southern California could be culturally classified as the San Dieguito Complex (Warren 1967). The Buena Vista Lake site yielded ma nos, millingstones, large stemmed and foliate points, a mortar, and red ochre. During this period, subsistence patterns began to change. Hunting focused on smaller game and plant collecting became more integral. Large stemmed, lancelote (foliate) projectile points represent lithic technology. Millingstones become more prevalent. The increased sedentism possibly began to create regional stylistic and cultural differences not evident in the paleo period. The Archaic period persisted in California for the next 4000 years. In 1959, Warren and McKusiak proposed a three-phase chronological sequence based 6 on a small sample of burial data for the Archaic period (Moratto 1984: 189; Parr and Osborne 1992:47 . It is distin uished b increased sedentism and extensive Figure 2 Project Area, View to the Southeast 7 Figure 3 Project Area, View to the Northeast 8 seed and plant exploitation. Millingstones, shaped through use, were abundant. Bedrock monos and metates were the most prevalent types of millingstones (Parr and Osborne 1992:45). The central valley began to develop distinct cultural variations, which can be distinguished by different regions throughout the valley, including Kern County. In the Post-Archaic period enormous cultural variations began manifesting themselves throughout the entire San Joaquin Valley. This period extends into the contact period in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Sedentary village life was emblematic of the Post-Archaic period, although hunting and gathering continued as the primary subsistence strategy. Agriculture was absent in California, partially due to the dense, predictable, and easily exploitable natural resources. The ancestral Yokuts have possibly been in the valley for the last three thousand years, and by the eighteenth century were the largest pre-contact population, approximately 40,000 individuals, in California (Moratto 1984). 6.0 Ethnographic Background The Yokuts are a Penutian-speaking, non-political cultural group. Penutian speakers inhabit the San Joaquin Valley, the Bay Area, and the Central Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Yokuts are split into three major groups, the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothill Yokuts. The southern San Joaquin Valley in the Bakersfield and associated Kern County area was home to the Yokuts tribelet, Yawelmani. The tribelets averaged 350 people in size, had a special name for themselves, and spoke a unique dialect of the Yokuts language. Land was owned collectively and every group member enjoyed the right to utilize food resources. The Yawelmani inhabited a strip of the southeastern San Joaquin Valley, north of the Kern River to the Tehachapi Mountains on the south, and from the mountains on the east, to approximately the old south fork of the Kern River on the west (Wallace 1978:449; Parr and Osborne 1992:19). The Yawelmani were the widest ranging of the Yokuts tribelets. One half dozen villages were located along the Kern River, including Woilo ("planting place" or 11sowing place"), which was located in downtown Bakersfield, where the original Amtrak station was located. A second village was located across the Kern River from Woilo, on the west bank. The Southern Valley Yokuts established a mixed domestic economy emphasizing fishing, hunting, fowling, and collecting shellfish, roots, and seeds. Fish were the most prevalent natural resource; fishing was a productive activity throughout the entire year. Fish were caught in many different manners, including nets, conical basket traps, catching with bare hands, shooting with bows and arrows, and stunning fish with mild floral toxins. Geese, ducks, mud hens and other waterfowl were caught in snares, long-handled nets, stuffed decoys, and brushing brush to trick the birds to fly low into waiting hunters. 9 Mussels were gathered and steamed on beds of tule. Turtles were consumed, as were dogs, which might have been raised for consumption (Wallace 1978:449- 450). Wild seeds and roots provided a large portion of the Yokuts' diet. Tule seeds, grass seeds, fiddleneck, alfilaria were also consumed. Acorns, the staple crop for many California native cultures, were not common in the San Joaquin Valley. Acorns were traded into the area, particularly from the foothills. Land mammals, such as rabbits, ground squirrels, antelope and tule elk, were not hunted often (Wallace 1978:450). The Yokuts occupied permanent structures in permanent villages for most of the year. During the late and early summer, families left for several months to gather seeds and plant foods, shifting camp locations when changing crops. Several different types of fiber-covered structures were common in Yokuts settlements. The largest was a communal tule mat-covered, wedge-shaped structure, which could house upward of ten individuals. These structures were established in a row, with the village chief's house in the middle and his messenger's houses were located at the ends of the house row. Dance houses and assembly buildings were located outside the village living area (Nabokov and Easton 1989:301 ). The Yokuts also built smaller, oval, single-family tule dwellings. These houses were covered with tall mohya stalks or with sewn tule mats. These small houses were framed by bent-pole ribs, which met a ridgepole held by two crotched poles. The Yokuts also built a cone-shaped dwelling, which was framed with poles tied together with a hoop and then covered with tule or grass. These cone-shaped dwellings were large enough to contain multiple fireplaces (Nabokov and Easton 1989:301). Other structures included mat-covered granaries for storing food supplies, and a dirt-covered communally owned sweathouse. Clothing was minimal; men wore a breechclout or were naked. Women wore a narrow fringed apron. Rabbitskin or mud hen blankets were worn during the cold season. Moccasins were worn in certain places; however, most people went barefoot. Men wore no head coverings, but women wore basketry caps when they carried burden baskets on their heads. Hair was worn long. Women wore tattoos from the corners of the mouth to the chin; both men and women had ear and nose piercings. Bone, wood or shell ornaments were inserted into the ears and noses (Wallace 1978:450-451 ). Tule dominated the Yakut's material culture. It was used for many purposes, including sleeping mats, wall coverings, cradles, and basketry. Ceramics are uncommon to Yokuts culture as is true throughout most California native cultures. Basketry was common to Yokuts culture. Yokuts made cooking containers, conical burden baskets, flat winnowing trays, seed beaters, and necked water bottles. Yokuts also manufactured wooden digging sticks, fire 10 drills, mush stirrers, and sinew-backed bows. Knives, projectile points, and scraping tools were chipped from imported lithic materials including obsidian, chert, and chalcedony. Stone mortars and pestles were secured in trade. Cordage was manufactured from milkweed fibers, animal skins were tanned, and awls were made from bone. Marine shells, particularly olivella shells, were used in the manufacture of money and articles of personal adornment. Shells were acquired from the Chumash along the coast (Wallace 1978:451-453). The basic social and economic unit was the nuclear family. Lineages were organized along patrilineal lines. Fathers transmitted totems, particular to each paternal lineage, to each of his children. The totem was a bird or animal that no lineage member would kill or eat; the totems were dreamed of and prayers were given to the totems. The mother's totem was not passed to her offspring, but was treated with respect. Families sharing the same totem formed an exogamous lineage. The lineage had no formal leader nor did it own land. The lineage was a mechanism for transmitting offices and performing ceremonial functions. The lineages formed two moieties, East and West, which consisted of several different lineages. Moieties were customarily exogamous. Children followed the paternal moiety. Certain official positions within the villages were associated with certain totems. The most important was the Eagle lineage from which the village chief was appointed. A member of the Dove lineage acted as the chief's assistant. He supervised food distribution and gave commands during ceremonies. Another hereditary position was common to the Magpie lineage, was that of spokesman or crier. 7.0 Field Procedures and Methods Between November 21 and December 14, 2022, Scott M. Hudlow (for qualifications see Appendix I) conducted a pedestrian survey of the entire proposed project area. Hudlow surveyed in both north/south and east/west transects at 10-meter (33 feet) intervals across the entire parcel. All archaeological material more than fifty years of age or earlier encountered during the inventory would have been recorded. 8.0 Report of Findings No cultural resources were identified. 9.0 Management Recommendations At the request of McIntosh and Associates, a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was conducted on approximately 80 acres. The property lies at the northeast corner of Pensinger and south Allen Roads, in the City of Bakersfield, California. The Phase I Cultural Resource Survey consisted of a pedestrian survey of the 80-acre site and a cultural resource record search. 11 No cultural resources were identified. No further work is required. If archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, a qualified archaeologist should be consulted for further evaluation. If human remains or potential human remains are observed during construction, work in the vicinity of the remains will cease, and they will be treated in accordance with the provisions of State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The protection of human remains follows California Public Resources Codes, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99. 10.0 References Hudlow, Scott M. 2005 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for a Residential Project at Pensinger Road and south Allen Road, City of Bakersfield, California. Report on file, Southern San Joaquin Archaeological Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield, Bakersfield, California. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Orlando, Florida, Academic Press. Nabokov, Peter and Robert Easton 1989 Native American Architecture. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. Parr, Robert E. and Richard Osborne 1992 Route Adoption Study for Highway 58, Kern County, California. Report on file, Southern San Joaquin Archaeological Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield, Bakersfield, California. Wallace, William J. 1978 "Southern Valley Yokuts" in Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8, California, Robert F. Heizer, ed. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 437-445. Warren, Claude N. and M. B. McKusiak 1959 A Burial Complex from the southern San Joaquin Valley. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1959: 17-26. Warren, Claude N. 1967 ''The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis" American Antiquity 32(2): 168-185. 12 13 Appendix I 14 15 Scott M. Hudlow 1405 Sutter Lane Bakersfield, California 93309 (661) 834-9183 Education The George Washington University M.A. American Studies, 1993 Specialization in Architectural History, American Material Culture, and Folklife University of California, Berkeley B.A. History, 1987 B.A. Anthropology, 1987 Specialization in Colonial History and Historical Archaeology Public Service 3/94-Historic Preservation Commission. City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield, California 93305. 7 /97-Newsletter Editor. California History Action, newsletter for the California Council for the Promotion of History. Relevant Work Experience 8/96-Adjutant Faculty. Bakersfield College, 1801 Panorama Drive, Bakersfield, California, 93305. Teach History 17 A, Introduction to American History and Anthropology 5, Introduction to North American Indians. 11 /95-0wner, Sole Proprietorship. Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates. 1405 Sutter Lane, Bakersfield California 93309. Operate small cultural resource management business. Manage contracts, respond to RFP's, bill clients, manage temporary employees. Conduct Phase I architectural and archaeological surveys for private and public clients; including the survey, documentary photography, measured drawings, mapping of structures, filing of survey forms, historic research, assessing impact and writing reports. Evaluated properties in lieu of their eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places in association with Section 106 and 110 requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act). Full resume available upon request. 16 MCINTOSH &Assoc:IAlES NEW GEN ENGINEERING GROUP May 3, 2023 City of Bakersfield, Public Works Department Traffic Engineering 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Re: General Plan Amendment for approximately 80.45 acres located on the northeast corner of Pensinger Road and S. Allen Road, Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 535-010-01, 03 & 04, Located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, T30S, R26E, M.D.M. McIntosh & Associates Job No. 18-040 Please consider the following information provided, as justification for an exemption from the requirement to perform an independent traffic impact analysis for the subject General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The project proposes to revise the land use on approximately 80.45 gross acres. The existing land use is designated as Low Density Residential (LR). The existing zoning is One-Family Dwelling,(R-1). The project proposes to develop the entire 80.45 acres, with single family residential dwellings, with a maximum development cap of 499 dwelling units. The proposed land use designation is High Medium Density Residential (HMR). Due to the current housing crisis in the State of California, the proposed zoning is Multiple-Family Dwelling (R-3). Per the City of Bakersfield municipal code Section 17.16.070.C, this will allow for more flexibility in lot sizes and flexibility in future development to accommodate current demand. The attached Tables 1, 2 & 3 indicate trip generation calculations using the "Institute of Transportation Engineers" Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition for the existing land use/zoning and proposed GPA/ZC. As shown on the attached Table 1, the existing land use/zoning results in a P.M. Peak Hour trip generation of 522 Trip Ends. Table 1 also indicates that the proposed land use/zoning will result in a P.M. Peak Hour trip generation of 450 Trip Ends, for a net decrease of 72 P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends. For the A.M. Peak Hour, Table 3 indicates the existing land use/zoning results in a trip generation of 371 Trip Ends. Table 3 also indicates that the proposed land use/zoning will result in an A.M. Peak Hour trip generation of 322 Trip Ends, for a net decrease of 50 A.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends. Table 2 indicates similar trip generation calculations for Daily Traffic volumes. Since this proposed revision to the land use actually decreases the P.M. Peak Hour trip generation volume by 72 trips and the A.M. Peak Hour trip generation volume by 50 trips, the proposed General Plan Amendment should be exempted from performing a detailed traffic impact analysis in accordance with the City's "Methodology for Independent Assessment of Regional Impact Fees". The project applicant would therefore like to request that the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) fixed rate fee schedule be used for computation of required impact fees for the project. P :\traffic\18040-LO RENZl\18040ts01.docx Project Traffic -18040.00 -Lorenzi The traffic volumes generated from the proposed project were estimated using the "Institute of Transportation Engineers" Trip Generation Manual, 11th ed. © 2023. Project Traffic -PM Peak Hour Table 1: Proposed Project Traffic -P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends Land Use Acres Density D.U.'s/ ITE Rate Peak Hour Split In Split Out D.U.'s/ AC GLFA Code Trips-PM Single Family Residential (LR) (Existing) 80.45 7.26 584 210 Note 1 522 329 193 Single-Family Residential (HMR) (Proposed) 80.45 6.20 499 210 Note 1 450 284 166 TOTAL -72 -45 -27 Note 1: Used Fitted Curve Equatio11: L11(T) = 0.94LH(x) + 0.27 to determine Mp generation. Project Traffic -Daily Traffic (A.A.D.T.) Table 2: Proposed Project Traffic -Daily Traffic Trip Ends (A.A.D. T.) Land Use Acres Density D.U.'s/ ITE Rate Daily Trip Ends Split In Split Out D.U.'s/AC GLFA Code AADT Single Family Residential (LR) (Existing) 80.45 7.26 584 210 Note 1 5117 2559 2558 Single Family Residential (HMR) (Proposed) 80.45 6.20 499 210 Note 1 4428 2214 2214 TOTAL -689 -345 -344 Note 1: Used Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.92L11(x) + 2.68 to determille trip geueratio11. Project Traffic -AM Peak Hour Table 3: Proposed Project Traffic -A.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends Land Use Acres Density D.U.'s/ ITE Rate Peak Hour Split In Split Out D.U.'s/ AC GLFA Code Trips-AM Single Family Residential (LR) (Existing) 80.45 7.26 584 210 Note 1 371 93 278 Single Family Residential (HMR) (Proposed) 80.45 6.20 499 210 Note 1 322 81 241 TOTAL -49 -12 -37 Note 1: Used Fitted C1m•e Equatio11: T = 0. 91 (X) + 0.12 to determine trip ge11e1·atio11. ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS TRACT 7408 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA WJVA Project No. 22-09 PREPARED FOR URBAN LAND ADVISORS, LLC P.O. BOX 11358 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93389 PREPARED BY WJV ACOUSTICS, INC. VISALIA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 10, 2022 113 N. Church Street, Suite 203 ∙ Visalia, CA 93291∙ (559) 627-4923 22‐09 (Tract 7408, Bakersfield) 2‐10‐22 2 INTRODUCTION The project (Tract 7408) is a proposed 91‐lot single‐family residential development. The project site is located north of Pensinger Road and east of the future alignment of S. Allen Road, in Bakersfield. The northern portion of the project site is located adjacent to the San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVR) Buttonwillow Subdivision Branch Line. The project applicant has requested an acoustical analysis to quantify project site railroad noise exposure and determine noise mitigation requirements. This analysis, prepared by WJV Acoustics, Inc. (WJVA), is based upon a project site plan provided by the project applicant, reference noise level measurements, a project site visit and reference noise level measurements previously conducted by WJVA along the SJRV railroad line. Revisions to the site plan may affect the findings and recommendations of this report. The site plan is provided as Figure 1. Appendix A provides a description of the acoustical terminology used in this report. Unless otherwise stated, all sound levels reported are in A‐weighted decibels (dB). A‐weighting de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequencies of sound in a manner similar to the human ear. Most community noise standards utilize A‐weighting, as it provides a high degree of correlation with human annoyance and health effects. Appendix B provides typical A‐weighted sound levels for common noise sources. 22‐09 (Tract 7408, Bakersfield) 2‐10‐22 3 NOISE EXPOSURE CRITERIA CITY OF BAKERSFIELD For transportation noise sources (e.g., traffic and railway noise), the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan establishes noise level criteria in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) metric. The CNEL is the time‐weighted energy average noise level for a 24‐hour day, with a 4.77 dB penalty added to noise levels occurring during the evening hours (7:00 p.m.‐10:00 p.m.) and a 10 dB penalty added to noise levels occurring during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m.‐7:00 a.m.). The CNEL represents cumulative exposure to noise over an extended period of time and is therefore calculated based upon annual average conditions. The Noise Element establishes a land use compatibility criterion of 65 dB CNEL for exterior noise levels in outdoor activity areas of new residential developments. Outdoor activity areas generally include backyards of single‐family residences, individual patios or decks of multi‐family developments and common outdoor recreation areas of multi‐family developments. The intent of the exterior noise level requirement is to provide an acceptable noise environment for outdoor activities and recreation. The Noise Element also requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior noise sources not exceed 45 dB CNEL. The intent of the interior noise level standard is to provide an acceptable noise environment for indoor communication and sleep. For non‐transportation noise sources (e.g., commercial property), the Noise Element applies hourly noise level performance standards at residential and other noise‐sensitive uses. Table I summarizes the hourly standards for non‐transportation noise sources. TABLE I HOURLY NOISE LEVEL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN NON-TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES Maximum Acceptable Noise Level, dBA Min./Hr. (Ln) Day (7a‐10p) Night (10p‐7a) 30 (L50) 55 50 15 (L25) 60 55 5 (L8.3) 65 60 1 (L1.7) 70 65 0 (Lmax) 75 70 Note: Ln means the percentage of time the noise level is exceeded during an hour. L50 means the level exceeded 50% of the hour, L25 is the level exceeded 25% of the hour, etc. 22‐09 (Tract 7408, Bakersfield) 2‐10‐22 4 PROJECT SITE NOISE EXPOSURE The project (Tract 7408) is a proposed 91‐lot single‐family residential development. The project site is located north of Pensinger Road and east of the future alignment of S. Allen Road, in Bakersfield. The northern portion of the project site is located adjacent to the San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVR) Buttonwillow Subdivision Branch Line. The project site is exposed to noise levels associated with railroad activity from the SJVR Buttonwillow Subdivision Branch Line. Railroad Noise Exposure: The Buttonwillow Branch railroad line of the San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVR) is located along the northern boundary of the project site. The railroad consists of jointed rail with the top of the rails being approximately two to three feet above the grade of the project site. The closest grade crossing is located approximately 1 mile east of the project site, at Buena Vista Road. At this distance, warning horn noise would not be a factor at the project site. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) requirements state that locomotive engineers must begin to sound the train warning horns between 15 to 20 seconds in advance of all public grade crossings. Due to the low‐ speed nature of rail operations adjacent to the project site, horn usage would be expected to be minimal at distances greater than 500 feet from the crossings. Figure 1 shows the project site in relation to the railroad. The approximate distance from the center of the rail line to the closest proposed lots (center of individual backyards) is approximately 90 feet. According to the Kern County Rail Study (Kern COG, February 2011), approximately two (2) train operations occur per day (Monday through Friday) along the SJVR Buttonwillow Branch Line, in the vicinity of the project site. According the Kern County Rail Study, but operations occur during daytime hours According to the Kern County Rail Study (Kern COG, February 2011), the daily operations occur at a maximum speed of 20 mph (miles per hour). However, according to data provided by the FRA, an average total of 4 daily train operations occur along the railroad line. For the purpose of this analysis, a worst‐case assumption of four daily trains was applied. It was also assumed that these operations could be evenly dispersed over a 24‐hour period. Rail operations were not observed by WJVA during the project site inspection on January 25, 2022. It was therefore necessary to calculate railroad noise exposure within the site based on noise measurement data obtained by WJVA during the performance of similar studies along various branches of the SJVR in the Fresno and Visalia areas. A total of 17 measurements have been obtained over the past several years. WJVA has found that there is substantial variability in the noise levels produced by individual train pass‐bys due to train length, speed, horn usage and other factors. At distances of 500 feet or less from a grade crossing, the average Sound Exposure Level (SEL) during low‐speed train operations was determined to be 97.8 dBA at an assumed distance of 150 feet from the track. At distances of 500 feet or more from a grade crossing, the 22‐09 (Tract 7408, Bakersfield) 2‐10‐22 5 average SEL during low‐speed train operations was determined to be 96.1 dBA at an assumed distance of 150 feet from the track. The SEL is a measure of the total energy of a noise event, including consideration of event duration. The SEL is not actually heard, but is a derived value used for the calculation of energy‐ based noise exposure metrics such as the CNEL. Railroad noise exposure may be quantified in terms of the CNEL using the following formula: CNEL =SEL+ 10 log Neq – 49.4 where, SEL is the average SEL for a train pass‐by, Neq is the equivalent number of passbys in a typical 24‐hour period determined by adding 10 times the number of nighttime events (10 p.m. ‐ 7 a.m.) to 3 times the number of evening events (7 p.m. – 10 p.m.) to the actual number of daytime events (7 a.m. – 7 p.m.), and 49.4 is a time constant equal to 10 log the number of seconds in the day. Using the above‐described formula, railroad operations data and noise measurement results, the railroad noise exposure at the closest proposed residential lots to the railroad was calculated to be approximately 62 dB CNEL. This complies with the 65 dB CNEL standard of the Noise Element for exterior noise exposure. The calculation assumed two train operation occurs during the daytime hours and one train operation occurs during evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and one train operation occurs during nighttime hours, between 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Therefore, the project site noise exposure is below the applicable 65 dB CNEL exterior noise level standard, and mitigation measures are not required for project compliance. Interior Noise Levels‐ The interior noise level standard is 45 dB Ldn/CNEL. This means that the proposed residential construction for the homes adjacent to the SJVR line must be capable of providing a minimum outdoor‐to‐indoor noise level reduction (NLR) of approximately 17 dB (62‐45=17). A specific analysis of interior noise levels was not performed. However, it may be assumed that residential construction methods complying with current building code requirements will reduce exterior noise levels by approximately 25 dB if windows and doors are closed. This will be sufficient for compliance with the City of Bakersfield 45 dB Ldn/CNEL interior standard at all proposed lots. Requiring that it be possible for windows and doors to remain closed for sound insulation means that air conditioning or mechanical ventilation will be required. 22‐09 (Tract 7408, Bakersfield) 2‐10‐22 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Exterior noise exposure levels at the closest proposed residential lots to the San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJRV) Buttonwillow Branch for Tract 7408 would not exceed the City of Bakersfield’s 65 dB CNEL exterior noise level standard. The Buttonwillow Branch is a low‐speed railroad line (approximately 20 mph) with only two to four (2‐4) daily operations. The calculated exterior noise level exposure for the lots closest to the SJRV would be approximately 62 dB CNEL. As a result, there are no required mitigation measures necessary to comply with the City of Bakersfield 65 dB CNEL exterior noise level standard along the SJVR line. Construction of a sound wall of any height is not required along the SJVR line for exterior noise compliance. The proposed homes would also comply with the applicable 45 dB CNEL interior noise level standard provided the following is incorporated into project design:  Air conditioning or mechanical ventilation should be installed in the units so that it will be possible for windows and doors to remain closed for sound insulation purposes. The conclusions and recommendations of this acoustical analysis are based upon the best information known to WJV Acoustics Inc. (WJVA) at the time the analysis was prepared concerning the proposed site plan and railway operations. Any significant changes in these factors will require a reevaluation of the findings of this report. Additionally, any significant future changes in railway technology, noise regulations or other factors beyond WJVA’s control may result in long‐term noise results different from those described by this analysis. Respectfully submitted, Walter J. Van Groningen President WJV:wjv 22‐09 (Tract 7408, Bakersfield) 2‐10‐22 FIGURE 1: SITE PLAN 22‐09 (Tract 7408, Bakersfield) 2‐10‐22 APPENDIX A ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL: The composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. The average equivalent sound level during a 24‐hour day, obtained after addition of approximately five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and ten decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. DECIBEL, dB: A unit for describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter). DNL/Ldn: Day/Night Average Sound Level. The average equivalent sound level during a 24‐hour day, obtained after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m. Leq: Equivalent Sound Level. The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Leq is typically computed over 1, 8 and 24‐hour sample periods. NOTE: The CNEL and DNL represent daily levels of noise exposure averaged on an annual basis, while Leq represents the average noise exposure for a shorter time period, typically one hour. Lmax: The maximum noise level recorded during a noise event. Ln: The sound level exceeded "n" percent of the time during a sample interval (L90, L50, L10, etc.). For example, L10 equals the level exceeded 10 percent of the time. 22‐09 (Tract 7408, Bakersfield) 2‐10‐22 A-2 ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS: Lines drawn about a noise source indicating constant levels of noise exposure. CNEL and DNL contours are frequently utilized to describe community exposure to noise. NOISE LEVEL REDUCTION (NLR): The noise reduction between indoor and outdoor environments or between two rooms that is the numerical difference, in decibels, of the average sound pressure levels in those areas or rooms. A measurement of “noise level reduction” combines the effect of the transmission loss performance of the structure plus the effect of acoustic absorption present in the receiving room. SEL or SENEL: Sound Exposure Level or Single Event Noise Exposure Level. The level of noise accumulated during a single noise event, such as an aircraft overflight, with reference to a duration of one second. More specifically, it is the time‐integrated A‐weighted squared sound pressure for a stated time interval or event, based on a reference pressure of 20 micropascals and a reference duration of one second. SOUND LEVEL: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A‐weighting filter network. The A‐weighting filter de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear and gives good correlation with subjective reactions to noise. SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS (STC): The single‐number rating of sound transmission loss for a construction element (window, door, etc.) over a frequency range where speech intelligibility largely occurs. & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING  ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION 2205 Coy Avenue • Bakersfield, California 93307 • (661) 837-9200 • FAX (661) 837-9201 With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx November 15, 2021 Project No. 024-21066 Mr. Matthew Wade Urban Land Advisors, LLC 9201 Camino Media, Suite 120 Bakersfield, California 93311 mwade@landstonecompanies.com RE: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Agricultural Property - Lorenzi Property NEC Pensinger and South Allen Roads APNs 535-010-01, -03 and -04 Bakersfield, California 93311 Dear Mr. Wade: Krazan & Associates, Inc., (Krazan) completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment at the referenced site summarized in a report dated November 15, 2021. We appreciate the opportunity to serve your environmental due diligence needs. During the course of this assessment, Krazan identified evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in conjunction with the subject site as defined by ASTM E 1527-13. Additionally, site development issues were identified and are discussed below. RECs Based on review of historical aerial photographs, three tank farms with multiple aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and production water ponds were formerly present at the subject site in association with crude-oil production of the Canfield Ranch Field - Edgar Lease (subject site). With the exception of one idle oil well with pumping unit and gas separator, no surface indications of oil wells, mud pits, production water ponds, or ASTs were noted at the subject site. Records on file with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) document a 7/21/2001 case closure with respect to waste discharge requirements. However, no documentation of investigations of subsurface soil conditions was identified for the subject site tank farm facilities. Krazan’s experience with oilfield tank farms indicates that there is a significant potential for hazardous materials or wastes to be present in subsurface soil as a result of the use of additives at crude-oil production tank-farm facilities over many years of operation. Petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds are typical constituents of concern. Based upon the findings presented above, Krazan recommends that a Phase II Limited Subsurface Assessment be conducted and that soil and soil vapor samples be collected and analyzed for constituents of concern within the areas identified as the former locations of ASTs and production water ponds at the subject site. Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-13099 Bakersfield, California Page No. 2 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx Site Development Issues Krazan’s review of records with the State of California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) indicates that six oil wells are located on the subject site. Five of the six wells are plugged and abandoned and the sixth well is idle. During Krazan’s October 2021 site reconnaissance, except for the idle oil well pumping unit and gas separator, no surface indications of the other abandoned oil wells or former drilling mud pits were observed on the subject site. Krazan recommends that CalGEM be contacted to determine if the oil wells are abandoned to current standards or if additional reabandonment or leak testing may be required for the plugged and abandoned oil wells prior to redevelopment of the subject site. CalGEM requires that the developer/property owner consult with the CalGEM prior to any work to uncover a known abandoned well, and CalGEM requires that property owners continue to provide access to any wells located on a property. Currently CalGEM requires that no buildings shall be constructed within 10 feet of an oil well on two adjacent sides and the third side of a well shall be no closer than 50 feet from buildings; the fourth side must remain open to allow for access of an abandonment rig in the event that the well requires abandonment or reabandonment in the future. Additionally, if any unknown oil wells are discovered or any known or unknown wells are damaged during work at the subject site, CalGEM must be contacted in order to evaluate the condition of the well. Krazan’s experience with similar oil wells indicates that the potential for significant hazardous materials or wastes to be present in subsurface soil at abandoned oil well locations is low. However, if significant petroleum-hydrocarbon-impacted soil or drilling mud is discovered during redevelopment work at the subject site, Krazan should be contacted to evaluate the impacted soil and/or drilling mud. Additionally, abandoned underground oil-gathering pipelines may be encountered and drilling mud in the subsurface may represent a geotechnical concern to structures that may be built over or near drilling mud pits. If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this report, please call me at (661) 837- 9200. Respectfully Submitted. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. William R. Cooper, P.G. 7427 Environmental Manager WRC/mlt PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY – LORENZI PROPERTY NEC OF PENSINGER AND SOUTH ALLEN ROADS APNS 535-010-01, -03 AND -04 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Pursuant to ASTM E 1527-13 Project No. 024-21066 November 15, 2021 Prepared for: Mr. Matt Wade Urban Land Advisors, LLC 9201 Camino Media, Suite 120 Bakersfield, California 93311 Prepared by: Krazan & Associates, Inc. 2205 Coy Avenue Bakersfield, California 93307 (661) 837-9200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Project No. 024-21066 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 3 2.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Scope of Work........................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 SUBJECT SITE SETTING ........................................................................................................ 3 3.1 Geology and Hydrogeology ....................................................................................................... 4 4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ........................................................................................................ 5 4.1 Observations ............................................................................................................................. 5 4.2 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... 6 4.3 Adjacent Streets and Property Usage ......................................................................................... 7 4.4 ASTM Non-Scope Considerations ............................................................................................. 7 5.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION ...................................................................................... 10 5.1 Title Report and Environmental Lien Search ............................................................................ 10 5.2 Title Report ............................................................................................................................. 10 5.3 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment User Questionnaire .................................................... 11 6.0 SITE USAGE SURVEY ............................................................................................................ 12 6.1 Site History ............................................................................................................................. 12 6.2 Interviews and Questionnaires ................................................................................................. 14 6.3 Agricultural Chemicals ............................................................................................................ 15 6.4 Regulatory Agency Interface ................................................................................................... 15 6.5 Regulatory Agency Lists Review ............................................................................................. 18 7.0 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 25 7.1 Evaluation of Data Gaps/Data Failure ...................................................................................... 25 8.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 26 9.0 RELIANCE ............................................................................................................................... 27 10.0 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 28 11.0 QUALIFICATIONS .............................................................................................................. 29 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 30 GLOSSARY OF TERMS .................................................................................................................... 31 FIGURES Figure No. 1 Vicinity Map Figure No. 2 Topographic Map Figure No. 3 Site Map Figure No. 4 Parcel Map Figure No. 5 1956 Aerial Photograph Depicting Tank Farm Locations TABLE OF CONTENTS(CONT.) Project No. 024-21066 APPENDICES Appendix A Photographs Appendix B Ticor Preliminary Title Report Appendix C User Questionnaire Appendix D EDR Historical Reports Appendix E Regulatory Records Appendix F CalGEM Oil Well Records Appendix G EDR, Regulatory Database Report Appendix H Professional Resumes & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING  ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION 2205 Coy Avenue • Bakersfield, California 93312 • (661) 837-9200 • FAX (661) 837-9201 With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY – LORENZI PROPERTY NEC OF PENSINGER AND SOUTH ALLEN ROADS APNS 535-010-01, -03 AND -04 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Krazan & Associates, Inc. (Krazan) has conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Agricultural Property – Lorenzi Property located at the Northeast Corner of Pensinger and South Allen Roads, Kern County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 535-010-01, -03 and -04 in Bakersfield, California (subject site). It is incumbent upon the user to read this Phase I ESA report in its entirety. If not otherwise defined within the text of this report, please refer to the Glossary of Terms Section following the References Section for definitions of terms and acronyms utilized within this Phase I ESA report. Krazan conducted the Phase I ESA of the subject site in conformance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-05 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.This Phase I ESA constitutes all appropriate inquiry (AAI) designed to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the previous ownership and uses of the subject site as defined by ASTM E 1527-13. ASTM E 1527-13 Section 1.1.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions – In defining a standard of good commercial and customary practice for conducting an environmental site assessment of a parcel of property, the goal of the processes established by this practice is to identify recognized environmental conditions. The term recognized environmental conditions means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions. During the course of this assessment, Krazan identified evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in conjunction with the subject site as defined by ASTM E 1527-13. Additionally, site development issues were identified and are discussed below. Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 2 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx RECs Based on review of historical aerial photographs, three tank farms with multiple aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and production water ponds were formerly present at the subject site in association with crude-oil production of the Canfield Ranch Field - Edgar Lease (subject site). With the exception of one idle oil well with pumping unit and gas separator, no surface indications of oil wells, mud pits, production water ponds, or ASTs were noted at the subject site. Records on file with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) document a 7/21/2001 case closure with respect to waste discharge requirements. However, no documentation of investigations of subsurface soil conditions was identified for the subject site tank farm facilities. Krazan’s experience with oilfield tank farms indicates that there is a significant potential for hazardous materials or wastes to be present in subsurface soil as a result of the use of additives at crude-oil production tank-farm facilities over many years of operation. Petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds are typical constituents of concern. Based on the findings presented above, Krazan recommends that a Phase II Limited Subsurface Assessment be conducted and that soil and soil vapor samples be collected and analyzed for constituents of concern within the areas identified as the former locations of ASTs and production water ponds at the subject site. Site Development Issues Krazan’s review of records with the State of California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) indicates that six oil wells are located on the subject site. Five of the six wells are plugged and abandoned and the sixth well is idle. During Krazan’s October 2021 site reconnaissance, except for the idle oil well pumping unit and gas separator, no surface indications of the other abandoned oil wells or former drilling mud pits were observed on the subject site. Krazan recommends that CalGEM be contacted to determine if the oil wells are abandoned to current standards or if additional reabandonment or leak testing may be required for the plugged and abandoned oil wells prior to redevelopment of the subject site. CalGEM requires that the developer/property owner consult with the CalGEM prior to any work to uncover a known abandoned well, and CalGEM requires that property owners continue to provide access to any wells located on a property. Currently CalGEM requires that no buildings shall be constructed within 10 feet of an oil well on two adjacent sides and the third side of a well shall be no closer than 50 feet from buildings; the fourth side must remain open to allow for access of an abandonment rig in the event that the well requires abandonment or reabandonment in the future. Additionally, if any unknown oil wells are discovered or any known or unknown wells are damaged during work at the subject site, CalGEM must be contacted in order to evaluate the condition of the well. Krazan’s experience with similar oil wells indicates that the potential for significant hazardous materials or wastes to be present in subsurface soil at abandoned oil well locations is low. However, if significant petroleum-hydrocarbon-impacted soil or drilling mud is discovered during redevelopment work at the subject site, Krazan should be contacted to evaluate the impacted soil and/or drilling mud. Additionally, abandoned underground oil-gathering pipelines may be encountered and drilling mud in the subsurface may represent a geotechnical concern to structures that may be built over or near drilling mud pits. Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 3 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT 2.1 Purpose According to ASTM E 1527-13, the purpose of this practice is to define good commercial and customary practice in the United States of America for conducting an environmental site assessment of a parcel of commercial real estate with respect to the range of contaminants within the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C.§9601) and petroleum products. As such, this practice is intended to permit a user to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser limitation on CERCLA liability (hereinafter, the landowner liability protections,or LLPs): that is, the practice that constitutes “all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice” as defined at 42 U.S.C.§9601(35)(B). This report was also conducted in conformance with the ASTM E 1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. 2.2 Scope of Work The Phase I ESA includes the following scope of work: a) a site reconnaissance of existing on-site conditions and observations of adjacent property uses, b) a review of user-provided documents, c) a review of historical aerial photographs, a review of pertinent building permit records, city directories, historical Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (SFIMs), and interview(s) with person(s) knowledgeable of the previous and current ownership and uses of the subject site, d) a review of local regulatory agency records, and e) a review of local, state, and federal regulatory agency lists compiled by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). The scope of work for this Phase I ESA conforms to ASTM E 1527-13. Krazan was provided written authorization to conduct the Phase I ESA by Mr. Matt Wade with Urban Land Advisors, LLC on October 15, 2021 in Krazan’s October 14, 2021 Proposal Agreement P21-423. 3.0 SUBJECT SITE SETTING The subject site is currently in agricultural use with no assigned address. The subject site is located north and east of the intersection of Pensinger Road and South Allen Road in Bakersfield, California. The subject site is bounded by Pensinger Road to the south, railroad tracks to the north, vacant land to the west and agricultural land to the east. The subject site includes Kern County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 4 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx 535-010-01, -03 and -04. The subject site is currently in agricultural use; no address has been assigned to the subject site. General property information and property use are summarized in the following Table I. Refer to Figures No. 1 – 4 following the Reference Section. TABLE I Subject Site Information Summary Current Owners:Piper Family Trust Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs):535-010-01,-03 and -04 Addresses:None identified Historical Addresses:None identified General Location:Northeast of Pensinger and South Allen Road. Acreage:Approximately 80 acres Existing Use:Agricultural Number of Buildings None Original Construction Date(s):None Proposed Use:Residential Topographic Maps:U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5-minute Stevens, California topographic quadrangle maps (Topo Maps), dated 1954, revised 1968. A portion of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 30 South, Range 26 East of Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian. Latitude/Longitude:35.3073940 /–119.1435570 Topography:Relatively flat, approximately 342 feet above mean sea level Approximate Depth to Groundwater: 150 feet below ground surface (bgs), State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR)* Regional Groundwater Flow Direction:Southwest, DWR Note: * State of California, Department of Water Resources Water Data Library 3.1 Geology and Hydrogeology The subject site is located within the San Joaquin Valley, a broad structural trough bound by the Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges of California. The San Joaquin Valley, which comprises the southern portion of the Great Valley of California, has been filled with several thousand feet of sedimentary deposits. Sediments in the eastern valley, derived from the erosion of the Sierra Nevada, have been deposited by major to minor west-flowing drainages and their tributaries. Near-surface sediments are dominated by sands and silty sands with lesser silts, minor clays, and gravel. The sedimentary deposits in the region form large coalescing alluvial fans with gentle slopes. Groundwater in the area is reported by DWR to be first encountered at a depth of approximately 150 feet bgs. The groundwater flow direction in the area of the subject site is generally towards the southwest. Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 5 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx 4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE A site reconnaissance, which included a visual observation of the subject site and surrounding properties, was conducted by Mr. William Cooper, Krazan’s Environmental Professional, on October 30, 2021. Krazan’s Environmental Assessor was unaccompanied during the site reconnaissance. The objective of the site reconnaissance is to obtain information indicating the likelihood of identifying recognized environmental conditions, including hazardous substances and petroleum products, in connection with the property (including soils, surface waters, and groundwater). 4.1 Observations The following Table II summarizes conditions encountered during our site reconnaissance. A discussion of visual observations the table below. Refer to the Site Map (Figure No. 3) and color photographs following the text for the locations of items discussed in this section of the report. TABLE II Summary of Site Reconnaissance Feature Observed Not Observed Structures (existing)X Evidence of Past Uses X Hazardous Substances and/or Petroleum Products (including containers)X Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs)X Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) or Evidence of USTs X Evidence of Underground Pipelines X Strong,Pungent, or Noxious Odors X Pools of Liquid Likely to be Hazardous Materials or Petroleum Products X Drums X Unidentified Substance Containers X Potential Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB)-Containing Equipment X Subsurface Hydraulic Equipment X Heating/Ventilation/Air conditioning (HVAC)X Stains or Corrosion on Floors,Walls, or Ceilings X Floor Drains,Sumps, or Oil/Water Clarifiers X Storm Drains or Basins X Pits,Ponds, or Lagoons X Stained Soil and/or Pavement X Soil Piles X Stressed Vegetation X Railroad tracks/spurs X Waste or Wastewater (including stormwater) Discharges to Surface/ Surface Waters X Water Wells X Oil Wells X Septic Systems X Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 6 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx The subject site comprises approximately 80 acres with the associated Kern County APNs of 535-010-01, -03 and -04. Refer to Figure No. 3, Site Map, and the site photographs for the locations of the following referenced on-site features: The subject site was observed to be agricultural land in production of corn and alfalfa crops. The subject site is bordered by Pensinger Road along the south side and the Union Pacific Railroad along the north side. The eastern-adjacent property is vacant land that includes crude-oil tank farms and the eastern-adjacent property is in agricultural use. The western boundary area of the subject site was observed with markers indicating that a Kern Oil Pipeline Company pipeline traverses along the western side of the subject site. A surface pipeline was noted traversing north/south along the western side of the subject site at this location. No obvious spills, releases or stained soil were noted in association with the area containing the markers or in association with the surface pipeline.  An electrically powered water well is located within the northern portion along the eastern boundary of the subject site. The pump motor is lubricated via a stand-mounted drum adjacent to the motor. A minor amount of pump-motor oil has stained the concrete pad and adjacent surface soil at the wellhead. However, based on Krazan’s observations, the impact has not significantly impacted the subsurface and the release is considered de minimis in nature. An adjacent pole- mounted transformer (PMT) owned and operated by PG&E supplies electrical power to the water well. The PMT casing displays a blue sticker indicating that the PMT does not contain PCB fluids. One oil well that includes a pumping unit was observed idle at the subject site. The oil well is located within a cleared area of the cornfield within the southeastern part of the subject site and is identified as “Edgar” 24A-24. A gas separator apparatus is present approximately one hundred feet to the east of the idle oil well. No significant impacts to the surface were noted within the area of the oil well. During the visual observations of the subject site, exposed surface soils did not exhibit obvious signs of discoloration. No obvious evidence (vent pipes, fill pipes, dispensers, etc.) of USTs was noted within the area observed. No indications of former structures, such as foundations, were observed on the subject site. 4.2 Utilities Based on Krazan’s observations, with the exception of electricity provided by PG&E for a water well pump and oil well, no utilities are currently provided to the subject site. Potable Water Sources/Water Wells No potable water sources were identified for the subject site. The water purveyor for the area of the subject site is California Water Service (CWA). CWA’s water quality monitoring is an on-going program with water samples obtained on a regular basis. It is the responsibility of the CWA to provide customers with potable water in compliance with the California State Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for primary drinking water constituents in water supplied to the public. Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 7 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx Krazan’s research indicates that dwellings were located within the southwestern and southeastern parts of the subject site prior to 1952. It is unknown if water wells were associated with the former dwellings. No water wells were observed on the subject site, other than the agricultural water well observed within the northeastern part of the subject site during Krazan site reconnaissance. If water wells are discovered during development of the subject site, they should be destroyed in compliance with Kern County requirements. Additionally, if the agricultural water well is not to be used in the future, it should be destroyed in compliance with Kern County requirements. Sewer and Septic Systems Krazan’s research indicates that dwellings were located within the southwestern and southeastern parts of the subject site prior to 1952. It is unknown if septic systems were associated with the former dwellings. No septic systems were observed at the subject site during Krazan’s site reconnaissance. If septic systems are discovered during development of the subject site, they should be destroyed in compliance with Kern County and City of Bakersfield requirements. The presence of a former septic system that have been used for the disposal of domestic sewage only is not anticipated to pose an environmental concern to the subject site. 4.3 Adjacent Streets and Property Usage The following Table III summarizes the current adjacent roads and adjacent property uses observed during the site reconnaissance: TABLE III Adjacent Streets and Property Use Direction Adjacent Street Adjacent Property Use North None Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)and Agricultural Land South Pensinger Road Residential East None Agricultural West Unimproved/ South Allen Road Vacant and Oilfield Use Based on the observed uses of the properties located immediately adjacent to the subject site, it is unlikely that significant quantities of hazardous materials are stored at the adjacent properties. 4.4 ASTM Non-Scope Considerations According to ASTM E 1527-13, there may be environmental issues or conditions at the subject site that are outside the scope of the Phase I ESA practice (non-scope considerations). Some substances may be present at the subject site in quantities and under conditions that may lead to contamination of the subject site or of Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 8 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx nearby properties but are not included in CERCLA’s definition of hazardous substances (42 U.S.C. §9601[14]). ASTM non-scope considerations are discussed below. Asbestos-Containing Materials Asbestos is a group of naturally occurring mineral fibers that have been used commonly in a variety of building construction materials for insulation and as a fire-retardant. Because of its fiber strength and heat resistant properties, asbestos has been used for a wide range of manufactured goods, mostly in building materials, vehicle brakes, and heat-resistant fabrics, packaging, gaskets, and coatings. When asbestos- containing materials (ACMs) are damaged or disturbed by repair, remodeling, or demolition activities, microscopic asbestos fibers may become airborne and can be inhaled into the lungs, where they can cause significant health problems. No structures are located on the subject site; therefore, ACMs do not appear to be an environmental concern at this time. Lead-Based Paint Although lead-based paint (LBP) was banned in 1978, many buildings constructed prior to 1978 have paint that contains lead. Lead from paint, chips, and dust can pose serious health hazards if not addressed properly. No structures are located on the subject site; therefore, LBP does not appear to be an environmental concern at this time. Mold and Moisture Intrusion A class of fungi, molds have been found to cause a variety of health problems in humans, including allergic, toxicological, and infectious responses. Molds are decomposers of organic materials, and thrive in humid environments, and produce spores to reproduce, just as plants produce seeds. When mold spores land on a damp spot indoors, they may begin growing and digesting whatever they are growing on in order to survive. When excessive moisture or water accumulates indoors, mold growth will often occur, particularly if the moisture problem remains undiscovered or unaddressed. As such, interior areas of buildings characterized by poor ventilation and high humidity are the most common locations of mold growth. Building materials including drywall, wallpaper, baseboards, wood framing, insulation and carpeting often play host to such growth. Moisture control is the key to mold control. Molds need both food and water to survive; since molds can digest most things, water is the factor that limits mold growth. No structures are located on the subject site; therefore, mold and moisture intrusion is not an environmental concern at this time. Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 9 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx Radon Radon is a radioactive gas that is found in certain geologic environments and is formed by the natural breakdown of radium, which is found in the earth’s crust. A radon survey was not included within the scope of this investigation; however, the State of California Department of Health Services (CDHS) maintains a statewide database of radon results in designated geographic areas. Radon detection devices are placed in homes throughout the study region to determine geographic regions with elevated radon concentrations. The U.S. EPA has set the safety standard for radon gas in homes to be 4.0 pico Curies per liter (pCi/L). The US EPA has prepared a map to assist National, State and local organizations to target their resources and to implement radon-resistant building codes. The map divides the country into three Radon Zones. Zone 1, being those areas with the average predicted indoor radon concentration in residential dwellings exceeds the EPA Action Limit of 4.0 pCi/L; Zone 2, where average predicted radon levels are between 2.0 and 4.0 pCi/L; and Zone 3 where average predicted radon levels are below 2.0 pCi/L. It is important to note that the EPA has found homes with elevated levels of radon in all three zones, and the EPA recommends site-specific testing in order to determine radon levels at a specific location. However, the map does give a valuable indication of the propensity of radon gas accumulation in structures. Review of the EPA Map of Radon Zones places the Property in Zone 2, where average predicted radon levels are between 2.0 and 4.0 pCi/L. Therefore, the available data suggests that the potential for radon to adversely impact the subject site appears to be low. Wetlands As defined by the U.S. EPA and the Department of Army, Corps of Engineers, wetlands are “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” Jurisdictional wetlands are regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1972, 1977, and 1987, and also the 1985 and 1990 Farm Bills), and are important for protection of aquatic waterfowl and species, water purification, and flood control. According to current Corps of Engineers information, three basic criteria are currently used to define wetlands: Wetland hydrology - areas exhibiting surface or near-surface saturation or inundation at some point in time (greater than 12.5 percent of growing season defined on basis of frost-free days) during an average rainfall year. Hydrophilic vegetation - frequency of occurrence of wetland indicator plants (plant life growing in water, soil, or substrate that is periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content). Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 10 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx Hydric soil - landscape patterns identified by saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season (generally seven days) which develop characteristic color changes in the upper part of the soil as a result of anaerobic conditions. Based on Krazan’s reconnaissance of the subject site, evidence was not apparent to suggest that the site contained a wetland. Furthermore, according to the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory available via the USFWS Internet website, the subject site does not contain a designated wetland. Therefore, at this time, regulations pertaining to wetlands do not appear to impact the subject site. Environmental Non-Compliance Issues No material non-compliance issues were identified in connection with the subject site in the process of preparing this report. Activity and Use Limitations No activity and use limitations were identified in connection with the subject site in the process of preparing this report. 5.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION A review of user-provided information was conducted in order to help identify pertinent information regarding potential environmental impacts associated with the subject site. 5.1 Final Title Report and Environmental Lien Search A Final Title Report or Environmental Lien Search were not prepared by or provided to Krazan during the course of this assessment. Therefore, the absence of a Final Title Report or Environmental Lien Search represents a data gap. 5.2 Title Report A Preliminary Title Report (PTR) dated September 13, 2021, prepared for the subject site by Ticor Title Company was provided to Krazan by Urban Land Advisor’s, Krazan’s client and user of this Phase I ESA. The subject site PTR was reviewed to identify potential deed restrictions, environmental liens or activity and use limitations (AULs) which may have occurred on or exist in connection with the subject site. Krazan’s review of the PTR indicated no deed restrictions, environmental liens or AULs for the subject site. However, as quoted from the subject site PTR, “It is important to note that this Preliminary Title Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 11 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx Report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects and encumbrances affecting title to the land.” Please refer to Appendix B for a copy of the PTR. 5.3 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment User Questionnaire In order to qualify for one of the Landowner Liability Protections (LLPs) offered by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2001 (the Brownfields Amendments), the user must provide the following information (if available) to the environmental professional. Failure to provide this information could result in a determination that all appropriate inquiry is not complete. The user is asked to provide information or knowledge of the following: 1. Environmental cleanup liens that are filed or recorded against the site. 2.Activity and land use limitations that are in place on the site or that have been filed or recorded in a registry. 3. Specialized knowledge or experience of the person seeking to qualify for the LLPs. 4. Relationship of the purchase price to the fair market value of the property if it were not contaminated. 5.Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property. 6. The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to detect the contamination by appropriate investigation. 7. The reason for preparation of this Phase I ESA. On November 10, 2021, a completed Phase I ESA user/owner questionnaire was received from Mr. Matt Wade with Urban Land Advisors, LLC, the Phase I ESA user. Please refer to Appendix C for a copy of the user questionnaire. According to the questionnaire responses, Mr. Wade, to the best of his knowledge as the user of this Phase I ESA, was not aware of any environmental cleanup liens and activity or land use limitations which have been filed or recorded against the subject site. Mr. Wade has no specialized knowledge or experience of the prior nature of the business or chemical utilization, specific chemicals, hazardous materials, unauthorized spills or chemical releases, or of any environmental cleanups in connection with the subject site. Mr. Wade is not aware of any indications of contamination at the subject site. Mr. Wade stated that the purchase price of the subject site reasonably reflects fair market value and that the reason for preparation of this Phase I ESA is related to a purchase and residential development of the property. Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 12 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx 6.0 SITE USAGE SURVEY The property usage survey included assessing property history, and reviewing local, state, and federal regulatory agency records. 6.1 Site History A review of historical aerial photographs, contacts with the City of Bakersfield Building Department (CBBD), review of city directories, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (SFIMs), and questionnaires submitted to the owner and user of this Phase I ESA were reviewed to assess the history of the subject site. Previous Environmental Assessments A previous environmental assessment was not provided to Krazan for review. Aerial Photograph Interpretation Historical aerial photographs dated 1937, 1942, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1973, 1978, 1984, 1994, 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2016 were reviewed to assess the history of the subject site. These photographs were obtained from EDR. The aerial photograph summary is provided in the following Table IV. Please refer to Appendix D for a copy of the Historical Aerial Photographs. TABLE IV Summary of Aerial Photograph Review Year/Scale Site Use Site and Adjacent Property Observation 1937 1" = 500’ Agricultural/ Residential The subject site and adjacent properties are predominantly in agricultural use. The subject site includes two tree-shrouded farmsteads; one is within the southwestern part and a second within the southeastern part of the subject site. One dwelling is apparent within the southwestern farmstead and trees shroud the southeastern farmstead; however, several outbuildings are present to the south of the presumed southeastern farmstead dwelling. A railroad is adjacent to the northern side of the subject site, and no improved roads are present on or adjacent to the subject site. 1942 " =500’ Agricultural/ Residential Conditions on the subject site and adjacent properties appear similar to those noted in the 1937 aerial photograph Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 13 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx TABLE IV (continued) Summary of Aerial Photograph Review Year/Scale Site Use Site and Adjacent Property Observation 1952 1" = 500' Agricultural/ Crude-Oil Production The two farmsteads are no longer present. Crude-oil exploration and production is evident from the presence of oilfield tank farms on the subject site and adjacent properties. Two aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and a small basin or produced water pond are present along the southern boundary within the southwestern part of the subject site. Two small structures are present to the north of this tank farm. A second tank farm that includes two ASTs and a sump is present within the southern- central part of the subject site and a third tank farm that includes three AST and a sump is present within the southwestern part of the northern area of the subject site. Tank farms are adjacent to the southwestern and eastern-central parts of the subject site. 1956 1" = 500' Agricultural/ Crude-Oil Production Conditions on the subject site and adjacent properties appear similar to those noted in the 1952 aerial photograph except oil wells and associated mud pits have been added within the northeastern, southeastern and western-central parts of the subject site. 1968 1" = 500’ Agricultural/ Crude-Oil Production Conditions on the subject site and adjacent properties appear similar to those noted in the 1956 aerial photograph. 1973 1" = 500' Agricultural/ Crude-Oil Production Conditions on the subject site and adjacent properties appear similar to those noted in the 1968 aerial photograph. 1978 1" = 500' Agricultural/ Crude-Oil Production Conditions on the subject site and adjacent properties appear similar to those noted in the 1973 aerial photograph except the ASTs and basins have been removed from the two southern tank farms. 1994 1" = 500' Agricultural/ Crude-Oil Production Conditions on the subject site and adjacent properties appear similar to those noted in the 1978 aerial photograph. 2006 1" = 500' Agricultural Crude-Oil Production Conditions on the subject site and adjacent properties appear similar to those noted in the 1994 aerial photograph. 2009 1" = 500' Agricultural Crude-Oil Production The subject site remains in agricultural use and includes several oil wells as indicated from cleared areas that are consistent with identified oil well locations. One tank farm that includes three ASTs and a basin remains within the southwestern part of the northern portion of the subject site. A basin is also present within the southwestern part of the subject site. 2012 1" = 500' Agricultural Crude-Oil Production Conditions on the subject site and adjacent properties appear similar to those noted in the 2009 aerial photograph except the tank farm within the southwestern part of the northern portion of the subject site has been cleared of ASTs. 2016 1" = 500 Agricultural Crude-Oil Production Conditions on the subject site and adjacent properties appear similar to those noted in the 2012 aerial photograph except there are two small features along the southern boundary of the subject site. USGS Topographic Quadrangle Maps Krazan’s review of the USGS, 7.5 minute, Stevens, California topographic quadrangle maps dated 1910 and 1912 indicates the subject site is vacant land without structures. Review of the 1929, 1932, 1942, 1947, Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 14 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx and 1950 topographic maps indicates two structures (dwellings) within the southern portion of the subject site. Review of the 1954, 1968 and 1973 topographic maps indicates that the structures are no longer present and approximately 7 oil tanks are located throughout the subject site. City of Bakersfield Building Department Records On October 25, 2021 Krazan contacted the City of Bakersfield Building Department (CBBD) for information regarding the subject site. According to representatives with the CBBD, the subject site APNs are listed as vacant agricultural land with no assigned addresses and no records for previous structures, dwellings, building permits, or demolition permits. City and County Directories Krazan’s review of City and County directories for the area of the subject site at the Kern County Library in Bakersfield, California reveled no coverage for the area of the subject site prior to 1972 and no listings for the subject site location from 1972 to the present. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps Krazan reviews SFIMs to evaluate prior land use of the subject site and the adjacent properties. SFIMs typically exist for cities with populations of 2,000 or more, the coverage dependent on the location of the subject site within the city limits. Krazan contracted with EDR to provide copies of available SFIMs for the subject site and the adjacent properties as far back as 1867. EDR’s search of SFIMs revealed no coverage for the subject site and the adjacent properties.Please refer to Appendix D for a copy of the EDR SFIM Unmapped Property Report. 6.2 Interviews and Questionnaires Interviews and questionnaires are designed to provide pertinent information regarding potential environmental impacts associated with the subject site. Krazan provided the user of this Phase I ESA with an owner questionnaire and requested that the questionnaire be completed by the owner, or that the owner contact Krazan to discuss the property. As of the date of this report, a completed owner questionnaire or contact with the owner has not been provided to Krazan. The absence of an interview with the current owner/occupant constitutes a data gap. However, taken in consideration with the available information obtained in the course of preparing this report in conjunction with professional experience, there is no evidence to suggest that this data gap might alter the conclusions of this assessment. Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 15 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx Previous Subject Site Owner Interview An interview with a previous owner/occupant of the subject site was not reasonably ascertainable. The absence of an interview with a previous owner/occupant constitutes a data gap. However, taken in consideration with the available information obtained in the course of preparing this report in conjunction with professional experience, there is no evidence to suggest that this data gap might alter the conclusions of this assessment. 6.3 Agricultural Chemicals Review of historical aerial photographs indicates the subject site was utilized for agricultural purposes from at least 1937 to the present. Although the potential exists that environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides were historically applied to crops grown on the subject site, Krazan’s experience in the subject site vicinity, and with properties with similar histories, generally indicates that the potential is low for elevated concentrations of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides to exist in the near- surface soils. Additionally, it is anticipated that any agricultural chemicals present in shallow soils will be significantly mixed and diluted during the course of grading and trenching operations in conjunction with proposed redevelopment of the subject site. Consequently, given the above-referenced factors, despite the absence of specific data, the potential for elevated concentrations of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides to exist in the near-surface soils of the subject site at concentrations which would require regulatory action appears to be low. 6.4 Regulatory Agency Interface A review of regulatory agency records was conducted to help determine if hazardous materials have been handled, stored, or generated on the subject site and/or the adjacent properties and businesses. Regulatory records are reviewed based on the following criteria: 1) properties with known soils and/or groundwater releases considered to represent the potential for impact to the subject site that are located within 1,760 feet of the subject site for volatile organic compound constituents of concern impacts, and 528 feet of the subject site for petroleum hydrocarbon impacts; 2) properties that are adjacent or in proximity to the subject site included within the EDR regulatory database report or noted during the site reconnaissance to possibly handle, store, or generate hazardous materials. Applicable property records are discussed below. City of Bakersfield Fire Department The City of Bakersfield Fire Department - (CBFD) is the lead regulatory agency or Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for hazardous materials handling facilities in the City of Bakersfield. On October 25, 2021, Krazan reviewed available records via the internet at www.bakersfieldcity.us for potential records Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 16 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx associated with USTs, hazardous materials business plans (HMBPs), or hazardous materials incident reports for the subject site and adjacent properties. Based on Krazan’s review of the available files, records were found on file with the CBFD for the subject that are discussed below. Please refer to Appendix E for a copy of the regulatory records. Foothill Energy, LLC subject site Canfield Ranch Lease Section 24-T30S/R26E According to records on file with CBFD, the subject site oilfield lease operator, Foothill Energy, LLC, applied for a permit with the CBFD for a new oil well installation on 9/10/2012. The application was for oil well #24-24. The permit was not finalized and information on file with California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) indicates this well was cancelled. CBFD records also include a routine inspection conducted by CBFD for the Foothill Energy Canfield Ranch Lease. No hazardous waste was noted and no violations were issued by the CBFD during this inspection on 4/14/2017. State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Geotracker Krazan’s review of the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Geotracker database available via the RWQCB Internet Website indicated that no LUST sites, land disposal sites, or military sites are listed for the subject site or adjacent properties. Additionally, no permitted UST sites were determined to be located on or adjacent to the subject site. Geotracker records do include a case summary document for the Canfield Ranch Edgar Lease (subject site) that is discussed below. Please refer to Appendix E for copies of RWQCB records. Canfield Ranch, Edgar Lease 1,500 feet to the east NW1/4 / NW1/4 of Section 24, T30S, R26E Bakersfield, California According to records on file with Geotracker, the subject site (regional case board number 5D152092002) was regulated from 1958 to 2001 by Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) 58-449 for Stream Energy, Inc. According to Geotracker, the status of this project is Completed-Case Closed as of 7/21/2001. Geotracker notes indicate the following: “According to aerial images the Facility was returned to agricultural use between 4/29/2011 and 8/7/2012 (ponds were filled in and tanks were removed). 12/17/2003 inspection: Two gunite-lined sumps are empty and used for emergency containment.” Geotracker records are on file for a vicinity property that has been the focus of investigations for releases to the subsurface. This vicinity facility is discussed below: Pensinger Road Development 1,500 fee east 11750 Pensinger Road Bakersfield, California According to information on file with Geotracker, this former tank farm and produced water pond facility is an open investigation site with the RWQCB that involves releases to Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 17 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx the subsurface. Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g) and diesel (TPH-d) have been reported in soil beneath the former produced water pond at this vicinity facility. Krazan’s review of the reports on file with the RWQCB indicates this former tank farm and produced water pond was located approximately 1,500 feet to the east of the subject site. Geotracker records appear to erroneously plot the location of 11750 Pensinger Road as the location of the idle oil well 25-24A at the subject site. However, RWQCB records indicate the investigation was conducted off site to the east approximately 1,500 feet. Based upon the location and distance from the subject site, there is no material evidence that this facility represents a significant environmental concern in conjunction with the subject site. State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control - Envirostor Krazan’s review of the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor database available via the DTSC’s Internet Website indicated that no State response sites, voluntary cleanup sites, school cleanup sites, or military sites are listed for the subject site, the adjacent properties, or properties located within 500 feet of the subject site. Additionally, no Federal Superfund – National Priorities List (NPL) sites were determined to be located within a one-mile radius of the subject site. California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Energy Management Division Krazan’s October 23, 2021 review of California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) Online Well Finder GIS database indicated that there are six oil wells located on the subject site. The well name, status and locations are identified by CalGEM as follows. Please refer to Appendix F for a copy of CalGEM well records. “Hall-Edgar” 21-24 (Plugged) Lat/Lon 35.309805/-119.142558; “KCL-Edgar” 12-24 (Plugged) Lat/Lon 35.308152/-119.144841; “Edgar” 23-24 (Plugged) Lat/Lon 35.306169/-119.142477; Pitts” 14X-24 (Plugged) Lat/Lon 35.304841/-119.144803; “Pitts” 14-24 (Plugged) Lat/Lon 35.304359/-119.144698; and, “Edgar” 24A-24 (Idle) Lat/Lon 35.304387/-119.141904. During the site reconnaissance, with the exception of the idle oil well “Edgar” 24A-24 and the associated gas separator apparatus, no other oil wells or associated features, such as mud or drilling sumps, were noted on the subject site. CalGEM records also document that the planned oil well “Edgar” 24-24 was cancelled. The five oil wells that have been plugged and abandoned at the subject site were done so to CalGEM (formerly DOGGR) standards at the time of plugging and abandonment. It is unknown if these five oil wells are plugged and abandoned to current CalGEM standards. Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 18 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx Krazan recommends that CalGEM be contacted to determine if the oil wells are abandoned to current standards or if additional reabandonment or leak testing may be required for the plugged and abandoned oil wells prior to redevelopment of the subject site. CalGEM requires that the developer/property owner consult with the CalGEM prior to any work to uncover a known abandoned well, and CalGEM requires that property owners continue to provide access to any wells located on a property. Currently CalGEM requires that no buildings shall be constructed within 10 feet of an oil well on two adjacent sides and the third side of a well shall be no closer than 50 feet from buildings; the fourth side must remain open to allow for access of an abandonment rig in the event that the well requires abandonment or reabandonment in the future. Additionally, if any unknown oil wells are discovered or any known or unknown wells are damaged during work at the subject site, CalGEM must be contacted in order to evaluate the condition of the well. Based on review of historical aerial photographs, three tank farms with multiple ASTs and production water ponds were noted to be present at the subject site in association with crude-oil production. Krazan’s experience with tank farms indicates that there is a significant potential for hazardous materials or wastes to be present in subsurface soil at these locations as a result of crude oil production. Petroleum- hydrocarbons, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds are typical constituents of concern. Local Area Tribal Records No Indian reservations, USTs on Indian land, or LUSTs on Indian land were reported on the subject site, adjacent properties, or vicinity properties in the EDR-provided database report. 6.5 Regulatory Agency Lists Review Several agencies have published documents that list businesses or properties which have handled hazardous materials or waste or may have experienced site contamination. The lists consulted in the course of our assessment were compiled by EDR and Krazan and represent reasonably ascertainable current listings. Krazan did not verify the locations and distances of every property listed by EDR. Krazan verified the location and distances of the properties Krazan deemed as having the potential to adversely impact the subject site. The actual location of the listed properties may differ from the EDR listing. Refer to the following Table V for a summary of the listed properties located within the specified ASTM Search Radii. The actual distances of the listed properties (which are summarized in the table below) are based on observations during Krazan’s site reconnaissance. No EDR-listed unmapped (non geocoded) sites were determined to be located on or adjacent to the subject site. Please refer to Appendix G for a copy of the EDR Report. Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 19 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx TABLE V Listed Properties Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 20 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx TABLE V (continued) Listed Properties Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 21 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx TABLE V (continued) Listed Properties Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 22 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx TABLE V (continued) Listed Properties Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 23 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx The subject site location is listed in the EDR report and is discussed below. Canfield Ranch, Edgar Lease subject site NW1/4 / NW1/4 of Section 24, T30S, R26E Bakersfield, California According to EDR, the subject site is listed in the following databases: California Environmental Reporting System (CERS); California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) and Produced Water Ponds. The subject site is listed as case closed; however, no spills, releases of violations are identified. This facility was discussed in detail in Section 6.4. In summary, the subject site (regional case board number 5D152092002) was regulated by the RWQCB from 1958 to 2001 by Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) 58-449 for Stream Energy, Inc. According to Geotracker, the status of this project is Completed - Case Closed as of 7/21/2001. Geotracker notes indicate the following: “According to aerial images the Facility was returned to agricultural use between 4/29/2011 and 8/7/2012 (ponds were filled in and tanks were removed). 12/17/2003 inspection: Two gunite-lined sumps are empty and used for emergency containment.” A vicinity property is listed by EDR and is discussed below. Pensinger Road Development 1,500 feet east 11750 Pensinger Road Bakersfield, California According to EDR, this facility is identified in the Cleanup Program Sites (CPS), the former Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup Sites (SLICS) and the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) databases. This facility is identified by EDR as an open investigation. This facility was discussed in detail in Section 6.4. Based upon its location and distance of 1,500 feet to the east of the subject site, there is no material evidence that this site represents a significant environmental concern in conjunction with the subject site. The remaining properties within the specified search radius of the subject site which appeared on local, state, or federally published lists of sites that use or have had releases of hazardous materials are of sufficient distance and/or situated hydraulically cross- or downgradient from the subject site such that impact to the subject site is not likely. No engineering control sites, sites with institutional controls, or sites with deed restrictions were listed for the subject site, adjacent sites or vicinity properties in the EDR database report. Hazardous Materials Migration in Soils and/or Groundwater One site with a reported release of hazardous materials to the subsurface was reported within the subject site vicinity. This facility was discussed in Section 6.4 and was determined to be more than 1,500 feet east of the subject site with no evidence of a significant threat to the subject site. In general, potentially hazardous materials or petroleum products released from facilities located approximately hydraulically Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 24 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx upgradient within the subject site vicinity, or in a hydraulically cross-gradient direction in proximity to the site, may have a reasonable potential of migrating to the subject site via groundwater flow. This opinion is based on the assumption that non-vaporous hazardous materials generally do not migrate large distances laterally within the soil, but rather tend to migrate with groundwater in the general direction of groundwater flow. However, the potential for migration of volatile hazardous materials may include movement within soils, groundwater flow or potentially omni-directionally if present in a vaporous state. Hazardous Materials Migration in Vapor Hazardous materials or petroleum product vapors which may have the potential to migrate into the subsurface of the subject site may be caused by the release of vapors from contaminated soil or groundwater either on or in the vicinity of the subject site from current or historical uses of the subject site and/or adjacent or vicinity properties. Current or past land uses such as gasoline stations (using petroleum hydrocarbons), dry cleaning establishments (using chlorinated volatile organic compounds), former manufactured gas plant sites (using volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds), and former industrial sites such as those that had vapor degreasing or other parts-cleaning operations (using chlorinated volatile organic compounds) are of particular concern. Constituent of concern vapors are capable of migrating great distances omni- directionally along subsurface conduits such as pipelines, utility lines, sewer and stormwater lines, and building foundations. Based on Krazan’s observations and review of the EDR regulatory database report, the subject site former ASTs and ponds at the three former tank farm facilities may represent a potential vapor intrusion concern to future structures. No other listings of concern were determined to be associated with the subject site, adjacent properties, or properties located within the subject site vicinity. However, the screening process for vapor migration in connection with the subject site is described in the ASTM E 2600-10 Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions,an industry consensus methodology to assess vapor migration which is not included in the scope of work of this Phase I ESA. Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 25 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx 7.0 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS Historical Uses Based on Krazan’s review of historical aerial photographs, a site reconnaissance, and contacts with the local regulatory agencies, there is evidence that RECs, exist in connection with the historical tank farm/produced water ponds and other oilfield uses of the subject site. Current Uses Based on Krazan’s site reconnaissance, contacts with local regulatory agencies, there is no evidence that RECs exist in connection with the current uses of the subject site. Adjacent or Vicinity Property Uses Based on Krazan’s field observations, review of the EDR government database report, and consultation with local regulatory agencies, there is no evidence that RECs exist in connection with the subject site from adjacent property uses. 7.1 Evaluation of Data Gaps/Data Failure In accordance with ASTM E 1527-13 guidance, data gaps represent a lack of or inability to obtain information required by this practice despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information. Data gaps may result from incompleteness in any of the activities required by this practice. Data failure represents the failure to achieve the historical research objectives of this practice even after reviewing the standard historical sources that are available and likely to be useful. Data failure is one type of data gap. The following is a summary of data gaps encountered in the process of preparing this report including an observation as to the presumed significance of that data gap to the conclusions of this assessment. Absence of Interview with the Current and Previous Property Owners/Occupants (Section 6.1) A Phase I ESA interview with the current and previous owners/occupants of the subject site was not reasonably ascertainable. Consequently, information regarding the history and historical uses of the subject site obtained from an interview of the current and previous owners and/or occupants constitutes a data gap. Taken in consideration with the available information obtained in the course of preparing this report in conjunction with professional experience, there is no evidence to suggest that this data gap might alter the conclusions of this assessment. However, the contents of an interview with a previous property owner/occupant are unknown. Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 26 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx Absence of a Final Title Report or Environmental Lien Search (Section 5.0) A Final Title Report or Environmental Lien Search were not provided by the user or prepared by Krazan in conjunction with this assessment. Consequently, a preliminary title report with attendant limitations was utilized in preparation of this report which constitutes a data gap. Taken in consideration with the available information obtained in the course of preparing this report in conjunction with professional experience, there is no evidence to suggest that this data gap might alter the conclusions of this assessment. However, the contents of a Final Title Report or Environmental Lien Search are unknown. 8.0 CONCLUSIONS We have conducted a Phase I ESA of the subject site in conformance with the scope and limitations of the ASTM E 1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process guidance documents. Any deviations from this practice were previously described in this report. During the course of this assessment, no evidence of historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs) or controlled RECs (CRECs) was revealed. However, Krazan identified evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in conjunction with the subject site as defined by ASTM E 1527-13. Additionally, site development issues were identified and are discussed below. RECs Based on review of historical aerial photographs, three tank farms with multiple aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and production water ponds were formerly present at the subject site in association with crude-oil production of the Canfield Ranch Field - Edgar Lease (subject site). With the exception of one idle oil well with pumping unit and gas separator, no surface indications of oil wells, mud pits, production water ponds, or ASTs were noted at the subject site. Records on file with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) document a 7/21/2001 case closure with respect to waste discharge requirements. However, no documentation of investigations of subsurface soil conditions was identified for the subject site tank farm facilities. Krazan’s experience with oilfield tank farms indicates that there is a significant potential for hazardous materials or wastes to be present in subsurface soil as a result of the use of additives at crude-oil production tank-farm facilities over many years of operation. Petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds are typical constituents of concern. Based upon the findings presented above, Krazan recommends that a Phase II Limited. Subsurface Assessment be conducted and that soil and soil vapor samples be collected and analyzed for constituents of concern within the areas identified as the former locations of ASTs and production water ponds at the subject site. Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 27 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx Site Development Issues Krazan’s review of records with the State of California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) indicates that six oil wells are located on the subject site. Five of the six wells are plugged and abandoned and the sixth well is idle. During Krazan’s October 2021 site reconnaissance, except for the idle oil well pumping unit and gas separator, no surface indications of the other abandoned oil wells or former drilling mud pits were observed on the subject site. Krazan recommends that CalGEM be contacted to determine if the oil wells are abandoned to current standards or if additional reabandonment or leak testing may be required for the plugged and abandoned oil wells prior to redevelopment of the subject site. CalGEM requires that the developer/property owner consult with the CalGEM prior to any work to uncover a known abandoned well, and CalGEM requires that property owners continue to provide access to any wells located on a property. Currently CalGEM requires that no buildings shall be constructed within 10 feet of an oil well on two adjacent sides and the third side of a well shall be no closer than 50 feet from buildings; the fourth side must remain open to allow for access of an abandonment rig in the event that the well requires abandonment or reabandonment in the future. Additionally, if any unknown oil wells are discovered or any known or unknown wells are damaged during work at the subject site, CalGEM must be contacted in order to evaluate the condition of the well. Krazan’s experience with similar oil wells indicates that the potential for significant hazardous materials or wastes to be present in subsurface soil at abandoned oil well locations is low. However, if significant petroleum-hydrocarbon-impacted soil or drilling mud is discovered during redevelopment work at the subject site, Krazan should be contacted to evaluate the impacted soil and/or drilling mud. Additionally, abandoned underground oil-gathering pipelines may be encountered and drilling mud in the subsurface may represent a geotechnical concern to structures that may be built over or near drilling mud pits. 9.0 RELIANCE This report was prepared solely for use by Client and should not be provided to any other person or entity without Krazan & Associates’ prior written consent. No party other than Client may rely on this report without Krazan & Associates’ express prior written consent. Reliance rights for third parties will only be in effect once requested by Client and authorized by Krazan & Associates with authorization granted by way of a Reliance Letter. The Reliance Letter will require that the relying party(ies) agree to be bound to the terms and conditions of the agreement between Client and Krazan & Associates as if originally issued to the relying party(ies), or as so stipulated in the Reliance Letter. Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 28 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx 10.0 LIMITATIONS The site reconnaissance and research of the subject site has been limited in scope. This type of assessment is undertaken with the calculated risk that the presence, full nature, and extent of contamination would not be revealed by visual observation alone. Although a thorough site reconnaissance was conducted in accordance with ASTM E 1527-13, and employing a professional standard of care, no warranty is given, either expressed or implied, that hazardous material contamination or buried structures, which would not have been disclosed through this investigation, do not exist at the subject site. Therefore, the data obtained are clear and accurate only to the degree implied by the sources and methods used. The findings presented in this report were based upon field observations during a single property visit, review of available data, and discussions with local regulatory and advisory agencies. Observations describe only the conditions present at the time of this investigation. The data reviewed and observations made are limited to accessible areas and currently available records searched. Krazan cannot guarantee the completeness or accuracy of the regulatory agency records reviewed. Additionally, in evaluating the property, Krazan has relied in good faith upon representations and information provided by individuals noted in the report with respect to present operations and existing property conditions, and the historic uses of the property. It must also be understood that changing circumstances in the property usage, proposed property usage, subject site zoning, and changes in the environmental status of the other nearby properties can alter the validity of conclusions and information contained in this report. Therefore, the data obtained are clear and accurate only to the degree implied by the sources and methods used. This report is provided for the exclusive use of the client noted on the cover page and shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the applicable contract between the client and Krazan. Any third party use of this report, including use by Client’s lender, shall also be subject to the terms and conditions governing the work in the contract between the client and Krazan. The unauthorized use of, reliance on, or release of the information contained in this report without the express written consent of Krazan is strictly prohibited and will be without risk or liability to Krazan. Conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on the evaluation of information made available during the course of this assessment. It is not warranted that such data cannot be superseded by future environmental, legal, geotechnical or technical developments. Consequently, given the possibility for unanticipated hazardous conditions to exist on a subject site which may not have been discovered, this Phase I ESA is not intended as the basis for a buyer or developer of real property to waive their rights of Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 29 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx recovery based upon environmental unknowns. Parties that choose to waive rights of recovery prior to site development do so at their own risk. Parties who seek to rely upon Phase I Environmental Site Assessment reports dated more than 180 days prior to the date of reliance do so at their own risk. This limitation in reliance is based on the potential for physical changes at the site, changes in circumstances, technological and professional advances, and guidance related to the continued viability of Environmental Site Assessment reports, user’s responsibilities, and requirements for updating of components of the inquiry. 11.0 QUALIFICATIONS This Phase I ESA was conducted under the supervision or responsible charge of Krazan’s undersigned environmental professional. The work was conducted in accordance with ASTM E 1527-13 for a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,and generally accepted industry standards for environmental due diligence in place at the time of the preparation of this report, and Krazan’s quality-control policies. We declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in 40 CFR 312.10. We have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (661) 837- 9200. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. William R. Cooper, P.G. No. 7427 Environmental Professional Arthur C. Farkas Sr. Environmental Professional WRC/ACF/mlt Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 30 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx REFERENCES Aerial photographs were obtained from EDR. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Process, ASTM Designations: E 1527-05 and E 1527-13. ASTM, Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions,ASTM Designation E 2600-10. City of Bakersfield Building Department. City of Bakersfield Fire Department. EDR, Regulatory Database Report. California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) (formerly DOGGR)https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/WellFinder.aspx State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor Website: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Geotracker Website: http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov State of California, Department of Water Resources,Lines of Equal Elevation of Water in Wells Unconfined Aquifer, San Joaquin Valley, Spring 2018. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Map of Radon Zones. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Wetlands Mapper: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5-minute Buena Vista and Stevens, California topographic quadrangle maps, obtained from EDR. Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 31 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx GLOSSARY OF TERMS Subject Site: The real property being investigated under this Phase I ESA. Adjacent Properties: Properties which are contiguous with the subject site, or would be contiguous except for a street, road, or other public thoroughfare. Subject Site Vicinity: Properties located within a 500-foot radius of the subject site. Environmental Professional:A person meeting the education, training, and experience requirements as set forth in 40 CFR §312.10(b). The EP may be an independent contractor or an employee of the user. User:The party seeking to use Practice E 1527 to complete an environmental site assessment of the subject site. A user may include, without limitation, a potential purchaser of the subject site, a potential tenant of the subject site, an owner of the subject site, a lender, or a property manager. Recognized Environmental Condition (REC): In defining a standard of good commercial and customary practice for conducting an environmental site assessment of a parcel of property, the goal of the processes established by this practice is to identify recognized environmental conditions. The term recognized environmental conditions means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions. Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC): A recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). For example, if a leaking underground storage tank has been cleaned up to a commercial use standard, but does not meet unrestricted residential cleanup criteria, this would be considered a CREC. The “control” is represented by the restriction that the property use remain commercial. A condition considered by the environmental professional to be a CREC shall be listed in the findings section of the Phase I ESA report and as an REC in the conclusions section. A condition identified as a CREC does not imply that the environmental professional has evaluated or confirmed the adequacy, implementation, or continued effectiveness of the required control that has been, or is intended to be, implemented. Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC):A past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). Before calling the past release an HREC, the environmental professional must determine whether the past release is an REC at the time the Phase I ESA is conducted (for example, if there has been change in the regulatory criteria). If the EP considers the past release to be an REC at the time the Phase I ESA is conducted, the condition shall be included in the conclusions section of the report as an REC. Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 32 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx GLOSSARY OF TERMS (continued) Potential Area of Concern (PAOC):A term adopted to provide an alternative designation to the REC and HREC for a range of environmental issues related to current subject site uses, historical subject site uses, or from adjacent and/or vicinity property uses. The PAOC is utilized to emphasize full disclosure and provide the User with conclusions and recommendations related to potential environmental issues in connection with the subject site based on Krazan’s professional experience in cases where official documentation or other evidence may be absent in order to identify an REC or HREC, thereby aiding the User’s considerations of environmental due diligence risk tolerance. Migrate/migration:For the purposes of this practice, “migrate” and “migration” refer to the movement of hazardous substances or petroleum products in any form, including, for example, solid and liquid at the surface or subsurface, and vapor in the subsurface. Vapor migration in the subsurface is described in ASTM E 2600-10 guidance; however, nothing in the E 1527-13 practice should be construed to require application of the E 2600-10 standard to achieve compliance with AAI. De minimis condition:A condition that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Condition determined to be de minimis conditions are not RECS or CRECs. Data Gap:A lack of or inability to obtain information required by this practice despite good faith efforts by the Environmental Professional to gather such information. Data gaps may result from incompleteness in any of the activities required by this practice, including, but not limited to the site reconnaissance and interviews. Data Failure:A failure to achieve the historical research objectives even after reviewing the standard historical sources that are reasonably ascertainable and likely to be useful. Data failure is one type of data gap. Lorenzi Property Project No. 024-21066 Bakersfield, California Page No. 33 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States 024-21066 Lorenzi Property Phase I Report Final.docx GLOSSARY OF TERMS (continued) AAI AC ACM AOC APN AST ASTM AS AUL bgs BTEX CERCLA CESQG CFR CMU COCs DEULs DOGGR DTSC EC EDR EP EPA ERP ESA ESL FOIA GPR HCCD HFIM HMBP HREC HVAC IC LBP LLP LQG LUC LUST MCL µg/L mg/kg mg/L MSDS All Appropriate Inquiries Asphalt Concrete Asbestos-Containing Materials Area of Concern Assessor’s Parcel Number Aboveground Storage Tank American Society for Testing and Materials Air Sparging Activity & Use Limitations Below Ground Surface Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Code of Federal Regulations Concrete Masonry Unit Constituents of Concern Declaration of Environmental Use Restrictions Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (CA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (CA) Engineering Control Environmental Data Resources Environmental Professional United States Environmental Protection Agency Emergency Response Plan Environmental Site Assessment Environmental Screening Level Freedom of Information Act Ground Penetrating Radar Haines Criss-Cross Directory Historical Fire Insurance Map Hazardous Materials Business Plan Historical Recognized Environmental Condition Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning Institutional Control Lead-Based Paint Landowner Liability Protection Large Quantity Generator Land Use Control Leaking Underground Storage Tank Maximum Contaminant Level Micrograms Per Liter Milligrams Per Kilogram Milligrams Per Liter Material Safety Data Sheet MTBE MFR ND NFA NPDES NPL O&M PAOC PCB PCC PCE PEC PGD PG&E PHCs PID ppb ppm PRG PRP RAP RCRA REC RP RWQCB SBA SFR SPCC SQG SCE SVE SVOC SWRCB TCE TPH TPH-D TPH-G TPH-MO TS USGS USFWS UST VEC VES VOCs Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Multi-Family Residential Nondetectable No Further Action (letter) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System National Priorities List Operations & Maintenance Plan Potential Area of Concern Polychlorinated Biphenyl Portland Cement Concrete Perchloroethylene Potential Environmental Concern (TS) Polk Guide Directory Pacific Gas & Electric Petroleum Hydrocarbon Constituents Photoionization Detector Parts Per Billion Parts Per Million Preliminary Remediation Goal Potentially Responsible Party Remedial Action Plan Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Recognized Environmental Condition Responsible Party Regional Water Quality Control Board (CA) Small Business Administration Single-Family Residential Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan Small Quantity Generator Southern California Edison Soil Vapor Extraction Semi-Volatile Organic Compound State Water Resources Control Board Trichloroethylene Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Gasoline Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Motor Oil Transaction Screen United States Geological Survey United States Fish & Wildlife Service Underground Storage Tank Vapor Encroachment Condition Vapor Encroachment Screening Volatile Organic Compounds VICINITY MAP Scale: See Map Date: November 2021 SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS Serving The Western United States Lorenzi Property NEC Pensinger and South Allen Roads APNs 535-010-01, -03, and -04 Bakersfield, California Drawn By: BC Approved by: BC Project No. 024-21066 Figure No. 1 SUBJECT SITE 7.5-MINUTE SERIES USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP STEVENS, CA. DATED 1967 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Scale: See Map Date: November 2021 SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS Serving The Western United States Lorenzi Property NEC Pensinger and South Allen Roads APNs 535-010-01, -03, and -04 Bakersfield, California Drawn By: BC Approved by: BC Project No. 024-21066 Figure No. 2 Subject site =Subject Site Boundary (Approximate) =Plugged and Abandoned Oil Well (Approximate) = Idle Oil Well (Approximate) = Tank Farm and Produced Water Pond (Approximate) SITE MAP Scale: 1” ≈ 500’ Date: November 2021 SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS Serving The Western United States Lorenzi Property NEC Pensinger and South Allen Roads APNs 535-010-01, -03, and -04 Bakersfield, California Drawn By: BC Approved by: BC Project No. 024-21066 Figure No. 3 Residential UPRR Railroad Vacant Agricultural Vicinity Tank Farm Investigation Agricultural Idle Oil Well 24A-24 Plugged Oil Well 21-24 Plugged Oil Well 12-24 Plugged Oil Well 23-24 Plugged Oil Well 14X-24 Plugged Oil Well 14-24 Former Tank Farm And Pond Former Tank Farm And Pond Former Tank Farm And Pond Agricultural Agricultural Assessor’s Parcel Map Scale: NTS Date: November 2021 SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS Serving The Western United States Lorenzi Property NEC Pensinger and South Allen Roads APNs 535-010-01, -03, and -04 Bakersfield, California Drawn By: BC Approved by: BC Project No. 024-21066 Figure No. 4 SUBJECT SITE 1956 Aerial Photograph Depicting Subject Site Tank Farm Facilities Scale: NTS Date: November 2021 SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS Serving the Western United States Lorenzi Property NEC Pensinger and South Allen Roads APNs 535-010-01, -03, and -04 Bakersfield, California Drawn By: BC Approved by: BC Project No. 024-21066 Figure No. 5 ASTs and Pond ASTs and Pond ASTs and Pond Photo 1:Northern-facing view along the western side of the subject site from the southwest corner of the subject site. This portion of the subject site is in agricultural production of alfalfa. The adjacent property to the west includes a crude oil pipeline. Undeveloped Allen Road is located adjacent to the west. Photo 2 Eastern-facing view along the southern side of the subject site from the southwest corner of the subject site. Pensinger Road is pictured. Lorenzi Property NEC Pensinger and South Allen Roads APNs 535-010-01, -03, and -04 Bakersfield, California Project No. 024-21066 Date: November 2021 Approved by: BC Photo 3: Southern-facing view of the southwestern part of the subject site. Residentially developed properties are pictured adjacent to the south of Pensinger Road. Photo 4: Western-facing view from the northwestern part of the subject site. An oilfield tank farm is pictured offsite in the distance to the west. Lorenzi Property NEC Pensinger and South Allen Roads APNs 535-010-01, -03, and -04 Bakersfield, California Project No. 024-21066 Date: November 2021 Approved by: BC Photo 5: View of the water well located along the eastern boundary within the northeastern part of the subject site. A lube-oil drum is present and the wellhead concrete pad is oil stained. Minor staining of the soil was noted around the concrete pad. A pole-mounted transformer (background right) provides electrical power to the water well. Photo 6: Western-facing view along the northern boundary; the Union Pacific Railroad line is pictured adjacent to the north. Lorenzi Property NEC Pensinger and South Allen Roads APNs 535-010-01, -03, and -04 Bakersfield, California Project No. 024-21066 Date: November 2021 Approved by: BC Photo 7: Northern-facing view along the eastern side of the subject site. The southeastern portion of the subject site is in agricultural production of corn. Photo 8: View of the idle oil well 24A-24 located within the southeastern part of the subject site. Lorenzi Property NEC Pensinger and South Allen Roads APNs 535-010-01, -03, and -04 Bakersfield, California Project No. 024-21066 Date: November 2021 Approved by: BC Photo 9:View of the gas separator apparatus that is located adjacent to the idle oil well 24A-24. Photo 10: Western-facing view along the southern side of the subject site from the southeastern corner of the subject site. The southeastern portion of the subject site is in agricultural production of corn. The southern-adjacent properties are developed with residential homes. Lorenzi Property NEC Pensinger and South Allen Roads APNs 535-010-01, -03, and -04 Bakersfield, California Project No. 024-21066 Date: November 2021 Approved by: BC Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP, CIRCULATION MAP, ZONE CHANGE, AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH ALLEN ROAD AND PENSINGER ROAD (GPA/ZC NO. 22-0337 AND PDR NO. 23-0331). WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates is requesting an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from LR (Low Density Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential), an amendment to the circulation map of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan to delete arterial street designation of Pacheco Road between South Allen Road and Buena Vista Road, and an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from R-1(One-Family Dwelling) to R-3/PUD (Multiple Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development) on approximately 80 acres located at the northeast corner of South Allen Road and Pensinger 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, October 19, 2023 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 Declarations as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by City staff and the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department (1715 Chester 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 Project was circulated for a public review comment period from August 25, 2023, to September 25, 2023. 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, 10 days prior to the hearing. Page 2 of 2 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 Planning Commission as follows: 1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby recommended for adoption by the City Council. 3. The project is subject to mitigation measures found in Exhibit A for the Project located on the map as shown in Exhibit B, both of which are incorporated herein. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of October 2023, on a motion by and seconded by , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: APPROVED _______________________________________ ZACHARY BASHIRTASH, CHAIR City of Bakersfield Planning Commission Exhibits (attached): Exhibit A: Mitigation Measures Exhibit B: Location Map LR: EXHIBIT “A” MITIGATION MEASURES FROM MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE NO. 22-0337 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 23-0331 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 (SJVAPCD). The documentation shall specify that the Project has complied with the SJVAPCD’s Indirect Source (Rule 9510) Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures: 2. Prior to ground disturbance, the project proponent shall comply with federal and state laws protecting species of plants, fish, and wildlife that are listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened, as well as their designated critical habitat. If the presence of an endangered or threatened species on private land that overlaps with development that impose certain duties, such as avoiding unauthorized take and requiring consultation with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) agency. If unauthorized take occurs, property owners and developers shall take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with federal and state laws. 3. Prior to ground-disturbing activities during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys shall be required prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance shall occur within the appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist. Appropriate avoidance shall be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests shall be implemented as follows: 1) ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters); 2) burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW shall be required; 3) Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers); 4) other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters). Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures: 4. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period, a cultural awareness/resources 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 Exhibit A GPA No. 22-0337 and PDR No. 23-0331 2 by a qualified cultural resources specialist. Documentation of pre-construction training shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 5 days of training completion. 5. During construction, if cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant 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. Paleontological Resources Mitigation Measures: 7. During construction, if paleontological resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified paleontological resource specialist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include fossil salvage. Ground disturbance in the vicinity of the discovery site (within 50 feet) shall not resume until the resource-appropriate measures are implemented or the materials are determined to be less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall conduct a Phase II Limited Subsurface Assessment. If soil vapors exceed the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Human Health Screening Levels threshold of concern for risk to human health. If the soil vapors exceed the threshold, the applicant will implement mitigation methods required by the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory. 9. The idle oil well shall be abandoned and capped prior to issuance of a grading permit. Plugged and abandoned wells will require re-abandonment based on review by the California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). All abandonment activities shall be consistent with applicable CalGEM regulations. Exhibit A GPA No. 22-0337 and PDR No. 23-0331 3 10. During construction, if any unknown oil, gas, or injection wells are discovered or any known or unknown wells are damaged during work at the Project site, work /activity in the area shall be stopped and CalGEM shall be contacted in order to evaluate the condition of the well. Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures: 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project proponent 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. R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 A-20A A-20A A-20A A-20A A-20A A-20A C-C/P.C.D.-PE C-C/P.C.D.-PE WM-SU WM-SU WM-SU WM-SU C-C/P.C.D.-PE C-C/P.C.D.-PE C-C/P.C.D.-PE R-1 R-1 R-1 WM-SU R-1R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1YEADONWAY HOLABIRD AVE LUCKMAN DRGOODHUE STSCARPA STPUGINPLHAWKSMOOR ST MACLURE DRITO WAYGIOCONDO AVEKOENIG WAYHELMUT LNNEUTRA DREIFFELPLWINDERMERESTWINDERMERE STPENSINGER RDS ALLEN RD10/3/2023 0 300 600 Feet _ GPA/ZC 22-0337 & PDR 23-0331 LR to HMR R-1 to R-3/P.U.D. R-1 One Family Dwelling 6,000 sq.ft. min lot sizeR-1-4.5 One Family Dwelling 4,500 sq.ft. min lot size E Estate 10,000 sq.ft. min lot size R-S Residential Suburban 24,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit R-S-( ) Residential Suburban 1, 2.5, 5 or 10 min lot size R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling 4,500 sq.ft. min lot size (single family) 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size (multifamily) 2,500 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size 1,250 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit R-4 High Density Multiple Family Dwelling 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size 600 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit R-H Residential Holding 20 acre min lot size A Agriculture 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size A-20A Agriculture 20 acre min lot size PUD Planned Unit Development TT Travel Trailer Park MH Mobilehome C-O Professional and Administrative Office C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 Regional Commercial C-C Commercial Center C-B Central Business PCD Planned Commercial Development M-1 Light Manufacturing M-2 General Manufacturing M-3 Heavy Industrial P Automobile Parking RE Recreation Ch Church Overlay OS Open Space HOSP Hospital Overlay AD Architectural Design Overlay FP-P Floodplain Primary FP-S Floodplain Secondary AA Airport Approach DI Drilling Island PE Petroleum Extraction Combining SC Senior Citizen Overlay HD Hillside Development Combining WM- West Ming Specific Plan LEGEND (ZONE DISTRICTS) AE AuE GPA/ZC 22-0337 PDR 23-0331EXHIBIT B CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN FROM LR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO HMR (HIGH MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ON APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH ALLEN ROAD AND PENSINGER ROAD (GPA/ZC NO. 22-0337). WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates (applicant) is requesting on behalf of The Piper Trust (property owner): (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from LR (Low Density Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential); and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from R-1 (One-Family Dwelling to R-3/PUD (Multiple Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development) on approximately 80 acres located at the northeast corner of South Allen Road and Pensinger Road (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project has been recommended; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Thursday, October 19, 2023, 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 facts presented in the staff report and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings: 1. All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the proposed Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation, 10 days prior to the hearing. 2. The provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff determined that the proposal is a project under CEQA and an initial study was completed. 3. The public necessity, general welfare, and good planning practices justify the Project. 4. The Project is compatible with the land use designations and development of surrounding properties and is internally consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Page 2 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield Planning Commission as follows: 1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. The Project is hereby recommended for approval by the City Council subject located on the map as shown in Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of October 2023, on a motion by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner , by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: APPROVED _______________________________________ ZACHARY BASHIRTASH, CHAIR City of Bakersfield Planning Commission Exhibits (attached): Exhibit A: Location Map LR: YEADONWAYHOLABIRD AVE LUCKMANDRGOODHUE STSCARPA STPUGINPLHAWKSMOOR ST MACLURE DRITO WAYGIOCONDO AVEKOENIG WAYHELMUT LNNEUTRA DREIFFELPLWINDERMERESTWINDERMERE STPENSINGER RDS ALLEN RDGC GC GC GC LRLR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR WM-SU WM-SU WM-SU WM-SUWM-HMRWM-LMR R-IA R-IA R-IA R-IA R-IA R-IA GC GC GC GC GC GC WM-SU LR LR LRLR LR LR LR 10/3/2023 0 300 600 Feet _ GPA/ZC 22-0337 LR to HMR- LEGEND (GENERAL PLAN LAND USE) RR Rural Residential 2.5 gross acres/dwelling unit ER Estate Residential 1 dwelling unit/net acre SR Suburban Residential ≤4 dwelling units/net acre SR/LR County: ≤ 4 dwelling units/net acre City: ≤ 7.26 dwelling units/net acre LR Low Density Residential ≤ 7.26 dwelling units/net acre LMR Low Medium Density Residential > 4 but ≤ 10 dwelling units/net acre HMR High Medium Density Residential >7.26 units but ≤17.42 dwelling units/net acre HR High Density Residential >17.42 units but ≤72.6 dwelling units/net acre HC Highway Commercial GC General Commercial MC Major Commercial OC Office Commercial MUC Mixed Use Commercial LI Light Industrial SI Service Industrial HI Heavy Industrial P Public Facilities PS Public/Private Schools PT Public Transportation Corridors P-SW Solid Waste Facilities OS Open Space OS-P Parks and Recreation OS-S Slopes exceeding 30% R-IA Resource - Intensive Agriculture 20 acre minimum parcel size R-EA Resource - Extensive Agriculture 20 acre minimum parcel size 80 acre min (Williamson Act) R-MP Resource - Minerals & Petroleum 5 acre minimum parcel size UER Urban Estate Residential Western Rosedale Plan 0.5 acre net minimum parcel size WM West Ming Specific Plan AE AuE GPA/ZC 22-0337 EXHIBIT A CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION FROM R-1 (ONE-FAMILY DWELLING) TO R-3/PUD (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE ON APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH ALLEN ROAD AND PENSINGER ROAD (GPA/ZC NO. 22-0337). WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates (applicant) on behalf of The Piper Trust (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 HMR (High Medium Density Residential); and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from LR (One-Family Dwelling) to R-3/PUD (Multiple Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development) Zone on approximately 80 acres located at the northeast corner of South Allen Road and Pensinger Road(the “Project”); and WHEREAS, adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project has been recommended; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Thursday, October 19, 2023, 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 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, 10 days prior to the hearing. 2. The provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff determined that the proposal is a project under CEQA, and an initial study was completed. 3. The public necessity, general welfare, and good planning practices justify the Project. 4. The Project is compatible with the zone districts and development of Page 2 of 2 surrounding properties and is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield Planning Commission as follows: 1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. The Project is hereby recommended for approval by the City Council, incorporating the change into the official zoning map as described in Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.06.020 located on the map as shown in Exhibit A and as specifically described in Exhibit B, all of which are incorporated herein. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of October 2023, a motion by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner , by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: APPROVED __________________________________________ ZACHARY BASHIRTASH, CHAIR City of Bakersfield Planning Commission Exhibits (attached): Exhibit A: Zone Change Map Exhibit B: Legal Description LR: R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 A-20A A-20A A-20A A-20A A-20A A-20A C-C/P.C.D.-PE C-C/P.C.D.-PE WM-SU WM-SU WM-SU WM-SU C-C/P.C.D.-PE C-C/P.C.D.-PE C-C/P.C.D.-PE R-1 R-1 R-1 WM-SU R-1R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1YEADONWAY HOLABIRD AVE LUCKMAN DRGOODHUE STSCARPA STPUGINPLHAWKSMOOR ST MACLURE DRITO WAYGIOCONDO AVEKOENIG WAYHELMUT LNNEUTRA DREIFFELPLWINDERMERESTWINDERMERE STPENSINGER RDS ALLEN RD10/3/2023 0 300 600 Feet _ GPA/ZC 22-0337 R-1 to R-3/PUD R-1 One Family Dwelling6,000 sq.ft. min lot sizeR-1-4.5 One Family Dwelling 4,500 sq.ft. min lot size E Estate 10,000 sq.ft. min lot size R-S Residential Suburban 24,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit R-S-( ) Residential Suburban 1, 2.5, 5 or 10 min lot size R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling 4,500 sq.ft. min lot size (single family) 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size (multifamily) 2,500 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size 1,250 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit R-4 High Density Multiple Family Dwelling 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size 600 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit R-H Residential Holding 20 acre min lot size A Agriculture 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size A-20A Agriculture 20 acre min lot size PUD Planned Unit Development TT Travel Trailer Park MH Mobilehome C-O Professional and Administrative Office C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 Regional Commercial C-C Commercial Center C-B Central Business PCD Planned Commercial Development M-1 Light Manufacturing M-2 General Manufacturing M-3 Heavy Industrial P Automobile Parking RE Recreation Ch Church Overlay OS Open Space HOSP Hospital Overlay AD Architectural Design Overlay FP-P Floodplain Primary FP-S Floodplain Secondary AA Airport Approach DI Drilling Island PE Petroleum Extraction Combining SC Senior Citizen Overlay HD Hillside Development Combining WM- West Ming Specific Plan LEGEND (ZONE DISTRICTS) AE AuE GPA/ZC 22-0337 EXHIBIT A CITY OF BAKERSFIELD EXHIBIT B Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT MAP OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN TO DELETE A PLANNED ARTERIAL ALIGNMENT OF PACHECO ROAD BETWEEN SOUTH ALLEN ROAD AND BUENA VISTA ROAD (GPA NO. 22- 0337). WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates (applicant), is requesting on behalf of The Piper Trust (property owner): an amendment to the Circulation Element map of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan to delete a planned arterial road alignment of Pacheco Road between South Allen Road and Buena Vista Road (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project has been recommended; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Thursday, October 19, 2023 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 facts presented in the staff report and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings: 1. All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the proposed Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation, 10 days prior to the hearing. 2. The provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff determined that the proposal is a project under CEQA and an initial study was completed. 3. The public necessity, general welfare, and good planning practices justify the Project. 4. The Project is compatible with the land use designations and development of surrounding properties and is internally consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Page 2 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield Planning Commission as follows: 1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. The Project is hereby recommended for approval by the City Council subject located on the map as shown in Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of October 2023, on a motion by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner , by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: __________________________________________ ZACHARY BASHIRTASH, CHAIR City of Bakersfield Planning Commission Exhibit (attached): Exhibit A: Location Map LR: MIRRORED IMAGE C T PRAIRIE STONEPLJUBILEE LN OPEN T R A IL RD VISTA D E CALLY DR VISTA D EL VALLE D R HOLLYBROOKLN MAGENTA DRPARKSQUAREDRILLUSION WAY VISTA RIDGE D R VISTADE L CHRISTO DR VISTA D E L LUNA D RCORPORATE CTTRADE CENTERDRCRESCENTROCKLNBENCHMARKCTVENTURE WA Y BREN T M OOR C IR FORSY TH CT BUENA VISTA RDS ALLENRDS ALLEN RD BOLTHOUSE D R MUI R LANDSP K WY CAMPUS PARK DR WINDERMERE STCANFIELDPKWY BELCOURT PARK St Johns Lutheran School 9/27/2023 0 410 820 Feet _ DELETE ARTERIAL PACHECO RD BETWEEN S ALLEN RD & BUENA VISTA ST DELETE ARTERIAL AE AuE GENERAL PLAN ARTERIAL COLLECTOR WEST MING SPECIFIC PLAN CITY COLLECTOR LOCAL COLLECTOR DELETE ARTERIAL CITY OF BAKERSFIELD RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF TWO RESIDENTIAL TRACT MAPS CREATING A 497 RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN THE R-3/PUD (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING RESIDENTIAL/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH ALLEN ROAD AND PENSINGER ROAD. (PDR NO. 23-0331) WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates (applicant) on behalf of The Piper Trust (property owner) filed an application for a Planned Development Review to allow for the development of two residential tract maps totaling 497 residential lots to be developed in the R-3/PUD (Multiple Family Dwelling Residential/Planned Unit Development) district, located at the northwest corner of South Allen Road and Pensinger Road; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission did set Thursday, October 19, 2023, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall South, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for consideration of the Planning Director’s report; and WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff and the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings: 1. All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in The Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation, 10 days prior to the hearing. 2. The provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff determined that the proposal is a project under CEQA, and an initial study was completed. 3. The proposed development does not deviate from the intent and purpose of the PUD zone district. 4. The proposed development will constitute a land use of sustained desirability and stability, and it will compliment and harmonize with the character of surrounding development 5. The proposed preliminary development plan is consistent with the General Plan and objectives of Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD as follows: 1. The recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Planned Development Review No. 23-0331, as delineated in attached Exhibit B (Location Map) and Exhibit C (Site Development Plan), is hereby approved, subject to the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of October 2023, on a motion by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: RECUSE: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: APPROVED ____________________________________ ZACHARY BASHIRTASH, CHAIR City of Bakersfield Planning Commission Exhibits: A. Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval B. Location Map C. Site Plans and Elevations LR: EXHIBIT “A” PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 23-0331 AND ZONE MODIFICATION 23-0508 CONDITIONS AND ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE The following are specific items that you need to resolve before you can obtain a building permit or be allowed occupancy. These items include conditions and/or mitigation required by previous site entitlement approvals (these will be specifically noted), changes or additions that need to be shown on the final building plans, alert you to specific fees, and other conditions for your project to satisfy the City’s development standards. The items listed below will usually need to be shown on the final building plans or completed before a building permit is issued. As part of the building permit submittal, identify the location of your response by using the APPLICANT’S RESPONSE line provided directly below the item (example: sheet number, detail, etc.). A. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - BUILDING (1715 Chester Avenue) (Staff contact – Shannon Clark; 661-326-3607 or SClark@bakersfieldcity.us) 1. Prior to Building permit approval, the developer shall submit a grading plan for the proposed site to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Building Official (Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.44.010). With the grading plan, if the project is subject to the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the terms of the General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (WQ Order No. 99-08-DWQ) must be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento before the beginning of any construction activity. Compliance with the general permit requires that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be prepared, continuously carried out, and always be available for public inspection during normal construction hours. 2. A grading permit is required prior to building plan approval. The developer shall submit four (4) copies of grading plans and two (2) copies of the preliminary soils report to the Building Division. A final soils report shall also be submitted to the Building Division before they can issue a building permit. Grading plans must be consistent with the final building site plans and landscaping plans. Building permits will not be issued until the grading permit is approved by the Building Division and Public Works Department. ADD AS A NOTE TO THE PLANS: Buildings or structures shall require installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system where required by current California Building Code and City ordinance. ADD AS A NOTE TO THE PLANS: The developer shall include fire resistive wall construction details with the final building plans for all exterior walls of any building that is within the distance as set forth in Table 602 of the California Building Code PDR #23-0331 Page | 2 of 5 ADD AS A NOTE TO THE PLANS: Prior to issuing a building permit, the Building Division will calculate and collect the appropriate school district impact fees. ADD AS A NOTE TO THE PLANS: Prior to granting occupancy, the Building Division will verify that a water meter serving the development is in place. The developer shall contact the applicable water purveyor to inquire about their process for obtaining water service for the development as soon as possible (for water purveyor agency information contact: 1000 Buena Vista Road; 661-326- 3715). B. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING (1715 Chester Avenue) (Staff contact – Louis Ramirez; 661-326-3023 or Lramirez@bakersfieldcity.us) 1. All parking lots, driveways, drive aisles, loading areas, and other vehicular access ways, shall be paved with concrete, asphaltic concrete, or other paved street surfacing material in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code (Sections 15.76.020 and 17.58.060.A.) 2. In the event a previously undocumented oil/gas well is uncovered or discovered on the project, the developer is responsible to contact the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). The developer is responsible for any remedial operations on the well required by CalGEM. The developer shall also be subject to provisions of BMC Section 15.66.080.B. 3. The developer shall meet all regulations of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Regulation VIII) concerning dust suppression during construction of the project. Methods include, but are not limited to; use of water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants to control dust emission from disturbed area, stock piles, and access ways; covering or wetting materials that are transported off-site; limit construction-related speed to 15 mph on all unpaved areas/washing of construction vehicles before they enter public streets to minimize carryout/track out; and cease grading and earth moving during periods of high winds (20 mph or more). 4. Prior to receiving final building or site occupancy, you must contact the Planning Division (staff contact noted above) for final inspection and approval of the landscaping, parking lot, lighting and other related site improvements. Inspections will not be conducted until all required items have been installed. Any deviations from the approved plans without prior approval from the Planning Division may result in reconstruction and delays in obtaining a building or site occupancy. 5. Prior to recordation or concurrently with recordation of each final map, subdivider shall create a Homeowners Association (HOA) and CC&Rs for the subdivision, as approved by the City Attorney and Planning Director to maintain the common areas including the private walkways and private landscaping. Prior to recordation, subdivider shall submit HOA and CC&Rs to the City for review and approval. 6. All mitigation measures included in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for GPA/ZC 22- 0337 are hereby incorporated. PDR #23-0331 Page | 3 of 5 C. FIRE DEPARTMENT (2101 H Street) (Staff contact - Ernie Medina; 661-326-3682 or EMedina@bakersfieldcity.us) 1. Prior to issuing building permit - Where fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection are required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. 2. Prior to issuing building permit – Current fire flow data must be shown on the plan and fire flow requirements must be met prior to construction commencing on the project site. 3. Prior to issuing building permit - the Developer shall submit two (2) sets of utility plans signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer to the Water Resources Department showing connections to underground fire waterlines, including fire service and nearby fire hydrant locations or off-site hydrants on the plans for approval. 4. Prior to issuing building permit - All projects must comply with the current California Fire Codes and current City of Bakersfield Municipal Code and noted on the plan. D. WATER RESOURCES (1000 Buena Vista Road) (Staff contact – Tylor Hester; 661-326-3009 or THester@bakersfieldcity.us) 1. Developer shall submit two (2) sets of utility plans signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer to the Water Resources Department showing all offsite and onsite improvements, including connections to the existing water main and underground fire waterlines and related apparatuses. Include any existing nearby on or off-site hydrants on the plans. Plans shall be submitted along with applicable plan check fees and any other associated fees per the current fee schedule. Plans shall comply with current City Standards and Specifications, California Fire Code, and City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. City Standards and Specifications and the current Fee Schedule are available for download from the City’s website at www.bakersfieldcity.us/379/water_resources 2. The developer shall complete the Application for Water Service, and submit to the Water Resources Department (application is available for download at bakersfieldcity.us/379/water- resources). E. PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING (1501 Truxtun Avenue) (Staff contact – Susanna Kormendi; 661-326-3997 or skormendi@bakersfieldcity.us) 1. The developer shall construct curbs, gutters, cross gutters, sidewalks, and street/alley paving along all public roads according to adopted city standards. These improvements shall be shown on the final building plans submitted to the Building Division before any building permits will be PDR #23-0331 Page | 4 of 5 issued. (Allen Road is an Arterial and requires 8 ft wide sidewalk, Pensinger Road is a Collector and requires 7 ft wide sidewalk) 2. The developer shall install streetlights as per standard ST-23.6. The developer shall be responsible for providing the labor and materials necessary to energize all newly installed streetlights before occupancy of the building or site. These improvements shall be shown on the final building plans submitted to the Building Division before any building permits will be issued. Submit street light location and contact the Public Works Department at (661) 326-3584 for street light number. 3. Show the construction of standard accessible ramps along the property frontage at the corners of Pensinger Road at Giocondo Ave and Allen Road, and Allan Road at Alisa Lane according to adopted city standards. 4. If a grading plan is required by the Building Division, building permits will not be issued until the grading plan is approved by both the Public Works Department and the Building Division. 5. All storm water generated on the project site, including the street frontage shall be retained onsite unless otherwise allowed by the Public Works Department (please contact the Public Works Department – Subdivisions at 661-326-3576). 6. Any proposed or future perimeter fence and/or wall shall be placed outside of existing public road right of way or future ultimate public right of way. 7. Building Permit Plans will need to show the installation of new connection(s) to the public sewer system. 8. At the time of building permit issuance, a sewer connection fee shall be paid. This fee is based on the rate that is in effect at the time a building permit is issued. 9. Prior to grading permit approval, the developer shall form a new Maintenance District, or update existing Maintenance District Documents. Updated documents, including Proposition 218 Ballot and Covenant, shall be signed and notarized. Contact Subdivisions at (661) 326-3588. 10. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the developer/owner shall pay a Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) for regional facilities. This fee will be based on the rate in effect at the time the applicable approval is issued. The Public Works Department will calculate an estimate of the total fee upon submittal of construction plans for the project. 11. A street permit from the Public Works Department shall be obtained before any work can be done within the public right-of-way (streets, alleys, easements). Please include a copy of this site plan review decision to the department at the time you apply for this permit. 12. Construction of the equivalent full width landscaped median island in Allen Road along the developments frontage is required or a payment of their proportionate share (1/2-width) of the total cost for the future construction of the median. Median islands shall be designed by the first development that occurs along an applicable street frontage. That developer shall either PDR #23-0331 Page | 5 of 5 construct the full width landscaped median island or pay the median island fee. The median island fee shall be satisfied by fulfilling one of the following options: (1) Pay the standard fee of $100 per linear foot; or (2) Pay the calculated fee based upon actual cost estimates prepared by the Project Engineer, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. If the median island is not constructed by the first development along an applicable street frontage, the second development along that street frontage shall construct the full width landscaped median island. 13. The site is within the McAllister Ranch Planned Sewer Area. At the time of building permit issuance, the Planned Sewer Area fee shall be paid. Contact the Public Works Department Subdivisions at 661-326-3576 with questions. F. PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC (1501 Truxtun Avenue) (Staff contact – Susanna Kormendi; 661-326-3997 or skormendi@bakersfieldcity.us) 1. The developer shall dedicate any sidewalk extending out of the right of way to the City of Bakersfield for the pedestrian way along all arterial streets. This must be conducted with a separate instrument or final map. G. PUBLIC WORKS - SOLID WASTE (4101 Truxtun Avenue) (Staff Contact - Richard Gutierrez: 661-326-3114 or RMGutierrez@bakersfieldcity.us ) 1. You must contact the staff person noted above before building permits can be issued or work begins on the property to establish the level and type of service necessary for the collection of refuse and/or recycled materials. Collection locations must provide enough containment area for the refuse that is generated without violating required zoning or setback restrictions (see Planning Division conditions). Levels of service are based on how often collection occurs as follows:  Cart service -- 1 cubic yard/week or less 1 time per week  Front loader bin services -- 1 cubic yard/week - 12 cubic yards/day  Roll-off compactor service -- More than 12 cubic yards/day 2. Every dwelling unit must have its own cart and no more than three (3) carts will be allowed for each single family dwelling unit. A screened 3’ x 9’ concrete refuse cart storage pad must be provided for carts when they are not out for collection (this area shall be clearly shown on the final building plans). The Solid Waste Division will determine where service collection will occur (street curbside or alley). EXHIBIT “A” MITIGATION MEASURES FROM MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE NO. 22-0337 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 23-0331 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 (SJVAPCD). The documentation shall specify that the Project has complied with the SJVAPCD’s Indirect Source (Rule 9510) Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures: 2. Prior to ground disturbance, the project proponent shall comply with federal and state laws protecting species of plants, fish, and wildlife that are listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened, as well as their designated critical habitat. If the presence of an endangered or threatened species on private land that overlaps with development that impose certain duties, such as avoiding unauthorized take and requiring consultation with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) agency. If unauthorized take occurs, property owners and developers shall take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with federal and state laws. 3. Prior to ground-disturbing activities during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys shall be required prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance shall occur within the appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist. Appropriate avoidance shall be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests shall be implemented as follows: 1) ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters); 2) burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW shall be required; 3) Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers); 4) other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters). Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures: 4. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period, a cultural awareness/resources 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 Exhibit A GPA No. 22-0337 and PDR No. 23-0331 2 by a qualified cultural resources specialist. Documentation of pre-construction training shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 5 days of training completion. 5. During construction, if cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant 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. Paleontological Resources Mitigation Measures: 7. During construction, if paleontological resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified paleontological resource specialist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include fossil salvage. Ground disturbance in the vicinity of the discovery site (within 50 feet) shall not resume until the resource-appropriate measures are implemented or the materials are determined to be less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall conduct a Phase II Limited Subsurface Assessment. If soil vapors exceed the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Human Health Screening Levels threshold of concern for risk to human health. If the soil vapors exceed the threshold, the applicant will implement mitigation methods required by the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory. 9. The idle oil well shall be abandoned and capped prior to issuance of a grading permit. Plugged and abandoned wells will require re-abandonment based on review by the California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). All abandonment activities shall be consistent with applicable CalGEM regulations. Exhibit A GPA No. 22-0337 and PDR No. 23-0331 3 10. During construction, if any unknown oil, gas, or injection wells are discovered or any known or unknown wells are damaged during work at the Project site, work /activity in the area shall be stopped and CalGEM shall be contacted in order to evaluate the condition of the well. Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures: 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project proponent 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. YEADONWAYHOLABIRDAVE LUCKMAN DRSCARPA STPUGINPLHAWKSMOOR ST MACLURE DRITOWAY GIOCONDO AVEKOENIGWAYHELMUTLN NEUTRA DREIFFEL PLWI NDERMERE ST PENSINGER RDS ALLEN RD FUTURE B OLTHOUSE DR FUTURE PENSINGER RD FUTURE CANFIELD PKWY 10/3/2023 0 300 600 Feet _ PDR 23-0331 AERIAL AE AuE PDR 23-0331 EXHIBIT B CITY OF BAKERSFIELD N E W G E N E N G I N E E R I N G G R O U P EXHIBIT C LEGEND: N E W G E N E N G I N E E R I N G G R O U P MINIMIUM SETBACK (R3 ZONE) & PROPOSED LOT STATISTICS: MAXIMIUM HEIGHT(R3 ZONE) BUILDABLE LOT AREA BY LOT SIZE N E W G E N E N G I N E E R I N G G R O U P RESOLUTION NO. ______ RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A ZONING MODIFICATION TO ALLOW FOR THE REDUCTION OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND THE REDUCTION OF SETBACKS REQUIRED FOR LOTS AS PART OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 23-0331, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH ALLEN ROAD AND PENSINGER ROAD (MOD 23-0508) WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates (applicant) on behalf of The Piper Trust (property owner) filed an application for a zoning modification to allow for the reduction of minimum lot size and a reduction in setback in a R-3/PUD (Multiple Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development) zone district, located at the northeast corner of South Allen Road and Pensinger Road (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) 17.16.070 A. minimum lot size of six- thousand square feet be reduced to three-thousand three-hundred forty-five square feet; and WHEREAS, Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) 17.08.150 A. agricultural setback of fifty feet for dwelling adjoined to agricultural or residential suburban be reduced to five feet; and WHEREAS, Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) 17.08.150 B. railway setback of thirty feet for dwelling within any railroad right of way be reduced to ten feet; and WHEREAS, Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) 17.16.040 B. the front yard setback be determined by the intersection of the first or each successive story with a forty-five degree airspace diagonal be removed; and WHEREAS, Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) 17.16.050 A. the side yard of the main building be no less than five feet be reduced to 3 feet on only one side of the lot; and WHEREAS, adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project has been recommended; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Thursday, October 19, 2023, at 5:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers, City Hall South, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed zoning modification, 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 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Bakersfield's 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 2 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, 10 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 the proposal is a project under CEQA , and an Initial study was completed. 3. The public necessity, general welfare, and good planning practices justify the Project. 4. The granting of the modification will not be materially detrimental to the public’s health and safety, or injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or vicinity in which the subject property is located/ 4. The granting of the modification is necessary to permit an appropriate improvement on the subject property. 5. The granting of the modification would not be inconsistent with the purposes and intent of both the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the Bakersfield Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield Planning Commission as follows: 1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. Zoning Modification No. 23-0508 as described in this resolution, is hereby approved subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit A and as shown in Exhibits B and C. 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of October, 2023, on a motion by Commissioner _______, seconded by Commissioner ________ the following vote: AYES: NOES: RECUSE: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: APPROVED ____________________________________ ZACHARY BASHIRTASH, CHAIR City of Bakersfield Planning Commission Exhibits: A. Conditions of Approval B. Location Map C. Site Plan LR: EXHIBIT “A” PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 23-0331 AND ZONE MODIFICATION 23-0508 CONDITIONS AND ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE The following are specific items that you need to resolve before you can obtain a building permit or be allowed occupancy. These items include conditions and/or mitigation required by previous site entitlement approvals (these will be specifically noted), changes or additions that need to be shown on the final building plans, alert you to specific fees, and other conditions for your project to satisfy the City’s development standards. The items listed below will usually need to be shown on the final building plans or completed before a building permit is issued. As part of the building permit submittal, identify the location of your response by using the APPLICANT’S RESPONSE line provided directly below the item (example: sheet number, detail, etc.). A. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - BUILDING (1715 Chester Avenue) (Staff contact – Shannon Clark; 661-326-3607 or SClark@bakersfieldcity.us) 1. Prior to Building permit approval, the developer shall submit a grading plan for the proposed site to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Building Official (Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.44.010). With the grading plan, if the project is subject to the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the terms of the General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (WQ Order No. 99-08-DWQ) must be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento before the beginning of any construction activity. Compliance with the general permit requires that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be prepared, continuously carried out, and always be available for public inspection during normal construction hours. 2. A grading permit is required prior to building plan approval. The developer shall submit four (4) copies of grading plans and two (2) copies of the preliminary soils report to the Building Division. A final soils report shall also be submitted to the Building Division before they can issue a building permit. Grading plans must be consistent with the final building site plans and landscaping plans. Building permits will not be issued until the grading permit is approved by the Building Division and Public Works Department. ADD AS A NOTE TO THE PLANS: Buildings or structures shall require installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system where required by current California Building Code and City ordinance. ADD AS A NOTE TO THE PLANS: The developer shall include fire resistive wall construction details with the final building plans for all exterior walls of any building that is within the distance as set forth in Table 602 of the California Building Code PDR #23-0331 Page | 2 of 5 ADD AS A NOTE TO THE PLANS: Prior to issuing a building permit, the Building Division will calculate and collect the appropriate school district impact fees. ADD AS A NOTE TO THE PLANS: Prior to granting occupancy, the Building Division will verify that a water meter serving the development is in place. The developer shall contact the applicable water purveyor to inquire about their process for obtaining water service for the development as soon as possible (for water purveyor agency information contact: 1000 Buena Vista Road; 661-326- 3715). B. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING (1715 Chester Avenue) (Staff contact – Louis Ramirez; 661-326-3023 or Lramirez@bakersfieldcity.us) 1. All parking lots, driveways, drive aisles, loading areas, and other vehicular access ways, shall be paved with concrete, asphaltic concrete, or other paved street surfacing material in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code (Sections 15.76.020 and 17.58.060.A.) 2. In the event a previously undocumented oil/gas well is uncovered or discovered on the project, the developer is responsible to contact the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). The developer is responsible for any remedial operations on the well required by CalGEM. The developer shall also be subject to provisions of BMC Section 15.66.080.B. 3. The developer shall meet all regulations of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Regulation VIII) concerning dust suppression during construction of the project. Methods include, but are not limited to; use of water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants to control dust emission from disturbed area, stock piles, and access ways; covering or wetting materials that are transported off-site; limit construction-related speed to 15 mph on all unpaved areas/washing of construction vehicles before they enter public streets to minimize carryout/track out; and cease grading and earth moving during periods of high winds (20 mph or more). 4. Prior to receiving final building or site occupancy, you must contact the Planning Division (staff contact noted above) for final inspection and approval of the landscaping, parking lot, lighting and other related site improvements. Inspections will not be conducted until all required items have been installed. Any deviations from the approved plans without prior approval from the Planning Division may result in reconstruction and delays in obtaining a building or site occupancy. 5. Prior to recordation or concurrently with recordation of each final map, subdivider shall create a Homeowners Association (HOA) and CC&Rs for the subdivision, as approved by the City Attorney and Planning Director to maintain the common areas including the private walkways and private landscaping. Prior to recordation, subdivider shall submit HOA and CC&Rs to the City for review and approval. 6. All mitigation measures included in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for GPA/ZC 22- 0337 are hereby incorporated. PDR #23-0331 Page | 3 of 5 C. FIRE DEPARTMENT (2101 H Street) (Staff contact - Ernie Medina; 661-326-3682 or EMedina@bakersfieldcity.us) 1. Prior to issuing building permit - Where fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection are required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. 2. Prior to issuing building permit – Current fire flow data must be shown on the plan and fire flow requirements must be met prior to construction commencing on the project site. 3. Prior to issuing building permit - the Developer shall submit two (2) sets of utility plans signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer to the Water Resources Department showing connections to underground fire waterlines, including fire service and nearby fire hydrant locations or off-site hydrants on the plans for approval. 4. Prior to issuing building permit - All projects must comply with the current California Fire Codes and current City of Bakersfield Municipal Code and noted on the plan. D. WATER RESOURCES (1000 Buena Vista Road) (Staff contact – Tylor Hester; 661-326-3009 or THester@bakersfieldcity.us) 1. Developer shall submit two (2) sets of utility plans signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer to the Water Resources Department showing all offsite and onsite improvements, including connections to the existing water main and underground fire waterlines and related apparatuses. Include any existing nearby on or off-site hydrants on the plans. Plans shall be submitted along with applicable plan check fees and any other associated fees per the current fee schedule. Plans shall comply with current City Standards and Specifications, California Fire Code, and City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. City Standards and Specifications and the current Fee Schedule are available for download from the City’s website at www.bakersfieldcity.us/379/water_resources 2. The developer shall complete the Application for Water Service, and submit to the Water Resources Department (application is available for download at bakersfieldcity.us/379/water- resources). E. PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING (1501 Truxtun Avenue) (Staff contact – Susanna Kormendi; 661-326-3997 or skormendi@bakersfieldcity.us) 1. The developer shall construct curbs, gutters, cross gutters, sidewalks, and street/alley paving along all public roads according to adopted city standards. These improvements shall be shown on the final building plans submitted to the Building Division before any building permits will be PDR #23-0331 Page | 4 of 5 issued. (Allen Road is an Arterial and requires 8 ft wide sidewalk, Pensinger Road is a Collector and requires 7 ft wide sidewalk) 2. The developer shall install streetlights as per standard ST-23.6. The developer shall be responsible for providing the labor and materials necessary to energize all newly installed streetlights before occupancy of the building or site. These improvements shall be shown on the final building plans submitted to the Building Division before any building permits will be issued. Submit street light location and contact the Public Works Department at (661) 326-3584 for street light number. 3. Show the construction of standard accessible ramps along the property frontage at the corners of Pensinger Road at Giocondo Ave and Allen Road, and Allan Road at Alisa Lane according to adopted city standards. 4. If a grading plan is required by the Building Division, building permits will not be issued until the grading plan is approved by both the Public Works Department and the Building Division. 5. All storm water generated on the project site, including the street frontage shall be retained onsite unless otherwise allowed by the Public Works Department (please contact the Public Works Department – Subdivisions at 661-326-3576). 6. Any proposed or future perimeter fence and/or wall shall be placed outside of existing public road right of way or future ultimate public right of way. 7. Building Permit Plans will need to show the installation of new connection(s) to the public sewer system. 8. At the time of building permit issuance, a sewer connection fee shall be paid. This fee is based on the rate that is in effect at the time a building permit is issued. 9. Prior to grading permit approval, the developer shall form a new Maintenance District, or update existing Maintenance District Documents. Updated documents, including Proposition 218 Ballot and Covenant, shall be signed and notarized. Contact Subdivisions at (661) 326-3588. 10. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the developer/owner shall pay a Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) for regional facilities. This fee will be based on the rate in effect at the time the applicable approval is issued. The Public Works Department will calculate an estimate of the total fee upon submittal of construction plans for the project. 11. A street permit from the Public Works Department shall be obtained before any work can be done within the public right-of-way (streets, alleys, easements). Please include a copy of this site plan review decision to the department at the time you apply for this permit. 12. Construction of the equivalent full width landscaped median island in Allen Road along the developments frontage is required or a payment of their proportionate share (1/2-width) of the total cost for the future construction of the median. Median islands shall be designed by the first development that occurs along an applicable street frontage. That developer shall either PDR #23-0331 Page | 5 of 5 construct the full width landscaped median island or pay the median island fee. The median island fee shall be satisfied by fulfilling one of the following options: (1) Pay the standard fee of $100 per linear foot; or (2) Pay the calculated fee based upon actual cost estimates prepared by the Project Engineer, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. If the median island is not constructed by the first development along an applicable street frontage, the second development along that street frontage shall construct the full width landscaped median island. 13. The site is within the McAllister Ranch Planned Sewer Area. At the time of building permit issuance, the Planned Sewer Area fee shall be paid. Contact the Public Works Department Subdivisions at 661-326-3576 with questions. F. PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC (1501 Truxtun Avenue) (Staff contact – Susanna Kormendi; 661-326-3997 or skormendi@bakersfieldcity.us) 1. The developer shall dedicate any sidewalk extending out of the right of way to the City of Bakersfield for the pedestrian way along all arterial streets. This must be conducted with a separate instrument or final map. G. PUBLIC WORKS - SOLID WASTE (4101 Truxtun Avenue) (Staff Contact - Richard Gutierrez: 661-326-3114 or RMGutierrez@bakersfieldcity.us ) 1. You must contact the staff person noted above before building permits can be issued or work begins on the property to establish the level and type of service necessary for the collection of refuse and/or recycled materials. Collection locations must provide enough containment area for the refuse that is generated without violating required zoning or setback restrictions (see Planning Division conditions). Levels of service are based on how often collection occurs as follows:  Cart service -- 1 cubic yard/week or less 1 time per week  Front loader bin services -- 1 cubic yard/week - 12 cubic yards/day  Roll-off compactor service -- More than 12 cubic yards/day 2. Every dwelling unit must have its own cart and no more than three (3) carts will be allowed for each single family dwelling unit. A screened 3’ x 9’ concrete refuse cart storage pad must be provided for carts when they are not out for collection (this area shall be clearly shown on the final building plans). The Solid Waste Division will determine where service collection will occur (street curbside or alley). YEADONWAYHOLABIRDAVE LUCKMAN DRSCARPA STPUGINPLHAWKSMOOR ST MACLURE DRITOWAY GIOCONDO AVEKOENIGWAYHELMUTLN NEUTRA DREIFFEL PLWI NDERMERE ST PENSINGER RDS ALLEN RD FUTURE B OLTHOUSE DR FUTURE PENSINGER RD FUTURE CANFIELD PKWY 10/3/2023 0 300 600 Feet _ PDR 23-0331 AERIAL AE AuE PDR 23-0331 EXHIBIT B CITY OF BAKERSFIELD N E W G E N E N G I N E E R I N G G R O U P EXHIBIT C LEGEND: N E W G E N E N G I N E E R I N G G R O U P MINIMIUM SETBACK (R3 ZONE) & PROPOSED LOT STATISTICS: MAXIMIUM HEIGHT(R3 ZONE) BUILDABLE LOT AREA BY LOT SIZE N E W G E N E N G I N E E R I N G G R O U P