Agenda, regular meeting, second session — Bakersfield City Council, May 28, 2025 (part 4 of 5)

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE

APPEAL AND DENYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF

THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN FROM GC
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND SR (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) TO

GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL), GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE

NORTHWEST CORNER OF TAFT HIGHWAY AND MICHELE STREET
(GPA/ZC NO. 24-0372).

0.37 acres; and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from C-2 (Regional Commercial) and A (Agricultural) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 1.19 acres within an existing 2.63 acre parcel generally located on the northwest corner of Taft Highway and Michele Street (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, it was determined that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was insufficient in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a public review period from December 30, 2024, to January 28, 2025, in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 20, 2025 and accepted public testimony both in support and opposition. Following deliberations, the Commission approved Resolution No. 18-25, which recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), filed an appeal with the City Clerk on March 28, 2025 on the planning Commission recommendation to approve the project; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the proposed Negative Declaration as required by Government Code Section 65355, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by City staff and the Planning Commission; and

Page 2 of 3 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The Planning Commission’s findings as contained in its Resolution No. 18-25 are hereby overturned.

3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is hereby denied. o0o

Page 3 of 3 ends

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of May 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: _ Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Koman, Bashirtash, Kaur NOES: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER:

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

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

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit A: Location Map
10/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_

MICHELE ST

TAFT HWY
HC
GC
SR
SI GC
HC
HC
LI
GC
SR
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change
24-0372

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
COUNTY
CITY
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
COUNTY
CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Zone Change
From: A
To: C-2COUNTY CITY
COUNTY
CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Land Use Change
From: SR
To: GC

EXHIBIT A

Page 1 of 3 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE

APPEAL AND APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF

THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN FROM GC
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND SR (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) TO

GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL), GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE

NORTHWEST CORNER OF TAFT HIGHWAY AND MICHELE STREET
(GPA/ZC NO. 24-0372).

0.37 acres; and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from C-2 (Regional Commercial) and A (Agricultural) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 1.19 acres within an existing 2.63 acre parcel generally located on the northwest corner of Taft Highway and Michele Street (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a public review period from December 30, 2024, to January 28, 2025, in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 20, 2025 and accepted public testimony both in support and opposition. Following deliberations, the Commission approved Resolution No. 18-25, which recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), filed an appeal with the City Clerk on March 28, 2025 on the planning Commission recommendation to approve the project; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the proposed Negative Declaration as required by Government Code Section 65355, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by

Page 2 of 3 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The Planning Commission’s findings as contained in its Resolution No. 18-25 are hereby adopted.

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

Page 3 of 3 ends

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of May 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: _ Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Koman, Bashirtash, Kaur NOES: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER:

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

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

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:

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

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE NO. 24-0372
Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:

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

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

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

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

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

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

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

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

Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:

7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant/developer shall participate in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program by paying the adopted fees in place for the land use type at time of development. 10/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_

MICHELE ST

TAFT HWY
HC
GC
SR
SI GC
HC
HC
LI
GC
SR
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change
24-0372

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
COUNTY
CITY
Land Use
RR Rural Residential

0.5 acre net minimum parcel size
WM West Ming Specific Plan
COUNTY
CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Zone Change
From: A
To: C-2COUNTY CITY
COUNTY
CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Land Use Change
From: SR
To: GC

EXHIBIT B

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. _____________

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE

APPEAL AND DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP

DESIGNATION OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN

FROM GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND SR (SUBURBAN

RESIDENTIAL) TO GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL), GENERALLY LOCATED

ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TAFT HIGHWAY AND MICHELE STREET (GPA/ZC NO. 24-0372).

WHEREAS, LAV//Pinnacle Consulting & Engineering (applicant), on behalf of the Giminiani Fred Living Trust (property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from GC (General Commercial) and SR (Suburban Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 0.37 acres; and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from C-2 (Regional Commercial) and A (Agricultural) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 1.19 acres within an existing 2.63 acre parcel generally located on the northwest corner of Taft Highway and Michele Street (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 20, 2025, and approved Resolution No. 19-25, which recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), filed an appeal with the City Clerk on March 28, 2025 on the planning Commission recommendation to approve the project; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the approval of the amendment as required by Government Code Section 65355, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s deliberation, and action.

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

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

2. The Planning Commission's findings as contained in its Resolution No. 19-25 are hereby overturned.

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

4. The City Council hereby denies General Plan Amendment No. 24-0372. ---------o0o--------

Page 2 of 2 ends

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of May 2025, by the following vote:

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

_______________________________________

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

KAREN GOH
Mayor

VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORNEY
By: ____________________________

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment Map
10/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_

MICHELE ST

TAFT HWY
HC
GC
SR
SI GC
HC
HC
LI
GC
SR
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change
24-0372

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
COUNTY
CITY
Land Use
RR Rural Residential

0.5 acre net minimum parcel size
WM West Ming Specific Plan
COUNTY
CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Zone Change
From: A
To: C-2COUNTY CITY
COUNTY
CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Land Use Change
From: SR
To: GC

EXHIBIT A

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. _____________

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE

APPEAL AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP

DESIGNATION OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN

FROM GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND SR (SUBURBAN

RESIDENTIAL) TO GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL), GENERALLY LOCATED

ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TAFT HIGHWAY AND MICHELE STREET (GPA/ZC NO. 24-0372).

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

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

2. The Planning Commission's findings as contained in its Resolution No. 19-25 are hereby approved.

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

4. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 24-0372. ---------o0o--------

Page 2 of 2 ends

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of May 2025, by the following vote:

_______________________________________

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

KAREN GOH
Mayor

VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORNEY
By: ____________________________

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment Map
10/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_

MICHELE ST

TAFT HWY
HC
GC
SR
SI GC
HC
HC
LI
GC
SR
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change
24-0372

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
COUNTY
CITY
Land Use
RR Rural Residential

0.5 acre net minimum parcel size
WM West Ming Specific Plan
COUNTY
CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Zone Change
From: A
To: C-2COUNTY CITY
COUNTY
CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Land Use Change
From: SR
To: GC

EXHIBIT A

Page 1 of 3 ends

ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL

UPHOLDING THE APPEAL AND DENYING AN AMENDMENT
TO TITLE 17 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE TO
CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION FROM C-2 (REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL) AND A (AGRICULTURAL) TO C-2 (REGIONAL

COMMERCIAL), GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST

CORNER OF TAFT HIGHWAY AND MICHELE STREET (GPA/ZC
NO. 24-0372).

0.37 acres; and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from C-2 (Regional Commercial) and A (Agricultural) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 1.19 acres within an existing 2.63 acre parcel generally located on the northwest corner of Taft Highway and Michele Street (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 20, 2025, and accepted public testimony both in support and opposition. Following deliberations, the Commission approved Resolution No. 20-25, which recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), filed an appeal with the City Clerk on March 28, 2025 on the planning Commission recommendation to approve the project; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the approval of the amendment as required by Government Code Section 65355, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the Project, including the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s deliberation, and action; and
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

SECTION 1.

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

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

2. The Planning Commission's findings as contained in its Resolution No. 20-25 are hereby overturned.

Page 2 of 3 ends

3. The Project is hereby denied.
---------o0o---------

Page 3 of 3 ends

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of May 2025, by the following vote:

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

_______________________________________

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

KAREN GOH
Mayor

VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORNEY
City Attorney
By: ____________________________

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibits: A Legal Description
B Zone Change Map
BEING A PORTION OF LOT 2 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT No. 120-05, RECORDED DECEMBER 11, 2006 AS INSTRUMENT No. 0206302742 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO BEING PORTION OF THE WEST 1/2 OF LOT 30 OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 30 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE KERN COUNTY SALES MAP No. 1 OF LANDS OF J.B.

HAGGIN FILED MAY 3, 1889, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, ALSO BEING LOCATED IN THE WEST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PROPOSED ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36, SAID CORNER OF COMMENCEMENT BEING THE CENTERLINE OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH "H" STREET AND TAFT HIGHWAY; THENCE NORTH 89°03'15" WEST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF TAFT HIGHWAY PER RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 4207 BOOK 35, PAGE 57 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, A DISTANCE OF 1651.68 FEET, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 30 OF SALES MAP No. 1 OF LANDS OF J.B. HAGGIN FILED MAY 3, 1889, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 89°03'15" WEST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF TAFT HIGHWAY PER SAID RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 4207, A DISTANCE OF 330.51 FEET TO THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF LOT 2 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT No. 120-05, RECORDED DECEMBER 11, 2006 AS INSTRUMENT No. 0206302742 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 00°00'01" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 2 OF SAID LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AS SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 4207, A DISTANCE OF 65.00 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF TAFT HIGHWAY PER QUITCLAIM DEED No. 22303081 RECORDED MARCH 15, 2023 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00°36'47" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 2 OF SAID LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AS SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 4207, A DISTANCE OF 361.01 FEET, TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 2 OF SAID LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT;
THENCE SOUTH 89°03'15" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 2 OF SAID LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AS SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 4207, A DISTANCE OF 132.80 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01°18'26" WEST A DISTANCE OF 361.01 FEET, TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF TAFT HIGHWAY PER SAID QUITCLAIM DEED No. 22303081;
THENCE NORTH 89°03'15" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF TAFT PER SAID QUITCLAIM DEED No. 22303081, A DISTANCE OF 128.43 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

CONTAINING 1.08 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.

NOTE:

BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ARE PER RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 4207 BOOK 35, PAGE 57 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
3-14-24

EXHIBIT A

ZONE CHANGE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
10/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_

MICHELE ST

TAFT HWY
HC
GC
SR
SI GC
HC
HC
LI
GC
SR
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change
24-0372

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
COUNTY
CITY
Land Use
RR Rural Residential

0.5 acre net minimum parcel size
WM West Ming Specific Plan
COUNTY
CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Zone Change
From: A
To: C-2COUNTY CITY
COUNTY
CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Land Use Change
From: SR
To: GC

EXHIBIT B

Page 1 of 3 ends

ORDINANCE NO. ______

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

THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONE
CLASSIFICATION FROM C-2 (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) AND A
(AGRICULTURAL) TO C-2 (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL),

GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TAFT
HIGHWAY AND MICHELE STREET (GPA/ZC NO. 24-0372).

0.37 acres; and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from C-2 (Regional Commercial) and A (Agricultural) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 1.19 acres within an existing 2.63 acre parcel generally located on the northwest corner of Taft Highway and Michele Street (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 20, 2025, and accepted public testimony both in support and opposition. Following deliberations, the Commission approved Resolution No. 20-25, which recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), filed an appeal with the City Clerk on March 28, 2025 on the planning Commission recommendation to approve the project; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the approval of the amendment as required by Government Code Section 65355, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the Project, including the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s deliberation, and action; and
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

SECTION 1.

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

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

2. The Planning Commission's findings as contained in its Resolution No. 20-25 are hereby approved.

Page 2 of 3 ends

3. The Project is hereby approved.
---------o0o---------

Page 3 of 3 ends

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of May 2025, by the following vote:

_______________________________________

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

KAREN GOH
Mayor

VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORNEY
City Attorney
By: ____________________________

CONTAINING 1.08 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.

NOTE:

BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ARE PER RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 4207 BOOK 35, PAGE 57 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
3-14-24

EXHIBIT A

ZONE CHANGE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
10/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_

MICHELE ST

TAFT HWY
HC
GC
SR
SI GC
HC
HC
LI
GC
SR
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change
24-0372

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
COUNTY
CITY
Land Use
RR Rural Residential

0.5 acre net minimum parcel size
WM West Ming Specific Plan
COUNTY
CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Zone Change
From: A
To: C-2COUNTY CITY
COUNTY
CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Land Use Change
From: SR
To: GC

EXHIBIT B

MAP SET
10/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_

MICHELE ST

TAFT HWY
Copyright nearmap 2015
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change
24-0372

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
COUNTY
CITY
COUNTY
CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Zone Change
From: A
To: C-2COUNTY CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Land Use Change
From: SR
To: GC
AERIAL
10/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_

MICHELE ST

TAFT HWY
SR
HC
GC
GC
HC
SI
HC
LI
GC
SR
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change
24-0372

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
COUNTY
CITY
Land Use

RESIDENTIAL
SR -Suburban Residential: ≤ 4
dwelling units/net acre

COMMERCIAL
GC - General Commercial
HC - Highway Commercial

INDUSTRIAL

LI - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
SI - Service Industrial

RESIDENTIAL
SR -Suburban Residential: ≤ 4
dwelling units/net acre

COMMERCIAL
GC - General Commercial
HC - Highway Commercial
COUNTY
CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Zone Change
From: A
To: C-2COUNTY CITY
COUNTY
CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Land Use Change
From: SR
To: GC
10/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_

MICHELE ST

TAFT HWY
A C-2
M-2
M-1
M-1
C-2
C-2
M-2
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change
24-0372

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
COUNTY
CITY
Zoning
Commercial Zone Designations
C-2 Regional Commercial
Industrial Zone Designations
M-1 Light Manufacturing
M-2 General Manufacturing
Resource Zone Designations
A Agricultural
COUNTY
CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Zone Change
From: A
To: C-2COUNTY CITY
COUNTY
CITY
GPA/ZC 24-0372
Land Use Change
From: SR
To: GC
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 1 of 34

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

PROJECT NO. (or Title): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-0372 COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: December 30, 2024
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: January 28, 2025
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

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

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 2 of 34

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

Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 3 of 34

INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

1. Project (Title & No.): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-0372

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

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

4. Project Location: The project is located on the northwest corner of Taft Highway and Michele Street on approximately 2.63 acres, [Assessor Parcel Numbers 514-060-27] Bakersfield, CA 93314

5. Applicant (name and address): LAV//Pinnacle Consulting & Engineering Attn: Scott Quintana
13061 Rosedale Highway, Suite G199
Bakersfield, CA 93312

6. General Plan Designation: GC (General Commercial), and SR (Suburban Residential)

7. Zoning: C-2 (Regional Commercial), and A (Agricultural)

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.):

LAV//Pinnacle Consulting & Engineering (applicant), on behalf of Fred Giminiani 2008 Living Trust (property owner), has requested a General Plan Amendment to amend the existing land use designation from (GC) General Commercial and (SR) Suburban Residential to (GC) General Commercial only; and a Zone Change to change the existing zoning from (C-2) Regional Commercial and (A) Agricultural to (C2) Regional Commercial on approximately 2.63 acres [Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 514-060-27]. The project at this time is for plan consistency bringing the general plan land use designation and zoning to be consistent with adjacent parcels as there are no current plans to develop the project site. All future development will be analyzed for municipal and CEQA compliance, at that time.

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

The proposed project site is currently undeveloped vacant land. The areas to the south and east of the site mainly consist of commercial properties, while the parcel to the north is vacant undeveloped land.

To the west is one single family residence. The adjacent parcels to the north and west of the project site are located within Kern County jurisdiction.

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 4 of 34

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
Public Works Department
• Issue grading permits.
• Issue building permits.
• Accept public right-of-way dedications.
• Approve road improvement plans.
• Issue encroachment permits.
• Approve proposed sewer connections and
improvements.

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

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

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

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 5 of 34

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 6 of 34

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 7 of 34

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 8 of 34

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

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

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

Yazid Alawgarey 12/30/24
Signature Date
Yazid Alawgarey
Printed Name
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 9 of 34

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

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 10 of 34

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the Project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact. The project is located at the edge of City limits on the northwest corner of Taft Highway and Michele Street. The existing visual environment in the area consists of commercial to the north and east and industrial properties to the south. The project does not conflict with any applicable vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements, or design criteria of federal, state, or local agencies. The project site is located within an area having slopes of 0 to 2 % in any direction. The area is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as visually important or “scenic.” The construction of commercial uses at the site would be in character and compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity and is a natural extension of the commercial 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 several trees, but no rock outcrops, or historic buildings located at the project site. Additionally, the project site is not located adjacent to or near any officially designated or potentially eligible scenic highways to be listed on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System (Caltrans 2017). The closest section of highway eligible for state scenic highway designation is State Route (SR) 14 (Caltrans 2017), located in Kern County over 60 miles to the east. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
c. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to responses I.a, I.b, and I.d. As described, the project is located within a commercial area and is contiguous to existing and newly developed land uses.

There are no local vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements, or design criteria that apply to the project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 11 of 34

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

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

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

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 12 of 34

b. Less-than-significant impact. The project site is currently zoned C-2 (Regional Commercial) and A (Agricultural)for commercial and agricultural uses. However, most of the parcel is zoned commercial and will therefore be in consistent with adjacent commercial properties. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract and therefore would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. Therefore impact will be less than significant. c. No impact. As discussed in II.b, the project site is zoned for commercial uses. No lands within or immediately adjacent to the project site are zoned forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. d. No impact. As discussed in II.c, no lands within or immediately adjacent to the project are zoned forest land or timberland and do not contain any forested areas. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest. e. No impact. Please refer to responses II.a through II.d. This project proposes commercial uses in an area designated for commercial development by the General Plan. There are no agricultural or forestlands in proximity to the project that would experience conflicts in operation due to the proposed development. Therefore, the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

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

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) jurisdiction, in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). As such, air quality impacts from the project are controlled through policies and Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 13 of 34

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

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

No study has been conducted for the project since there are no plans at this time for development. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 1, the project would not conflict with, or obstruct the implementation of, the applicable air quality plan. Mitigation Measure 2 requires that the necessary fees be paid to the SJVAPCD. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. No impact. Please refer to responses III.a. Under the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, any project that would have individually significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have significant cumulative air quality impacts.

Because there are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Therefore, there is no impact.
c. Less-than-significant impact. Some land uses are deemed more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities associated with a land use that could result in a sensitive receptor experiencing sustained exposure to said air pollution. Population groups considered sensitive receptors include young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, and/or people who are more sensitive than the general population. Sensitive receptors can be expected to reside in locations such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 14 of 34

The project is located on the northwest corner of Taft Highway and Michele Street. The nearest sensitive receptors are residential uses of single-family residential units to the north of the project site. The nearest school is Whitley Douglas Elementary, approximately half a mile northwest of the project. There are no other known hospitals or nursing homes within a one-mile radius. Based on the predicted operational emissions and activity types, the project is not expected to have any adverse impacts on any known sensitive receptor via prolonged exposure to air pollutants.

Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts are less than significant.
d. No impact. The Project does not propose any construction. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and therefore no impacts.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site has the potential to result in significant impacts on some special-status wildlife species, but no listed special-status plant and Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 15 of 34

animal species were found on the site during reconnaissance-level surveys for the project (MESA Biological LLC Biological Resource Study 2024).

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

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

Mitigation Measures 3 – 4 require a survey prior to ground disturbance for any special-status wildlife species and compliance with any requirements of the CDFW and USFWS to reduce or avoid significant impacts to biological resources. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3 requires training of on-site personnel to increase awareness of FESA and CESA. Therefore, with the implementation of the mitigation measures the project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b. No impact. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities located at the site (MESA Biological LLC Biological Resource Study 2024). This project is not located within, or adjacent to, the Kern River riparian habitat area, nor within the Kern River flood plain, or along a canal that has been identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
c. No impact. There are no wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), located at the project site or within or near the site. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. d. Less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated. It was concluded that the project would not interfere with wildlife movement (MESA Biological LLC Biological Resource Study 2024). The project is not within the Kern River floodplain, or along a canal that has been identified by the USFWS as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. There is the potential during construction to temporarily affect nursery sites such as dens and burrows. Project construction could cause the direct destruction of a nursery site or cause enough of an indirect disturbance to cause specialstatus wildlife to abandon a nursery site. However, Mitigation Measure 3 requires preconstruction surveys and, if necessary, additional mitigation recommended by a qualified biologist and CDFW to reduce potential impacts on nursery sites. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident, migratory fish, wildlife species, established native residents, migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
e. Less than significant impact. It was concluded that the project site does not contain any biological resources that are protected by local policies or ordinances protecting any biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (MESA Biological LLC Biological Resource Study Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 16 of 34

2024). Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts are less than significant. f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to responses IV.a, IV.d, and IV.e.

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. There are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time therefore no Cultural Resources Survey was conducted to determined that there are no historical resources on-site. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and impacts are less than significant. b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. There is potential to unearth previously unknown archaeological resources at the site, and grading and other ground-disturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources. Mitigation Measure 4 requires that construction workers be provided with cultural awareness training. Mitigation Measure 5 requires ceasing work and investigating any discovery if previously unknown archaeological resources are unearthed during construction. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4 and 5, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, and impacts are less than significant with mitigations incorporated. c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project could inadvertently uncover, or damage, previously unknown human remains. Mitigation Measure 6 requires that if any human remains are found at the site during construction, work will cease, and the remains will be handled pursuant to applicable law. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 6, the project would not significantly disturb any human remains, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 17 of 34

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. No impact. There are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time 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. b. Less than significant impact. There is no adopted plan by the City of Bakersfield for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As mentioned above, all new development projects within the City are required to adhere to adopted building standards related to energy efficiency. Additionally, the City encourages applicants/developers to go beyond the required standards and make their developments even more efficient through programs such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), which is a green building rating system that provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings. Other encouraged programs available to applicants/developers are Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards and 2005 building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
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,
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 18 of 34

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

According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these major active fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge-Kern County, Garlock, Pond Poso, and White Wolf faults. There are additional smaller faults suspected of occurring within the Bakersfield area, which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge-Kern County) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides. i. No Impact. Ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of a fault during an earthquake. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map, the project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault. ii. Less than significant impact. The City is within a seismically active area. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (specifically Seismic Zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake construction standards. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking, and impacts are less than significant. iii. Less than significant impact. The most common seismic-related ground failure is liquefaction and lateral spreading. In both cases, during periods of ground motion caused by an event such as an earthquake, loose materials transform from a solid state to a nearliquid state because of increased pore water pressure. Such ground failure generally requires a high-water table and poorly draining soil for such this to occur. The project site is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Public supply wells in Kern County are at depths between 600 and 800 feet below land surfaces (USGS 2016), meaning that groundwater levels are not close enough to the surface to result in sufficiently saturated soils suitable for liquefaction. In addition, future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed by the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not expose Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 19 of 34

people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and impacts are less than significant. iv. No impact. In Kern County, the common types of landslides induced by earthquakes occur on steeper slopes found in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon; in these areas, landslides are generally associated with bluff and stream bank failure, rockslide, and slope slip on steep slopes. The project site is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides.
b. No impact. There are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. c. Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the soils at the project site would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides.

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

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

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

Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low-density materials that collapse and compact under the addition of water or excessive loading. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because of the project, and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. The soils identified on or around the project site is Granoso and Kimberlina sandy loam, which do not have a high potential to be expansive. Additionally, future structures proposed on the site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics.

Therefore, the project would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property, and impacts are less than significant.
e. No impact. There are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time therefore, there would be no impacts related to soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Paleontological sensitivity is determined by the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. Because paleontological resources typically occur in the substratum soil horizon, surface expressions are often not visible during a pedestrian survey. Paleontological sensitivity is derived from known fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit. The project site is entirely underlain by alluvial fan deposits of the late Holocene age, which presumably transition in the subsurface into older, Pleistocene-age deposits.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 20 of 34

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
a. No impact. There are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time therefore, no emissions shall be generated.
b. Less than significant impact. CARB is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. As proposed, the project would not conflict with any statewide policy, regional plan, or local guidance or policy adopted to reduce GHG emissions. The project would not interfere with the implementation of AB 32 and SB 375 because it would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction targets identified by CARB and the Scoping Plan as described in VIII.a. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 21 of 34

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. No impact. There are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time and therefore the project shall not pose any hazards to the public.
b. No impact. Please refer to response IX.a. The project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment.
c. No impact. Please refer to response IX.a. As mentioned above, there are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time.
d. No impact. The EnviroStor (DTSC 2023) and Cortese (CalEPA 2023) lists under Government Code (GC) Section 65962.5 were reviewed. No portion of the project site is identified on either list, which provides the location of known hazardous waste concerns. Therefore, the project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to GC Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area (Kern County 2012). The closest airport to the site is the Bakersfield Municpal Airport, which is located approximately 5 miles northeast. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The project is not located within the specified distance within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted.
f. No impact. The project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan since no development is being proposed at this time.
g. Less than significant impact. The project site is not located within a “very high,” “high,” or “moderate” fire hazard severity zone (CalFire 2022). The site is surrounded by both developed and undeveloped land, and its vicinity is commercial and does possess high fuel loads that have a Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 22 of 34

high potential to cause a wildland fire. However. the project does not propose any construction that would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
d. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? e. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
f. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
g. Impede or redirect flood flows?
h. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
i. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements since no development is being proposed at this time. b. Less than significant impact. Currently, there are no irrigation water rights from a local water district associated with the project site. Potable water for the site would be supplied by The California Water Company Bakersfield District (the District) which receives at least a portion of its supplies from groundwater sources. Also, by state law, the current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 23 of 34

does not need to address the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) or sustainable groundwater management at this time. It was concluded that the District has sufficient existing capacity to service the project. Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The following responses to items X.d. through X.g. discuss whether the project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces.

Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, and impacts are less than significant. d. Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain any blue-line streams or other surface water features; therefore, any proposed development would not alter the course of a river or stream.

The project does not propose any development and therefore impacts are less than significant. e. No impact. Please refer to response X.d. The project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite. Therefore, the project’s impacts are less than significant. f. Less than significant impact. To comply with the City’s MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with an approved drainage plan that would avoid on- and off-site flooding. The project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and impacts are less than significant.
g. Less than significant impact. A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Maps shows the project site is in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain. Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and impacts are less than significant. h. Less than significant impact. The City of Bakersfield is located within Central California and is not near a coastal environment that risks flood inundation. In addition, the City is not located within a tsunami zone as identified by the California Department of Conservation’s Tsunami Map. As mentioned above, the project site is in Zone X, which is a minimal-risk area outside the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain.

The project site, like most of the City, is located within the Lake Isabella flood inundation area (Kern County 2017), which is the area that would experience flooding if there was a catastrophic failure of the Lake Isabella Dam. There is an approved Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan (Kern County 2009) that establishes processes and procedures for the mass evacuation and short-term support of populations at risk below the Lake Isabella Dam. The City would utilize the Evacuation Plan to support its Emergency Operations Plans. Therefore, due to the project’s location and implementation of related emergency safety plans, the project would not likely risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazards, tsunami, or seiche zones, and impacts are less than significant.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 24 of 34

i. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.d. There is currently no adopted groundwater management plan for the project site or surrounding area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern of the City.

The project does not include a long and linear feature, such as a freeway, railroad track, block wall, etc., that would have the potential to divide a community. The project does not propose any development at this time.
b. No impact. The project is consistent with both the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) and Zoning Ordinance. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project site is not within the administrative boundaries of an oilfield and there are no oil wells found on the site (DOC 2022b). Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 25 of 34

b. No impact. The project site is currently designated GC (General Commercial), SR (Suburban Residential) and zoned C-2 (Regional Commercial) with A (Agricultural). No portion of the site is designated for potential mineral resource extraction use such as R-MP (Mineral and Petroleum).

Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project would not generate any short-term construction noise or operational noise since no development is being proposed at this time.
b. No impact. Please refer to response XIII.a. No development is being proposed at this time and therefore no noise shall be generated.
c. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area or the vicinity of a private airstrip (Kern County 2012). Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 26 of 34

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. No impact. There are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time b. No impact. The project site consists of one undeveloped parcel of land. The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 27 of 34

growth and the resultant additional population’s need for services beyond what is currently available.
i. No impact. The project does not propose any development at this time and therefore would not result in any adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities.
ii. No impact. The project would not result in any adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities since no development is being proposed. iii. No impact. The project would not result in any adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities since no development is being proposed. iv. No impact. The proposal does not include nor require the construction of recreational facilities.
v. No impact. The Project would not result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City since no development is being proposed.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION: Would the project result in:
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion
a. No impact. There are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time. b. No impact. 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.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 28 of 34

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. No impact. Since no development is being proposed, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
b. No impact. Since no development is being proposed, there shall be no conflicts with Section 15064.3 of the updated California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or CEQA Guidelines). c. No impact. Since no development is being proposed, the project would not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.
d. No impact. Since no construction is being proposed, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

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)?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 29 of 34

b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project requires a GPA and therefore, request for consultation letters were sent to a list of tribal contacts received from the Native American Heritage Commission in compliance with Senate Bill 18 (“SB 18”). In the letters, the City stated that the applicable tribes may request consultation with the City regarding the preservation of, and/or mitigation of impacts to, California Native American cultural places in connection with the project. To date, none of the tribes have responded to the request. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources, and impacts are less than significant. b. Less than significant impact. There are no tribal cultural resources determined by the lead agency to be of significance onsite. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project result in:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s Projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 30 of 34

e. Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
a. No impact. Since no development is being proposed at this time, 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. b. No impact. The designated water purveyor is the California Water Company Bakersfield District (“the District”). The project may have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. However, since development is not being proposed, there is no impact. c. No impact. No Wastewater shall be produced as a result of the project since no development is being proposed.
d. No impact. No solid waste shall be generated because of the project is not proposing any development.
e. Less-than-significant impact. By law, the project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, including those relating to waste reduction, litter control, and solid waste disposal, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRES: Would the project result in:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 31 of 34

Discussion
a. No impact. The project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in any alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. Therefore, the project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
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. The project site is relatively flat and not near wildlands. Its surroundings do possess high fuel loads (i.e., lots of vegetation and other burnable material) to exacerbate wildfire risks, and therefore, fire-related pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfires and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, and impacts are less than significant. c. Less than significant impact. The project is located within the Metropolitan Bakersfield City limits and the site, as well as the surrounding area, is developed with existing infrastructure such as roads, power lines, utilities, etc. Therefore, the project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, and impacts are less than significant. d. Less than significant impact. The project site is relatively flat, is not within a floodplain, and is not in a moderate-risk to high-risk area for wildfires. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides because of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Would the project result in:
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of life of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 32 of 34

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. The project, with the implementation of the identified conditions of approval, best management practices, and mitigation measures, would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b. Less than significant impact. Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that said project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” This section further states that cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”
Past, present, and future projects in proximity to the project were considered and evaluated as part of this Initial Study. Also, in addition to project-specific impacts, this Initial Study considered the project’s potential for incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable. As described in the responses above, there is no substantial evidence that there are cumulative effects associated with this project. In addition, any future development projects not identified above would be required to undergo a separate environmental analysis and mitigate any projectspecific or site-specific potential impacts, and impacts are less than significant. c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described in the responses above, the project, with mitigation, would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 33 of 34

REFERENCE LIST
Bakersfield (City of Bakersfield). 1997. Hazardous Materials Area Plan. January.

CalFire (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps.

Available: < https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ >.

Accessed: November 18, 2024.

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: November 18, 2024.

CBOC (California Burrowing Owl Consortium). 1993. Burrowing Owl Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines.

April.

CVRWQCB. 2016. Order No. R5-2016-0040, NPDES No. CAS0085324, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems.

Available:<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_ orders/r5-2016-0040_ms4.pdf>. Accessed: November 18, 2024.

Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022a. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

Available:< https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp >. Accessed: November 18, 2024.

Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022b. Well Finder CalGEM GIS.

Available: < https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp>. Accessed: November 19, 2024.

DTSC (Department of Toxic Substance Control). 2023. EnviroStor.

Available:<https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>. Accessed: November 18, 2024.

Findlaw. 2015. Center for Biological Diversity v. The Newhall Land and Farming Company, Real Party in Interest. Available: < https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-supreme-court/1719578.html >.

Accessed: November 18, 2024.

Kern County. 2009. Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan.

Available:< https://kerncountyfire.org/jsp-uploads/Isabella-Dam-Failure-Plan.pdf >.

Accessed: November 15, 2024.

Kern County. 2012. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. November.

Kern County. 2017. Lake Isabella Flood Area. Available:< https://kernpublicworks.com/building-andcode/floodplain-management/lake-isabella-flood-area/>. Accessed: November 18, 2024.

MESA Biological LLC. Biological Resource Study. August 2024 SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2014. Final Negative Declaration For Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plan – Crude Oil Storage Capacity Project. Available:

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 34 of 34

< http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/permit-projects/2014/phillips-66- fnd.pdf >. Accessed: November 18, 2024.

YA: S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\01_Hearing Documents & Noticing Documents\PC

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 20, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: 5.c.

TO: Chair Cater and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director
DATE: March 14, 2025
WARD: 7
FILE: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change No. 24-0372 STAFF PLANNER: Yazid Alawgarey, Assistant Planner
REQUEST: (1) General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from GC (General Commercial) and SR (Suburban Residential) to GC (General Commercial); and (2) Zone Change to amend the zone classification from C-2 (Regional Commercial) and A (Agricultural) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone on approximately 2.63 acres.

APPLICANT: LAV//Pinnacle Consulting & Engineering OWNER: Fred Giminiani 2008 Living Trust Scott Quintana 128 New Towne St
13061 Rosedale Highway, Suite G199 Bakersfield, CA 93312 Bakersfield, CA 93312
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Taft Highway and Michele Street APN: 514-060-27
PROJECT SIZE: 2.63 Acres CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: GC (General Commercial), and SR (Suburban Residential) EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: C-2 (Regional Commercial), and A (Agricultural) STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends (1) Adopt Resolution ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) adopt Resolution APPROVING general plan amendment to change the land use designation from GC and SR to GC; and (3) adopt Resolution APPROVING amending the zone classification from C-2 and A to C-2 and recommend the same to City Council.

File No. GPA/ZC 24-0372
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site is currently an undeveloped parcel. Surrounding properties are primarily developed as: north – undeveloped land (County of Kern); east and south – developed with auto and truck fueling stations and convenience markets; and west – West Branch Canal and a single-family residence (County of Kern).

BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:
• January 28, 1998 -– City Council approved the pre-zoning of the project site and other parcels within the City’s sphere of influence as part of the 2010 Bakersfield General Plan update (Ordinance 3819). • November 21, 2017 - The project site, as one of six parcels, was annexed into the City of Bakersfield as part of Annexation No. 654 (Michele No. 1) (City Council Resolution No. 003-17) (LAFCo Resolution No. 17-12).

PROJECT ANALYSIS:

General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (“GPA/ZC”). The proposed request is a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from (GC) General Commercial and (SR) Suburban Residential to (GC) General Commercial on 0.37 acres, and a Zone Change to amend the existing zone from (C-2) Regional Commercial and (A) Agricultural to (C-2) Regional Commercial on 1.19 acres, within portions of the existing 2.63-acre parcel.

The proposed request is for plan consistency bringing the general plan land use designation and zoning to be consistent within the parcel itself and adjacent parcels. The existing parcel includes multiple land use and zoning designations, of which commercial designations cover the majority. This GPA/ZC application proposes to eliminate the split designations to result in a 2.63-acre, C-2 commercial parcel. There are no current plans to develop the project site. All future developments will be analyzed for municipal and CEQA compliance which will require a sewer study and a drainage study to retain drainage on site.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Staff prepared an initial study to review the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Initial Study was based on the Biological Resources Study only.

The Initial Study determined that compliance with recommended mitigation measures, local ordinances, state laws, and construction to the standards of the Uniform Building Codes will reduce impacts to a lessthan- significant level. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with CEQA. The MND was circulated for a 30-day public and agency review period from December 30,2024 to January 28, 2025 (SCH No. 2024121189).

Comments Received. As of this writing, two comment letters were received from Kern Delta Water District and Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), in response to the Initial Study. Kern Delta Water District comments state they would like to be kept informed on any development as the property boarders its Branch One Canal. SAFER submitted a 168- page response in opposition of the MND. Staff requested the applicant to provide a response to the comments but as of the writing of this report, staff has not received any responses from the applicant.

Staff responses to the comments submitted by SAFER are as follows:

File No. GPA/ZC 24-0372

1. Comment: There is a fair argument that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have a Cumulatively Significant Air Quality Impact.

Response: As there is no proposed project to be developed at this time, there is no air quality impact. The applicant will comply with all CEQA and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District requirements at the time of development.

2. Comment: The IS/MND does not disclose, analyze, or mitigate potential impacts from Valley Fever.

Response: There is no evidence on the record that indicates that a threshold has been identified to analyze for Valley Fever.

3. Comment: The IS/MND does not disclose, analyze, or mitigate potential emissions from Toxic Air Contaminants.

Response: As there is no proposed project to be developed at this time, there is no air quality study requested. The applicant will comply with all CEQA and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District requirements at the time of development.

4. Comment: There are several special status species present on the Project site.

Response: The Biologist report prepared did not locate any endangered species but advised that additional surveys prior to implementation ground disturbance should be conducted. A new survey will be required when development on the site is proposed.

5. Comment: The City does not have substantial evidence to support its conclusions that impacts to biological resources are less than significant.

Response: The Biologist report concluded that the project site does not contain any biological resources that are protected by State or federal endangered species regulations. Therefore, the project impacts are less than significant.

6. Comment: There are several unstudied impacts from the project on biological resources.

Response: The Biological Study was compiled by a qualified party and future developments are required to abide by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) polices.

7. Comment: The IS/MND improperly concludes that there are no cumulative impacts to biological resources.

Response: See response to comment #6.

8. Comment: The IS/MND mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce impacts to less than significant.

Response: The Biologist Survey concludes that Mitigation measures ensure a new survey to be File No. GPA/ZC 24-0372
conducted prior to obtaining grading permits. All future developments are required to abide by CEQA, USFWS, and CDFW polices.

9. Comment: An EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant effects.

Response: Staff has completed an initial study and has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would reduce impacts to a less-than significant level. Per CEQA, if a project will not result in potentially significant adverse effects to the environment, and MND is sufficient. This project removes inconsistent zoning and land use designations from a predominantly commercial parcel only. There are no significant adverse effects to the environment as described in the MND.

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. Additionally, a public hearing notice was issued via email to all interested parties that submitted written comments.

Comments Received. As of this writing, no written comments have been received in response to the notice of public hearing.

Tribal Consultation. In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 18, a letter was sent by staff on November 22, 2024, to inform the American Indian Tribes about the proposed project and its site location. This notification marks the initiation of the 90-day consultation period mandated by SB 18. At present, no request for tribal consultation has been received.

COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS:

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

The site shall provide additional commercial services similar to its neighboring parcels. • Goal 3: Accommodate new development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses.

The project site is consistent with this goal by providing additional commercial services to both its local population as well as travelers passing through Bakersfield. • 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.

File No. GPA/ZC 24-0372
The project site is located on existing commercial land near commercial and industrial uses.

Therefore, adequate land is available for the project, and the project expands existing commercial land uses at a different density. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy.

CONCLUSIONS:

Consistency with Surrounding Development. The project would provide for additional commercial development in the area.

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

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

Therefore, staff recommends your Commission: (1) Adopt Resolution ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) adopt Resolution APPROVING general plan amendment to change the land use designation from GC and SR to GC; and (3) adopt Resolution APPROVING amending the zone classification from C-2 and A to C-2, and recommends the same to City Council.

ATTACHMENTS:

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

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE STUDY

TAFT HIGHWAY AND MICHELE STREET GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE APN 514-060-27

BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:

LAV/Pinnacle Consulting and Engineering Services
and
Fred Geminiani 2008 Living Trust
Mark Anderson
128 Towne Street, Bakersfield, CA
Prepared by:

MESA Biological LLC
9530 Hageman Road Ste B-130
Bakersfield, CA 93312
August 2024
Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 2 of 28
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................2

1.0 Introduction...............................................................................................................3

2.0 Project Location........................................................................................................3

3.0 Methodology .............................................................................................................3

3.1 Database Queries............................................................................................................. 3

3.2 Field Reconnaissance Surveys......................................................................................... 4

4.0 Results and Findings ................................................................................................4

4.1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover ........................................................................ 5

4.2 Special-Status Plants Species.......................................................................................... 5

4.3 Special Status Wildlife Species......................................................................................... 6

4.4 Wetlands and Waterways ................................................................................................. 6

4.5 Nesting Birds..................................................................................................................... 6

5.0 Discussion and Recommendations ..........................................................................7

5.1 Special-Status Wildlife Species ........................................................................................ 7

6.0 Conclusion................................................................................................................9

7.0 References .............................................................................................................10 Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 3 of 28

1.0 Introduction
MESA Biological LLC (MESA) has prepared this Biological Resources Study (BRS) at the request of LAV/Pinnacle Consulting and Engineering Services (LAV/Pinnacle) on behalf of Mark Anderson and the Fred Geminiani 2008 Living Trust. On June 21, 2024, the City of Bakersfield Planning Division of the Development Services Department issued an incomplete application notice for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) application associated with Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 514-060-27. As outlined in the incomplete application notice, the City of Bakersfield has requested that the applicant complete this BRS in support of the City of Bakersfield’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation.

This BRS will document the current existing conditions and evaluate the potential for project related impacts to biological resources. For continuity purposes throughout this report, the term “project site” will be used to address APN 514-060-27, and its 250-foot buffer area being evaluated within this report.

2.0 Project Location
The project site occurs in south Bakersfield, Kern County, California and falls within Section 36, Township 30 South, Range 27 East Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. More specifically, the project site falls directly north of State Highway 119 (Taft Highway), west of Michele Street and approximately one thousand feet west of State Highway 99 within the community of Pumpkin Center. The project site occurs within the Gosford United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5- minute Quadrangle. Attachment A – Figure 1 illustrates APN 514-06-27 while Attachment B shows the GPA and ZC exhibits.

3.0 Methodology
This BRE includes a review of relevant literature that was followed by a reconnaissance-level field survey conducted on July 26, 2024. The purpose of this analysis is to document the biological conditions found throughout the project site and to provide an analysis of the biological resources potentially occurring.

3.1 Database Queries
Information obtained included review of current and historical aerial imagery of the project site and vicinity. MESA also conducted a review of the California CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2024a) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2024). Both CNDDB and CNPS reviews included a search of the Gosford USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangle and the surrounding 8 Quadrangles (Oildale, Oil Center, Lamont, Weed Patch, Conner, Millux, Stevens, and Rosedale). In addition to the CNPS and CNDDB queries, MESA conducted a review of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) (USFWS 2024a) website for detail on federal resources potentially occurring in the project site. As a result of the database queries, a list of potentially occurring species was compiled and provided within Attachment C. The Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 4 of 28
tables have been formulated to describe the species habitat requirements, their listing status, and a brief description of their potential for occurrence in the project site. The review of this literature provided biologists with general information and a broad overview of the potential biological resources found in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, information was also gathered from a variety of other sources including the CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) (CDFW 2024b); USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2024b); USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (USFWS 2024c); and the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (USGS 2024).

3.2 Field Reconnaissance Surveys
On July 26, 2024, MESA conducted a field survey documenting existing site conditions in the project site. The field survey focused on evaluating the potential for sensitive plant and wildlife species as well as habitat for nesting birds and wetlands or waterways protected by federal and state laws. During the field survey, MESA biologists Samantha Medellin and Rory Miller conducted pedestrian transects within the project site to achieve 100% visual coverage.

Inaccessible portions of the project site (project site and 250ft buffer) were evaluated using binoculars from within the project site. An inventory of all plants and wildlife species were recorded and vegetation communities were analyzed. In addition, MESA biologists evaluated the potential for presence of the special-status species identified by database review or otherwise considered to have the reasonable potential to be present.

4.0 Results and Findings
Resulting from the database queries discussed above, a total of 30 plant species, 29 wildlife species and 5 sensitive vegetation communities were identified by database query as potentially occurring. Each of these special-status plant species, wildlife species and vegetation communities were analyzed to determine potential presence. Potential of occurrence for these species and vegetation communities identified through database query are based on the presence or absence of suitable habitat for each special-status species or vegetation community reported. Multiple sources of pertinent scientific literature were reviewed, and the technical expertise of MESA staff was utilized to determine the habitat requirements, ecology, and distribution of the special-status species or vegetation community potentially occurring in the project site. All occurrences of special-status species within 5-miles of the project site recorded within the CNDDB are plotted in Attachment A – Figures 2 and 3. The potential for each specialstatus species to occur in the project site has been provided in Attachment C. The potential for occurrence was established according to the following criteria:

Not Expected. Habitat in the project site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime).

Low Potential. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to project site is unsuitable or of very poor quality.

The species is not likely to occur.

Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 5 of 28
Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the project site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of occurrence.

High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of occurrence.

Present. Species observed in the project site or has been recorded (e.g., CNDDB, other reports) in the project site recently (within the last 5 years).

4.1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover
The primary land cover within the project site consists of previously cultivated and cleared or grubbed land presently occurring as fallow land comprised mainly of non-native grasses and some sporadic weedy herbaceous plant species. Evidence of previous cultivation and clearing or grubbing were evident throughout the project site. Historical aerial imagery revealed that the project site contained some form of row crop from the year 2004 through 2016. A list of plant species identified during the field survey is provided in Attachment D. The western boundary of the project site is transected by a concrete lined canal referred to as the West Branch Canal that contained flowing water. A residence neighbors the site to the west, while open fallow field occurs to the west and commercial businesses neighbor the south and east of the site. Representative site photographs depicting habitats and land uses are provided in Attachment E.

4.2 Special-Status Plants Species
Special-status plants are those that are proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the USFWS under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and those listed or candidates for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and plants with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1, 2 or 3.

As noted above, the results of the database query indicated a total of 30 special-status plants listed with CPR ranking 1, 2 and 3 that are known or have the potential to occur within the region.

The potential for each of these plant species to occur has been evaluated based primarily on the presence of suitable habitat determined during the reconnaissance field survey. The proximity to CNDDB and CNPS documented occurrences were also evaluated (Attachment A – Figures 2 and 3)
No dried vegetative remnants of these special-status plant species found to potentially occur were detected within the project site during the reconnaissance level survey. Sensitive plants are not expected to occur due to the historical cultivation for the purposes of growing and harvesting field crops and past land clearing practices. Although the survey occurred outside of the blooming period for almost all sensitive plants identified, the altered soil composition, reduced microbial diversity and compacted soil structure provide inadequate conditions for sensitive Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 6 of 28
plants. The depletion of the seed bank during periods of cultivation and grubbing would significantly prohibit the potential for recovery of sensitive plants that once may have potentially occurred. Sensitive plant species are not expected to occur on the project site.

4.3 Special Status Wildlife Species
Special-status wildlife is defined as listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the USFWS under FESA or those listed or candidates for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the CDFW under CESA and wildlife designated as “Species of Special Concern” (SSC) by the CDFW or “Fully Protected” under the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). The 29 species provided in Attachment C are species listed as endangered or threatened by the federal government or State of California, CDFW species of special concern and/or CDFW watch list species. For the purposes of this study only the species that have been identified with a moderate or higher potential to occur will be further discussed in this study.

Of these 29 species, the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and Bakersfield legless lizard (Anniella grinnelli ) have been evaluated as having a moderate potential to occur on the project site and will be further discussed.

4.4 Wetlands and Waterways
The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) were reviewed to determine if potentially jurisdictional waterways occur within the project site. Review of the NWI and NHD identified the West Branch Canal that transects a portion of the western boundary of the project site. This concrete lined irrigation canal conveys water to nearby farmlands. In California, canal systems may be considered jurisdictional waterways depending on their connectivity with natural water bodies and the impact they may have on the environment. The CDFW requires a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement for activities that would alter the flow, bed, bank or channel of a stream of lake. Due to the lack of riparian habitat and its lack of connectivity to other waterbodies would not likely identify as a CDFW jurisdictional waterway. For definitive clarification, consultation with CDFW would be advisable if impacts to this waterway should occur.

4.5 Nesting Birds
CFGC Section 3503 and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) protect native bird species and their nests. Much of the project site and surrounding lands contain nesting habitat for several avian species protected by federal and state regulations. Implementation of the proposed project may result in direct or indirect effects to nesting bird species, should they be present within the project site and surrounding lands. Although the project site contains lands that have been altered the site still contains opportunities for tree, shrub and ground nesting birds. Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) and common raven (Corvus corax) were all observed during the survey and could potentially nest within the project site or surrounding vicinity.

Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 7 of 28

5.0 Discussion and Recommendations
The project site contains potentially suitable habitat for three special-status wildlife species and several nesting birds. If the project site is subject to environmental review under CEQA and there will be impacts to special status species that are not listed as threatened or endangered under CESA and/or FESA, it may be considered significant and compensatory mitigation and/or specific avoidance and minimization measures may be required before and during construction of the project. The following discussion has been prepared to provide specific avoidance and minimization measures for the resources identified to potentially occur.

5.1 Special-Status Wildlife Species
The project site contains potentially suitable habitat for three special-status wildlife species. A brief description of each species along with a discussion of recommendations to minimize and avoid potential impacts are included.

Western burrowing owl
The western burrowing owl is a CDFW Species of Special Concern and is afforded legal protections under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505 and 3515 as a raptor or bird of prey.

This species is native to open landscapes in western North America and thrive in a variety of wide-open, sparsely vegetated areas such as prairies, deserts, grasslands and agricultural fields.

Burrowing owls typically nest in underground burrows and often utilize burrows abandoned by ground squirrels but can also modify other smaller rodent species burrows or use surrogate structures such as pipes and culverts for refuge. This diurnal species is often observed walking, running, flying low or perched on mounds, bushes and fence posts near their burrow systems.

Burrowing owls are known for their ability to adapt to various environments including those lands that have been altered by human development. This species often resides in fallow lands, vacant lots and localities within sometimes close proximity to human developments.

Discussion: Although the project site does not contain open native habitat for this species and no burrowing owls or their sign (burrows, whitewash, prey remains pellets etc.) were found, they are known to occupy fallow lands such as those found in the project site. In combination with the fallow land, burrowing owls are known to utilize ground squirrel burrows for refuge or for nesting.

The presence of ground squirrel burrows and other smaller rodent burrows provide potential for this species to occur. Although limited, the project site and surrounding vicinity does contain some foraging potential.

If ground disturbing activities will occur, pre-disturbance surveys in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) should be followed to detect presence of this species.

San Joaquin kit fox
The San Joaquin kit fox is afforded legal protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) as endangered and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) as a threatened Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 8 of 28
species. This species is adapted to the unique conditions of the San Joaquin Valley. Kit foxes are typically found in the valley floor and foothills of the San Joaquin Valley, from San Joaquin County to Kern County and in the valleys along the Coast Range, including Panoche and Cuyama valleys and in the Carrizo Plain in San Luis Obispo County. It is often found in dry annual grasslands or open lands containing scattered shrubs or brush. They prefer open areas with loose textured soils suitable for denning and an abundance of rodent species for foraging.

This species has also adapted to urban environments such as green spaces, vacant lots, fallow fields and residential developments. In the urban environment, this species is known to occupy open pipes and covered structures for refuge.

Discussion: Although there was no sign of kit fox (scat, tracks, prey remains, dens, etc.) found during the survey, the project site does provide potential opportunity for denning, primarily in the form of California ground squirrel burrows. Kit foxes are opportunistic feeders and will adjust their diets based on the availability of food source. As such, the location of the project site is not prohibitive in providing some form for foraging sources for kit fox. If ground disturbing activities will occur on the project site, pre-disturbance surveys in accordance with USFWS Standardized Recommendations for the Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011) should be conducted to determine kit fox presence.

Bakersfield Legless Lizard
The Bakersfield legless lizard is listed by the CDFW as a “species of special concern”. This species is adapted to live in specific habitats in the greater Bakersfield area. They often inhabit areas containing loose soil and abundant moisture, which are conducive to their burrowing ecology. Legless lizards are typically found beneath the surface under rocks, boards, and logs with conditions suitable for burrowing. Despite their reclusive nature, they have been discovered in very marginal habitat including vacant lots in Bakersfield and among oil producing areas south of Bakersfield.

Discussion: Leaf litter, logs and loose soils associated with the berm running parallel to the West Branch canal provide potentially suitable conditions for this species. Formal survey protocols for this species have not been published by resource agencies, therefore, it is recommended to consult with CDFW for the most up to date survey protocols prior to any surface disturbance.

Nesting Birds
As addressed above, the project site contains suitable nesting habitat for many avian species protected by the MBTA and CDGC. If project related activities are scheduled to occur during the avian nesting season (typically February 1 to September 15), then typical avoidance and minimization measures to prevent take of bird nests, eggs, or nestlings under CFGC and the MBTA could pose constraints on the project. The following are recommendations and possible constraints due to special-status birds and nesting birds within the project site.

A general pre-construction nesting bird survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist, within 14 days prior to the initiation of project related activities. If project related activity is stopped for more than 14 days during the nesting season, a pre-construction survey should be conducted prior to the re-start of project related activities.

Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 9 of 28

6.0 Conclusion
As noted above, this report is intended to identify sensitive biological resources and potential occurrence of special status species within the evaluation area. This report provides analysis sufficient to support CEQA, though further analysis may be required for compliance with FESA, or CESA, and/or the California Fish and Game Code. The study has determined that the project site and surrounding project site contains opportunity for the western burrowing owl, San Joaquin kit fox, Bakersfield legless lizard and several potential nesting birds. Additional surveys prior to implementation ground disturbance should be conducted as described in Section 5.1.

Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 10 of 28

7.0 References
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2024a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Rarefind 5 (online). Commercial Version. (accessed August 2024). _____. Staff Report of Burrowing Owl Mitigation 2022b
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v9-01 0.0). https://www.rareplants.cnps.org (accessed August 2024).

Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Heritage Program. 156 pgs.

Jepson Flora Project (eds.). 2023. Jepson eFlora, https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 1300 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023a. Information, Planning, and Conservation Online Tool [online]. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (accessed October 2021). ____. 2023b. Designated Critical Habitat Portal [online]. http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/ (accessed December 2023).
____. 2023c. National Wetlands Inventory Online Application. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html (accessed December 2023).

USGS. 2023. National Hydrography Dataset. https://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html (accessed December 2023).

Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 11 of 28
Attachment A. Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC
Figures
Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514
-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 12 of 28
Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514
-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 13 of 28
Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514
-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 14 of 28
Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 15 of 28
Attachment B. Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Exhibits
Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514
-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 16 of 28
Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514
-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 17 of 28
Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 18 of 28
Attachment C. Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC
Special-Status Species Tables
Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 19 of 28
Special-Status Plant Species in the Regional Vicinity (Nine Quad) of the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State
ESA &
CRPR
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur
Plants
Astragalus hornii var. hornii
Hom’s milk-vetch 1B.1
Playas, meadows and seeps. Found in alkaline
substrate among lake margins.

Elevation: 195 – 2790ft
Blooms: May - October
Not Expected: Although CNDDB
records indicate historical observations
of this species in the vicinity, the altered
soil composition and depleted seed
bank caused by historical cultivation
would significantly prohibit the potential
for this species.

Atriplex cordulata var.
cordulata
heartscale
1B.2
Valley and foothill grasslands, chenopod scrub,
meadows and seeps. Found in sandy or
alkaline substrate.

Elevation: 0 – 1835ft
Blooms: April - October
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
species.

Atriplex coronate var.
vallicola
Lost Hills crownscale
1B.2
Valley and foothill grasslands, chenopod scrub,
vernal pools. Found in alkaline substrate.

Elevation: 165 – 2085ft
Blooms: April - September
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
species.

Atriplex tularensis
Bakersfield smallscale
SE
1A
Chenopod scrub.

Elevation: 295 – 655ft
Blooms: June - October
Not Expected: Although CNDDB
records indicate historical observations
of this species in the vicinity, the altered
soil composition and depleted seed
bank caused by historical cultivation
would significantly prohibit the potential
for this species.

Calochortus striatus
alkali mariposa-lily 1B.2
Chaparral, chenopod scrub, Mojavean desert
scrub, meadows and seeps.

Elevation: 230 – 5235ft
Blooms: April - June
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
species.

Caulanthus californicus
California jewel flower
CE/FE
1B.1
Valley and foothill grasslands, pinyon and
juniper woodland, chenopod scrub. Found in
sandy substrate
Elevation: 200 – 3280ft
Blooms: February - May
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
species.

Chloropyron molle ssp.
hispidum
hispid salty bird’s-beak
1B.1
Valley and foothill grasslands, playas,
meadows and seeps. Found in alkaline
substrate.

Elevation: 5 – 510ft
Blooms: June - September
Not Expected: Although CNDDB
records indicate historical observations
of this species in the vicinity, the altered
soil composition and depleted seed
bank caused by historical cultivation
would significantly prohibit the potential
for this species.

Delphinium recurvatum
recurved larkspur 1B.2
Valley and foothill grasslands, cismontane
woodland, chenopod scrub.

Elevation: 10 – 2590ft
Blooms: March - June
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
species.

Diplacus pictus
Calico monkeyflower 1B.2
Cismontane woodland, broadleafed upland
forest.

Found in disturbed areas and granitic
substrate.

Elevation: 330 – 4690ft
Blooms: March - May
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
species.

Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 20 of 28
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State
ESA &
CRPR
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur
Eremalche parryi ssp.
kernensis
Kern mallow
FE
1B.2
Valley and foothill grasslands, pinyon and
juniper woodland, chenopod scrub. Found in
dry, sometimes sandy openings, often at the
ends of balds.

Elevation: 230 – 4230ft
Blooms: January (Feb) March - May
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
species.

Eschscholzia lemmonii ssp.
kernensis
Tejon poppy
1B.1
Valley and foothill grasslands, chenopod scrub.

Elevation: 525 – 3280ft
Blooms: (Feb)March - May
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
species.

Hordeum intercedens
vernal barley 3.2
Valley and foothill grasslands, coastal scrubs
and dunes, vernal pools. Found in depressions
and saline flats.

Elevation: 15 – 3280ft
Blooms: March - June
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
species.

Imperata brevifolia
California satintail 2B.1
Coastal scrub, chaparral, Mojavean desert
scrub, riparian scrub, meadows and seeps
(often alkali) Found in mesic substrate.

Elevation: 0 – 3985ft
Blooms: September - May
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
species.

Lasthenia glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter’s goldfields
1B.1
Vernal pools, playas, marshes and swamps
(coastal salt)
Elevation: 5 – 4005ft
Blooms: February - June
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
species.

Layia leucopappa
Comanche Point layia 1B.1
Valley and foothill grasslands, chenopod scrub.

Elevation: 330 – 1150ft
Blooms: March - April
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
species.

Monolopia congdonii
San Joaquin woollythreads FE
1B.2
Valley and foothill grasslands (sandy),
chenopod scrub.

Elevation: 195 – 2625ft
Blooms: February - May
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
species.

Navarretia setiloba
Piute Mountains navarretia 1B.1
Valley and foothill grasslands (sandy),
chenopod scrub.

Opunita basilaris var.
treleasei
Bakersfield cactus
FE/SE
1B.1
Valley and foothill grasslands, cismontane
woodland, chenopod scrub. Sometimes found
in gravelly and sandy substrates.

Elevation: 330 – 4755ft
Blooms: April - May
Not Expected: Although CNDDB
records indicate historical observations
of this species in the vicinity, the altered
soil composition and depleted seed
bank caused by historical cultivation
would significantly prohibit the potential
for this species.

Puccinellia simplex
California alkali grass
1B.2
Valley and foothill grasslands, vernal pools,
meadows and seeps, chenopod scrub. Found
in vernally mesic, flats, alkaline substrate
among lake margins.

Elevation: 5 – 3050ft
Blooms: March - May
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
species.

Stylocline citroleum
oil neststraw
1B.1
Valley and foothill grasslands, coastal scrub,
chenopod scrub. Found in clay substrate.

Elevation: 165 – 1310ft
Blooms: March - April
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
species.

Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 21 of 28
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State
ESA &
CRPR
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur
Stylocline masonii
Mason's neststraw 1B.1
Pinyon and juniper woodland, chenopod scrub.

Found in sandy substrate.

Elevation: 330 – 3935ft
Blooms: March - May
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
species.

Tortula californica
California screw moss 1B.2
Valley and foothill grasslands, chenopod scrub.

Found in sandy substrate.

Elevation: 35 – 4790ft
Blooms: N/A
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
species.

Vegetation Communities
Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
community to occur.

Great Valley Mesquite scrub
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
community to occur.

Valley Sacaton Grassland
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
community to occur.

Valley Saltbush Scrub
Not Expected: The altered soil
composition and depleted seed bank
caused by historical cultivation would
significantly prohibit the potential for this
community to occur.

Invertebrates
Bombus crotchii
Crotch’s bumble bee SC
Occurs in a variety of habitats including open
grasslands, scrublands, chaparral, desert
margins, including Josua tree and creosote
scrub and semi urban settings. Forages on but
not limited to: Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia,
Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum.

Low Potential: Although CNDDB
records indicated an observation of this
species within the vicinity of the project
site, very minimal foraging potential and
nesting substrate occurs.

Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
FT
Occurs in the Central Valley of California and
depends on its host, the elderberry shrub that
grows in riparian areas and in foothill oak
woodlands.

Not Expected: No CNDDB records of
this species occurs within 5-miles of the
project site and no elderberry shrubs
occur in the project site.

Dnaus Plexippus Plexippus
pop. 1
monarch – California
overwintering population
FC
Winter roost sites occur along coastal
California from Mendocino to Baja California in
wind protected tree groves with nearby water
source.

Not Expected: No CNDDB records of
this species occur within 5-miles of the
project site and no habitat exists on the
project site.

Amphibians
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot FPT/SSC
Breeds in temporary rain ponds and vernal
pools from winter rains. Mainly occurring in
grassland habitat. Sometimes found in
chaparral and oak woodlands
Not Expected: No CNDDB records of
this species occur within 5-miles of the
project site and no breeding sites occur.

Reptiles
Actinemys marmorata
northwestern pond turtle FPT/SSC
Inhabits aquatic marshes, streams, rivers,
ponds and lakes in California. Requires
adequate basking sites containing deep pools
with submerged logs and other debris. Also
relies on sparsely vegetated nearby ground for
digging nest sites.

Not Expected: No CNDDB records of
pond turtle occur within 5-miles of the
project site. No aquatic habitats
containing suitable basking or nesting
opportunity occurs.

Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 22 of 28
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State
ESA &
CRPR
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur
Anniella grinnelli
Bakersfield legless lizard SSC
Occurs from Bakersfield through the southern
San Joaquin Valley. Often found in sandy soils
burrowing through channels beneath cover
boards or areas with plenty of leaf litter and
debris. Typically found in moist substrates.

Moderate Potential: CNDDB records
indicate occurrences of this species
within 5-miles of the project site. Very
limited and marginal habitat occurs
adjacent to the concrete lined canal
transecting the western boundary. Leaf
litter and organic material from the trees
and shrubs in this area may also
provide suitable habitat.

Arizona elegans occidentalis
California glossy snake SSC
Found throughout southern California
particularly in desert regions. This nocturnal
species prefers open areas containing soft
loamy soils for burrowing.

Low Potential: Although CNDDB
records occur within 5-miles of the
project site. The hard compacted soils
and lack of burrowing opportunity would
likely deter this species presence on the
project site.

Gambelia silia
blunt-nosed leopard lizard FE/SE/SFP
Habitat for this species has been reduced
parcels of undeveloped grassland and
scrublands. This species occurs in open areas
containing patchy or sparse vegetation with low
drought tolerant shrubs.

Low Potential: Although one historical
record of this species occurs in the
vicinity of the project site, this species is
typically found in open intact habitat.

The previous disturbances on this
project site would be a significant
limiting factor.

Masticophis flagellum
ruddocki
San Joaquin coachwhip
SSC
Inhabits various regions throughout the San
Joaquin Valley. This species prefers open
terrain such as sand dunes, prairielands, desert
scrub, rocky hillsides and open pine and oak
woodlands. They are most abundant
grasslands and desert scrub.

Low Potential: No CNDDB records of
this species occurs in the project site
and the previous disturbances on the
project site and developed land
surrounding the project site would likely
act as a deterrent to this species.

Phrynosoma blainvill
coast horned lizard
SSC
Occurs in Chaparral, Coastal Sage scrub,
Desert scrub and have been known to occur in
mixed oak and grey pine forests that contain
friable sandy loam soils. Sometimes occur in
gravelly areas on moderate to low slopes.

Not Expected: No CNDDB record
occur within 5-miles of the project site
and the previous disturbances and lack
of suitable burrows significantly reduce
the potential for occurrence.

Birds
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird ST/SSC
Occurs only in very specific habitat ranges.

This species is known to breed in freshwater
marshes, particularly in dense stands of cattails
and bulrushes. Outside of the breeding season,
they forage in open habitats such as farm fields
and pastures.

Not Expected: Although CNDDB
records of this species occurs within 5-
miles, breeding habitat for this species
does not occur in the project site and
the site provides very little opportunity
for foraging. This species is not
expected to occur.

Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl SSC
Typically found in wide open sparsely
vegetated areas like prairies, deserts,
grasslands and agricultural fields. Due to
urbanization, they are sometimes found in
vacant lots. These owls reside in burrows
created by grounds squirrels and other rodent
species.

Moderate Potential: Several CNDDB
records of burrowing owl occur within
the vicinity of the project site. Although
their foraging potential would be limited
with the lack of suitable prey base in the
form of small fossorial rodents, this
species could potentially occupy ground
squirrel burrows on within this vacant
land.

Buteo swainsoni
Swainson’s hawk ST
Favor open habitats for foraging such as hay
and alfalfa fields, pastures, grain crops and row
crops for foraging. Often found nesting in large
tress or structures near agricultural fields.

Not Expected: Although CNDDB
records indicate records of this species
in the vicinity, nesting habitat is not
present.

Charadius nivosus nivosus
western snowy plover FT/SSC Found in sandy beaches, salt pond levees and shores of large alkali lakes.

Not Expected: No CNDDB records of
this species occur within 5-miles of the
project site and suitable habitat does
not exist on the project site.

Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 23 of 28
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State
ESA &
CRPR
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
western yellow-billed cuckoo
FT/SE
Requires specific habitats within riparian
habitat along streams and rivers. Requires
densely vegetated areas for breeding that
contain willows, often mixed with cottonwoods,
with lower story of blackberry, nettles, or wild
grape.

Not Expected: No CNDDB records
occur within 5-miles of the project site
and habitat for this species does not
occur.

Dendrocygna bicolor
fulvous whistling-duck SSC
Found in shallow freshwater marshes in flat
open land. Also occurs in rice fields,
agricultural fields, ponds and lakes.

Not Expected: No CNDDB records of
this species occur within 5-miles of the
project site and no habitat for this
species occurs.

Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite SFP
Often seen in open fields hovering in search of
small rodents. They occur in open groves, river
valleys, marshes, grasslands and desert
grasslands. Requires trees for perching and
nesting.

Not Expected: No CNDDB records of
this species occur within 5-miles of the
project site. Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur.

Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark
WL
Occurs in open grasslands with low vegetation,
close-cropped pastures and plowed fields.

Prefers plenty of open ground for foraging and
nesting.

Not Expected: No CNDDB records of
this species occur within 5-miles of the
project site. Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur.

Plegadis chihi
white-faced ibis
WL
Shallow freshwater marshes and wetlands.

Occupies dense tule thickets for nesting,
interspersed with areas of shallow water for
foraging.

Not Expected: No CNDDB records of
this species occur within 5-miles of the
project site. Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur.

Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
Yellow-headed blackbird
SSC
Nests in freshwater emergent wetlands with
dense vegetation and deep water. Often along
borders of lakes or ponds.

Not Expected: No CNDDB records of
this species occur within 5-miles of the
project site. Suitable habitat for this
species does not occur.

Mammals
Ammospermophilus nelson
Nelson’s (=San Joaquin)
antelope squirrel
ST
Occurs in arid upland desert scrub
communities or open grassland and scrub
areas that contain sparse vegetation for both
food and shelter. Often shares lands containing
kangaroo rat species.

Not Expected: No CNDDB records of
this species occurs within 5-miles. The
previously disturbed nature of the
project site and its surrounding land are
significant factors towards lack of
habitat suitability.

Dipodomys ingens
giant kangaroo rat
CE/FE
Annual grasslands on the western side of the
San Joaquin Valley, marginal habitat in alkali
scrub. Need level terrain and sandy loam soils
for burrowing.

Not Expected: No CNDDB records of
this species occur within 5-miles of the
project site. Habitat for this species
does not occur on the project site.

Dipodomys nitratoides
brevinasus
short-nosed kangaroo rat
SSC
Western side of San Joaquin Valley in
grassland and desert shrub associations,
especially Atriplex sp. Occurs in highly alkaline
soils around Soda Lake. Needs friable soils.

Favors flat to gently sloping terrain.

Not Expected: No CNDDB records of
this species occur within 5-miles of the
project site. Habitat for this species
does not occur on the project site.

Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides
Tipton kangaroo rat
CE/FE
Saltbush scrub and sink scrub communities in
the Tulare Lake Basin of the southern San
Joaquin Valley. Needs soft friable soils which
escape seasonal flooding. Digs burrows in
elevated soil mounds at bases of shrubs.

Not Expected: No CNDDB records of
this species occur within 5-miles of the
project site. Habitat for this species
does not occur on the project site.

Eumops perotis californicus
weestern mastiff bat
SSC
Occurs in open, semi-arid to arid habitats,
including conifer and deciduous woodlands,
coastal scrub, grasslands, chaparral, etc.

Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, Valley & foothill grassland.

Not Expected: No CNDDB records of
this species occur within 5-miles of the
project site. Habitat for this species
does not occur on the project site.

Onychomys torridus
tularensis
Tulare grasshopper mouse SSC
Hot, arid valleys and scrub deserts in the
southern San Joaquin Valley. Found in
chenopod scrub.

Not Expected: No CNDDB records of
this species occur within 5-miles of the
project site. Habitat for this species
does not occur on the project site.

Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 24 of 28
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State
ESA &
CRPR
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur
Sorex ornatus relictus
Buena Vista Lake ornate
shrew
SE/SSC
Marshlands and riparian scrub areas in the
Tulare Basin. Prefers moist soil. Uses stumps,
logs and litter for cover.

Not Expected: No CNDDB records of
this species occur within 5-miles of the
project site. Habitat for this species
does not occur on the project site.

Taxidea taxus
American badger SSC
Most abundant in drier open stages of most
shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils. Found in Valley & foothill
grassland.

Low Potential: Although CNDDB
records of this species occur within 5-
miles of the project site, the habitat on
the project site would be considered
marginal and lacking a suitable prey
base.

Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox CT/FE
Annual grasslands or grassy open stages with
scattered shrubby vegetation. Found in
chenopod scrub, Valley & foothill grassland.

Commonly found within urban settings utilizing
man-made structures such as open pipes and
under buildings and infrastructure of
abandoned or vacant lots.

Moderate Potential: CNDDB records of
this species occur within 5-miles of the
project site. Although no potential kit fox
dens or sign of presence was found, the
project site provides opportunity for
denning. Populations of this species are
known to thrive in in urban areas in
close proximity to human development.

Special Status Species Acronyms/Abbreviations
FE: Federally Endangered FT: Federally Threatened FC: Federal Candidate FPT: Federally Proposed Threatened SE: State Endangered ST: State Threatened SC: State Candidate SS: State Sensitive SFP: State Fully Protected SSC: CDFW Species of Special Concern SFP: State Fully Protected WL: Watchlist SR: State Rare
CNPR (CNPS California Rare Plant Rank):
1A = Plants presumed extirpated in California and rare or extinct elsewhere 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2A = Plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere 2B = Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere CRPR Threat Code Extension
.1 = Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 = Fairly endangered in California (20%-80% occurrences threatened) .3 = Not very endangered in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened) Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 25 of 28
Attachment D. Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC
Species Observations
Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 26 of 28
Plant Species Observations
Nerium oleander oleander
Vulpia myuros rattail fescue
Avena barbata slender wild oat
Malva parviflora cheeseweed
Salsola tragus Russian thistle
Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed
Brassica nigra black mustard
Amsinckia sp. fiddleneck
Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass
Eucalyptus sp. eucalyptus
Sisymbrium irio London rocket
Wildlife Species Observations
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk
Zenaida macroura mourning dove
Haemorhous mexicanus house finch
Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark
Corvus corax common raven
Columba livia rock pigeon
Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel
Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 27 of 28
Attachment E. Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC
Site Photographs
Taft Hwy. & Michele St. GPA/ZC (APN 514
-060-27)
Biological Resources Study Page 28 of 28
March 26, 2025
Julie Drimakis, CMC, CPMC, City Clerk
City of Bakersfield
1600 Truxtun Avenue, 1st Floor
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]
Jennie Eng, Planning Director
Development Services Department
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of March 20, 2025 Planning Commission Decision Approving Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment/ Zone Change No. 24-0372
Dear Ms. Drimakis and Ms. Eng:

This letter is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-0372 which proposes to change the zoning designation for 2.6 acres from land from General Commercial (GC) and Suburban Residential (SR) to General Commercial and Regional Commercial (C-2) and Agricultural (A) to Regional Commercial (C-2). Through this letter, SAFER appeals the City of Bakersfield’s (“City”) March 20, 2025 decision to adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment/ Zone Change No. 24-0372 and the associated IS/MND.

Members of appellant Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) live and/or work in the vicinity of the proposed Project. They breathe the air and will suffer other environmental impacts of the Project unless it is properly mitigated.

For the specific reasons set forth in the attached comment letter dated January 28, 2025, the Planning Commission’s March 20, 2025, decisions related to the Project should not be upheld.

Sincerely,
Richard Drury
Lozeau Drury LLP
Via Email
January 28, 2025
Yazid Alawgarey, Assistant Planner
City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment/ Zone Change No. 24-0372
Dear Mr. Alawgarey:

This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-0372 which proposes to change the zoning designation for 2.6 acres from land from General Commercial (GC) and Suburban Residential (SR) to General Commercial and Regional Commercial (C2) and Agricultural (A) to Regional Commercial (C-2). There is no project associated with the zone change.

As discussed below, there is a fair argument that the Project may result in significant air quality impacts and wildlife impacts. Therefore, SAFER respectfully requests that the City prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) before approving the Project to analyze and mitigate these impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

SAFER’s review of the MND was assisted by expert Dr. James Clark, an air quality expert from Clark & Associates, and wildlife ecologist, Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. Their comments are attached hereto as Exhibits A, and B (respectively) and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would amend the zoning for 2.63-acre site near Pumpkin Center which consists of two sections with mixed zoning. One section is currently zoned General Commercial (GC), and Agriculture (A) and the proposal amends the zoning to General Commercial (GC) only. The other section is zoned Commercial Regional (C-2) and [email protected]
January 28, 2025
Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-0372

Page 2 of 10 ends

Suburban Residential (SR) and the proposal is to change the zoning to C-2 only. There is no project identified requiring this zone change. However, the zoning designations allow for a variety of land uses that would cause pollution and environmental impacts at the site.

Under the Bakersfield Municipal Code, there is no General Commercial (GC) zoning designation or Suburban Residential (SR) zoning. Municipal Code 17.06.050. There is a Residential Suburban (R-S) designation. Bakersfield Municipal Code 17.10.010(c)(1). There are also a few different Commercial zones- CO, Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), and Regional Commercial (C-2). Uses under these zoning designations vary from banks and clinics to bakeries and florists, to auto repair, crematoriums, and warehouses. Under the Municipal Codes many of these uses are allowed by right whereas others may require a Conditional Use Permit. The project site is at the City/County boundary. As Dr. Clark notes in his comments, the County’s General Commercial Zoning designates GC zoning as C-2.

Under Kern County Zoning Ordinance 19.32.020 uses for C-2 zoned parcels include residential uses; recreational, entertainment, and tourist facilities; commercial uses (including auto service stations and warehouses); utility and communication facilities; and institutional uses (schools).

The City needs to correctly label the zoning designations at issue in this application for a General Plan Amendment. Between the City and County zoning designations that may be involved in the area the lack of clear labeling can cause confusion. The City must also disclose the types of uses that will be allowed if the General Plan Amendment is approved.

Courts have made clear that each stage of environmental review requires an accurate project description to comply with CEQA’s requirements to provide information and disclosures.

Tulare Lake Canal Co. v. Stratford Public Utility Dist. (2023) 92 Cal. App. 5th 380, 401. The City must clarify the uses that will be allowed pursuant to this zone change and disclose the extent of further environmental review that will be required in the future.

Even without a specifically identified project attached to the General Plan amendment, there are numerous environmental impacts associated with moving from a low density residential and agricultural zoning designations to commercial zoning which allow a variety of neighborhood and regional retail stores, department stores, warehouses, and residential care facilities. Such uses bring increased air pollution and impacts to wildlife without additional environmental review. The City has not provided sufficient information or mitigation and cannot conclude that there will not be a significant impact even with the mitigation included in the Negative Declaration. Rather, the City must prepare an Environmental Impact Report to analyze the significant adverse impacts that may result from the project.

LEGAL STANDARD
As the California Supreme Court held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of January 28, 2025
Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-0372

Page 3 of 10 ends

an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-20.) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code [“PRC”] § 21068; see also 14 California Code of Regulations [“CCR”] § 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v.

Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109.)
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” (Bakersfield Citizens, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.)
An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) An MND instead of an EIR is proper only if project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and . . . there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331 [quoting PRC §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2)].) In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. (PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc.

Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-05.) An EIR must be prepared rather than an MND “whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact.” (No Oil, Inc. v City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) Under this “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) January 28, 2025
Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-0372

Page 4 of 10 ends

29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602.) The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:

This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. The lead agency’s decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument. (Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, § 6.29, pp. 273-74.) The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.)

DISCUSSION
A. There is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Air Quality Impacts.

The San Joaquin Valley has some of the worst air in the nation. The region is out of attainment at the state and federal level. Between 2020 and 2022, the City of Bakersfield has the worst air pollution in the nation for fine particulate matter, PM2.5.1 Industrial areas, heavy traffic transportation centers, and agricultural areas are significant emitters of PM2.5.

The City of Bakersfield is third worst in the nation for ozone.2 Sources of ozone precursors include transportation, industrial facilities, some manufacturing, and some residential sources such as gas-powered lawn equipment. While there is no specific project identified at this time, several of the allowed by right land uses will emit PM2.5 and contribute to ozone levels in the City. Increasing the number of sources of ozone precursors and PM2.5 within the 1 Donegan, J. Bakersfield, Kern County tops worst for air pollution in the Nation, Bakersfield Californian (April 27, 2024) at https://www.bakersfield.com/news/bakersfield-kern-county-top-list-for-worst-air-pollution-in-thenation/article_f2d855a2-041f-11ef-84b8-0fde88198831.html. 2 Donegan, J. Bakersfield, Kern County tops worst for air pollution in the Nation, Bakersfield Californian (April 27, 2024) at https://www.bakersfield.com/news/bakersfield-kern-county-top-list-for-worst-air-pollution-in-thenation/article_f2d855a2-041f-11ef-84b8-0fde88198831.html.

January 28, 2025
Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-0372

Page 5 of 10 ends

community from the construction of the Project will exacerbate pollution levels and place a greater health burden on the community.

1. There is a fair argument that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have a Cumulatively Significant Air Quality Impact.

In the Initial Study, the City marked “No Impact” on whether the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project’s area is in non-attainment. The City reached this conclusion because there is not a specific project associated with this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. However, there is no question that the zone change and general plan amendment are intended to facilitate development of the Project site.

Dr. Clark’s Comments note that The Project Site is in the top 5% of communities in the State of California impacted by PM2.5 according to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s cumulative impact tool CalEnviroScreen 4.0. (Exhibit A, pp 3-4.) In addition, the Project Site is in the top 1% of communities in the State of California impacted by ozone.

The City did not analyze environmental impacts of changing the zoning from Suburban Residential and Agricultural to General Commercial and Regional Commercial. As discussed above, the zoning designations identified in the Project description are not the same identifiers used in the Municipal Code and should be corrected to disclose the likely future uses of the site.

Under the Municipal Code, the land uses allowed for residential suburban promote single unit dwellings on larger parcel sizes. This type of land use has significantly different impacts than the range of commercial uses allowed in the Municipal Code such as department stores, warehouses, and regional shopping centers. There are likely increased construction emissions, increased emissions from toxic air contaminants from vehicles to the site, and impacts from Valley Fever.
“The agency [will] not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data.... CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on government rather than the public. If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on the limited facts in the record. Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.” (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311, 248 Cal.Rptr. 352; see also Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 197, 228 Cal.Rptr. 868 [fact that initial study checklist was incomplete and marked every impact “no” supported fair argument that project would have significant environmental effects]; Gentry v. City of Murrieta, 36 Cal. App. 4th 1359, 1378–79, 43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 170, 185 (1995), as modified on denial of reh'g (Aug. 17, 1995).) January 28, 2025
Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-0372

Page 6 of 10 ends

In addition, the City cannot rely on compliance with existing regulation to satisfy the requirement to address cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts may result from a single project or a number of separate projects. 14 California Code of Reg. § 15335(a). The cumulative impact from several projects may result from the “incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” 14 California Code of Reg. § 15335(b). The City’s failure to disclose, analyze, and mitigate several foreseeable impacts from the project requires the City prepare an Environmental Impact Report from the proposed General Plan Amendment.

2. The IS/MND does not disclose, analyze, or mitigate potential impacts from Valley Fever.

Dr. Clark concludes the IS/MND is in sufficient because it does not discuss the Impacts Valley Fever. Dr. Clark’s comments constitute substantial evidence that there is a fair argument that the Project may have significant environmental impacts related to Valley Fever. Kern County is known to contain the fungal spores that cause Valley Fever. Soil disturbing activities such as construction and agricultural cause the spores to disperse. (Exhibit A, p. 5). Dr. Clark describes several known, evidence-based mitigation measures that would reduce the chance of exposure if incorporated. (Exhibit A, pp. 6-9). However, the City does not include any discussion of or mitigation for Valley Fever in the IS/MND. As such the City cannot concluded that impacts will be less than significant.

3. The IS/MND does not disclose, analyze, or mitigate potential emissions from Toxic Air Contaminants.

Dr. Clark’s comments explain that to determine if a project exceeds the threshold of significance for emissions from construction and operation of a project, the City must undertake a quantitative health analysis. (Exhibit A, p. 9). The City did not do this. Dr.

Clark identified several TACs from diesel emissions and other vehicle tailpipe emissions that would be associated with several of the uses allowed by the new zoning designations. (Exhibit A, pp. 9-11. The City did not discuss, analyze, or mitigate TACs from the proposed new land use designations.

Dr. Clark modeled the impacts of a potential 75,000 square feet warehouse that could be built on the site using CAPCOA’s CalEEMod. Dr. Clark found that daily PM2.5 emissions would increase by 3.02 lbs per day during the construction phase and 0.26 lbs per day during the operational phase of the Project. For a Project located in the top 1% of all census tracks in California for exposure to PM2.5. Dr. Clark concluded this represents a substantial increase in the exposure of residents to the pollutant. The City’s determination that project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation is not supported. (Exhibit A, p. 11).

Dr. Clark’s comments constitute substantial evidence establishing a fair argument that January 28, 2025
Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-0372

Page 7 of 10 ends

the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, an EIR should be prepared to analyze the impacts identified by Dr. Clark and to implement the feasible mitigation measures proposed by Dr. Clark.

B. There is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have a Significant Impact on Biological Resources.

The IS/MND concludes that the Project will not impact biological resources or that mitigation measures will reduce impacts to less than significant. The City relies on a biological survey prepared by MESA Biological LLC. On behalf of SAFER, Dr. Shawn Smallwood reviewed the IS/MND, MESA’s Biological report, as well as had his associate Noriko Smallwood conduct a site survey, conducted a literature and database review, and conducted modeling related to known and potential species at the site. As a result, Dr.

Smallwood found that “the project site is indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.” (Exhibit B, p. 12). Dr. Smallwood’s comments constitute substantial evidence that there is a fair argument that the Project may have significant biological impacts.

1. There are several special status species present on the Project site.

Noriko Smallwood conducted a three-hour reconnaissance survey on January 14, 2025. Noriko detected 27 species of vertebrate wildlife at or near the project site, including six species with special status (one in five are special status species). (Exhibit B, p. 1-7).

Based on non-linear regression modeling from experience surveying a north Bakersfield site over time, Dr. Smallwood concluded that repeated surveys of the site throughout the year would show 122 vertebrate wildlife at the site. If the same one in five ratio applied, surveys would eventually detect 27 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife. (Exhibit B, pp. 7-11).

Dr. Smallwood, thus, concludes development project on the site, such as a warehouse project, would adversely affect special-status species of wildlife and the whole of the local wildlife community. (Exhibit B, p. 12). Therefore, an Environmental Impact Report is required for the Project.

2. The City does not have substantial evidence to support its conclusions that impacts to biological resources are less than significant.

The City relies on the biological survey prepared by MESA. However, Dr.

Smallwood identified several deficiencies in the survey. These include MESA’s failure to disclose the duration of the site survey, the focus on surveying for potential for plant and wildlife species rather than for the species themselves, not performing protocol-level detection surveys for special-status species, most notably not for San Joaquin kit fox and burrowing owl. Mesa’s surveys also failed to meet the standards of CDFW’s (2018) guidelines for rare plant survey. The City also does not account for the burrowing owls updated status. (Exhibit B, p. 12-14).

January 28, 2025
Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-0372

Page 8 of 10 ends

Dr. Smallwood also notes that the Mesa literature and database review is insufficient and underestimates the likely presence of species. (Exhibit B, pp. 15-19). Dr. Smallwood concludes that “[o]n the whole, Mesa’s (2024) analyses of occurrence likelihoods are too inaccurate to serve as a baseline for accurately characterizing the wildlife community or for performing impacts analysis.” (Exhibit B, p. 15.) Therefore, the City does not substantial evidence to justify its conclusions regarding the impacts to biological resources in the IS/MND.

3. There are several unstudied impacts from the project on biological resources.

Dr. Smallwood identified several potential impacts from the project on biological resources that are not included in the IS/MND or MESA’s analysis. (Exhibit B, pp. 20-23).

The IS/MND states that “The project is subject to the terms of Section 10(a)(1)(b) and Section 2081 permits issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(“USFWS”) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”), respectively. IS/MND p. 15.

However, Dr. Smallwood notes that the IS/MND does not disclose the HCP or NCCP for which an incidental take permit currently exists. (Exhibit B, p. 20.) In addition, the IS/MND does not discuss habitat fragmentation which is likely from the project. Based on the results of the site survey and modeling analysis, Dr. Smallwood estimates that developing the project site would result in “[t]he loss of 11.7 nest sites and

16.3 nest attempts per year would qualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed in the IS/MND.” (Exhibit B, p. 21.) Dr. Smallwood concludes that this would negatively impact the reproductive capacity of the site resulting in the loss of 52 birds – most of which are protected by the are protected by Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act. (Exhibit B, p. 21.)
Moreover, the City relies on MESA’s study to support its contention that the Project would not interfere with wildlife movement. (IS/MND p. 15). However, Dr. Smallwood notes that MESA did not reach that conclusion. He also states that MESA’s analysis would not lead to such a conclusion. Based on his experience with wildlife movement studies, Dr.

Smallwood concludes “At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project’s potential impacts to volant wildlife and how those impacts to movement can be mitigated.” (Exhibit B, p. 21.) Finally, Dr. Smallwood identified impacts from increased traffic on wildlife mortality and injury as a likely impact from the project that the City did not address. (Exhibit B, 22-24.) Dr. Smallwood provides a methodology for estimating impacts from traffic utilizing estimated VMT for the uses likely to be developed at the project site. Based on this methodology and assuming a warehouse built on the site, Dr. Smallwood estimates 432 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to project-generated traffic. (Exhibit B, p. 24.) Dr. Smallwood concludes this is a significant impact that is neither analyzed nor mitigated by the IS/MND and that there is a fair argument may be a significant the impact from wildlife-automobile collisions resulting from project-generated traffic. (Exhibit B, p. 24.) January 28, 2025
Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-0372

Page 9 of 10 ends

Therefore, the City must undertake an EIR to examine the biological impacts of the proposed project.

4. The IS/MND improperly concludes that there are no cumulative impacts to biological resources.

The IS/MND finds that there will be no significant cumulative impacts from past, present, or future projects because such projects will have to undertake their own environmental review and comply with mitigation requirements. (IS/MND p. 32.) However, based on Dr. Smallwood’s experience, promises of future mitigation is insufficient to prevent cumulative impacts. (Exhibit B, p. 24-25.) Dr. Smallwood has analyzed impacts on biological resources before and after project development even with mitigation implemented.

He concluded that cumulative habitat loss remains significant. (Exhibit B, p. 25.) Therefore, there is a fair argument that there may be cumulative impacts to biological resources which the City must analyze in an EIR.

5. The IS/MND mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce impacts to less than significant.

Dr. Smallwood noted that the IS/MND requires only one mitigation measure for biological resources, which is a preconstruction survey for special-status species of wildlife. (Exhibit B, p. 25.) A protocol-level detection surveys is appropriate for the type of screen and detection survey done prior to project approval. A preconstruction survey is a different type of survey, and these surveys are not interchangeable. (Exhibit B, p. 25.) The preconstruction survey would also not address the permanent loss of habitat from development on the site. (Exhibit B, p. 25.)
Dr. Smallwood identified several additional mitigation measures that should be included in the Project. (Exhibit B, p. 26.) The City does not have substantial evidence that the proposed Mitigation Measure is sufficient to reduce biological resource impacts to less than significant. Rather there is a fair argument that the Project will have a significant impact on the environment. The City must prepare an Environmental Impact Report that contains a complete analysis of the impacts to biological resources and sufficient mitigation measures to reduce those impacts.

CONCLUSION
As discussed above, there is a fair argument that the Project may have significant adverse impacts on air quality. An EIR is thus required to analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant effects. Therefore, SAFER respectfully requests that the City not rely on the MND and instead prepare and circulate an EIR before further consideration of the Project. SAFER reserves the right to supplement this comment throughout the administrative process. Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App.

January 28, 2025
Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-0372

Page 10 of 10 ends

4th 1109, 1121 (1997).

Sincerely,
Richard Drury
Lozeau Drury LLP

EXHIBIT A
1 | P a g e
January 25, 2025
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Attn: Ms. Caroline Farrell
Subject: Comment Letter on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) For General Plan
Amendment/Zone Change Number 24-0372, Bakersfield,
CA.

Dear Ms. Farrell:

At the request of Lozeau Drury LLP (Lozeau Drury), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed materials related to the above referenced project.

Clark’s review of the materials in no way constitutes a validation of the conclusions or materials contained within the City of Bakersfield (the City) Negative Declaration dated December 30, 2024. If we do not comment on a specific item, this does not constitute acceptance of the item.

Project Description:

The City has received an application from the applicant to the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration to bring Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 514-060-27 into commercial consistency on
approximately 2.63 acres, located at northwest corner of Taft Highway and Michele Street (Ward 7). The IS/MND notes that the proposed project site is currently undeveloped vacant land. The areas to the south and east of the site mainly consist of commercial properties, while the parcel to the north is vacant undeveloped land. To the west is one single family residence (approximately 18 meters from the edge of the parcel).

Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc.

OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd
Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]

2 | P a g e
The adjacent parcels to the north and west of the project site are located within Kern County jurisdiction. The western portion of the parcel is currently designated for agricultural (A) uses. The northern portion of the parcel is designated for suburban residential uses (with less than 4 dwellings per acre or SR). The proponent is seeking to change the designation for the western portion to Regional Commercial uses (C-2) and the northern portion to General Commercial (GC) uses.

Figure 1: General Plan Amendments/Zone Change 24-0372
The IS/MND asserts the project at this time is for plan consistency bringing the general plan land use designation and zoning to be consistent with adjacent parcels as there are no current plans to develop the project site. All future development will be analyzed for municipal and CEQA compliance, at that time. Given the need to accurately describe a project at the time of the preparation

3 | P a g e
of a CEQA document it is clear that the City has failed to include any reasonable analysis of the likely projects to be developed on the parcel.

Under Kern County Zoning Ordinance 19.32.020 uses for C-2 zoned parcels include residential uses; recreational, entertainment, and tourists facilities; commercial uses (including auto service stations and warehouses); utility and communication facilities; and institutional uses (schools).

Therefore, it is reasonable and foreseeable to analyze potential projects onsite that may include the development of warehousing onsite as well as the development of a service station. Despite not knowing the type of project to be developed the City has determined that the Project would have less than significant air quality impacts with mitigation and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Without an analysis the specific Project envisioned for the Project Site the City clearly lacks the foundation to determine the impacts.

Specific Comments

1. The Project Site Is Located In The Top 5% Of Zipcodes In California For Exposure To Ozone And PM2.5, Adding Additional Sources Of Ozone Precursors and PM2.5 Would Adversely Impact The Community
The Project Site is located in census tract 6029003206 (zipcode 93313). Using the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA’s) California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool Version·4.0 (CalEnviroScreen) it is possible to assess the existing concerns for the census tract in which the Project is located. The Project Site is identified as an SB 535 Disadvantaged Community due to the high exposure of the community to criteria air pollutants.

4 | P a g e

Based on the CalEnviroScreen summary of zipcode 93313, it is clear that the area is in the top 25% of all communities in the State of California impacted by pollution. The Project Site is in the top 5% of communities in the State of California impacted by particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), a criteria pollutant regulated for by U.S EPA and the State of California. In addition, the Project Site is in the top 1% of communities in the State of California impacted by ozone. Increasing the number of sources of ozone precursors and PM2.5 within the community via the construction of the Project will exacerbate pollution levels and place a greater health burden on the community.

2. The IS/MND Fails To Address The Necessary Mitigation Measures To Reduce Valley Fever Risks From Particulate Matter Released During Project Construction.

5 | P a g e
The IS/MND fails to adequately address the known presence and significant risk of Coccidiodes Immitis (Valley Fever fungus) in Central California. Under California Labor Code Section 6709[e], Kern County is an area known to have a high endemic rate of Valley Fever.

According to the Kern County Public Health’s (KCPH) Valley Fever Website1, the number of Valley Fever illnesses in Kern County ranged from 1,179 in 2001 (a rate of 133.81 per 100,000 population) to 3,153 in 2023 (a rate of 346.44 in 100,000). Based on the provisional reports from the CDPH for 2024, a new maximum of 4,145 cases has been reached in the first 11-months of the reporting year.

Since Valley Fever cases are directly related to the disturbance of soils in the area, the City must directly address the impacts that the Project’s construction phase will have on the community.

Dust exposure is a primary risk factor for contracting Valley Fever (via Coccidiodes imimitis (cocci) exposure). When soil containing the cocci spores are disturbed by construction activities, the fungal spores become airborne, exposing construction workers and other nearby sensitive receptors. It is clear that the IS/MND assumes that meeting San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJV-APCD’s) rules regard construction (specifically Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities)) would be sufficient to control the impacts from Valley Fever exposure from the Project Site. District Rule 8021 requires limitation of fugitive dust emissions from construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities, by implementing control measures such as pre-watering the Project site, phasing construction work to reduce the amount of disturbed surface at any one time, and applying water or other suppressants to unpaved haul/access roads and unpaved vehicle/equipment traffic areas. Rule 8021 relies on a visual-opacity reading for dust control and is insufficient to prevent exposure to Valley Fever spores. This rule is based on smoke-monitoring methods (U.S. EPA Methods 9 and 22) that require active monitoring by certified observers, rely on subjective observation, and are affected by variable such as lighting, distance, and weather conditions. Due to these limitations, opacity readings do not provide accurate, continuous data on fine airborne particles. 1 KCPH. 2025. Valley Fever. https://www.kernpublichealth.com/healthy-community/illness-disease/valley-fever

6 | P a g e
The most at-risk populations are construction and agricultural workers.2 Here, construction workers are the very population that would be most directly exposed by the Project. A refereed journal article on occupational exposures notes that “[l]abor groups where occupation involves close contact with the soil are at greater risk, especially if the work involves dusty digging operations.”3 The potentially exposed population in surrounding areas is much larger than construction workers because the nonselective raising of dust during Project construction will carry the very small spores, 0.002–0.005 millimeters (“mm”), into nonendemic areas, potentially exposing large nonProject-related populations.4 ,
5 These very small particles are not controlled by conventional construction dust control mitigation measures.

To address these shortcomings, the City should require active monitoring with dust monitors (particle measuring devices) immediately outside of the facility and around its perimeter. Continuous particle measures would offer several advantages. It eliminates the subjectivity inherent in visual opacity readings, leading to more reliable and consistent data. It allows for real-time tracking of dust particle levels, enabling prompt corrective actions if thresholds are exceeded. And it offers robust data sets that can be used for repeatability test and to validate compliance with air quality standards.

Incorporating active dust monitoring systems would ensure that air quality impacts are accurately assessed and mitigated, fulfilling the intent of the mitigation measures and conditions of compliance to protect public health and the environment.

Based on the conventional mitigation measures and modeling of dust movement in the CalEEMOD models watering exposed areas twice a day would reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions by 61 percent (61%). Increasing the watering frequency to 3 times per day would reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions by 74%. Conventional dust control measures primarily focus on visible dust or larger dust particles—the PM10 fraction—and fail to address the very fine particles that transport 2 Lawrence L. Schmelzer and R. Tabershaw, Exposure Factors in Occupational Coccidioidomycosis, American Journal of Public Health and the Nation’s Health, v. 58, no. 1, 1968, pp. 107–113, Table 3; available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1228046/?page=1. 3 Ibid., p. 110.
4 Schmelzer and Tabershaw, 1968, p. 110; Pappagianis and Einstein, 1978 5 Pappagianis and Einstein, 1978, p. 527 (“The northern areas were not directly affected by the ground level windstorm that had struck Kern County but the dust was lifted to several thousand feet elevation and, borne on high currents, the soil and arthrospores along with some moisture were gently deposited on sidewalks and automobiles as ‘a mud storm’ that vexed the residents of much of California.” The storm originating in Kern County, for example, had major impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento).

7 | P a g e
Valley Fever spores, which are approximately 5 times smaller than typical PM10 particles and remain airborne much longer.6 These fine particles, when disturbed by soil-disturbing activities, spread widely beyond site, posing a significant risk to both onsite workers and nearby communities.

Additionally, sampling for and removal of impacted soils prior to the initiation of construction activities is the best solution to Coccidiodes immitis spores. Since Coccidiodes immitis resides in soils and are not subject to degradation, entrainment of the potentially impacted soils may cause additional issues to further development of the site.

The City may be assuming that California Labor Code Section 6709[e], which requires awareness training on Valley Fever, coupled with SJV-APCD’s Rule 8021 would be sufficient to protect construction workers. The education component of Section 6709[e] would not protective enough to ensure worker safety. The City should require that the Proponent implement mitigation measures to actively suppress the spread of Valley Fever by:

1. Include specific requirements in the Project’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program (as required by Title 8, Section 3203) regarding safeguards to prevent Valley Fever.

2. Control dust exposure:
- Apply water to all disturbed areas a minimum of three times per day. Watering frequency should be increased to a minimum of four times per day if there is any evidence of visible wind-driven fugitive dust;
- Provide and require the use of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved respirators for workers with a prior history of Valley Fever.
- Require the use of half-face respirators equipped with a minimum N-95 protection factor for use during worker collocation with surface disturbance activities. Halfface respirators equipped with N-100 or P-100 filters should be used during digging activities. Employees should wear respirators when working near earthmoving machinery. - Prohibit eating and smoking at the worksite, and provide separate, clean eating areas with hand-washing facilities.
6 See, e.g., Cummings and others, 2010, p. 509; Schneider et al., 1997, p. 908 (“Primary prevention strategies (e.g., dustcontrol measures) for coccidioidomycosis in endemic areas have limited effectiveness.”).

8 | P a g e
- Avoid outdoor construction operations during unusually windy conditions or in dust storms.
- Consider limiting outdoor construction during the fall to essential jobs only, as the risk of cocci infection is higher during this season.

3. Prevent transport of cocci outside endemic areas:
- Thoroughly clean equipment, vehicles, and other items before they are moved offsite to other work locations. - Prevent spillage or loss of bulk material from holes or other openings in the cargo compartment’s floor, sides, and/or tailgate;
- Load all haul trucks such that the freeboard is not less than six inches when material is transported on any paved public access road and apply water to the top of the load and then cover haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable cover. - Provide workers with coveralls daily, lockers (or other systems for keeping work and street clothing and shoes separate), daily changing and showering facilities. - Clothing should be changed after work every day, preferably at the work site. - Train workers to recognize that cocci may be transported offsite on contaminated equipment, clothing, and shoes; alternatively, consider installing boot-washing. - Post warnings onsite and consider limiting access to visitors, especially those without adequate training and respiratory protection.

4. Improve medical surveillance for employees:
- Employees should have prompt access to medical care, including suspected workrelated illnesses and injuries. - Work with a medical professional to develop a protocol to medically evaluate employees who have symptoms of Valley Fever.
- Consider preferentially contracting with 1-2 clinics in the area and communicate with the health care providers in those clinics to ensure that providers are aware that Valley Fever has been reported in the area. This will increase the likelihood that ill workers will receive prompt, proper and consistent medical care. - Respirator clearance should include medical evaluation for all new employees, annual re-evaluation for changes in medical status, and annual training, and fittesting.

9 | P a g e
- Skin testing is not recommended for evaluation of Valley Fever.7 - If an employee is diagnosed with Valley Fever, a physician must determine if the employee should be taken off work, when they may return to work, and what type of work activities they may perform.

The City must adopt these evidence-based mitigation measures – proven effective in similar construction projects in endemic areas to ensure comprehensive protection of public health. Standard dust control measures are insufficient for preventing Valley Fever exposure, and only concrete, enforceable steps like those listed above will safeguard both onsite workers and surrounding communities.

3. The City’s Air Quality Analysis Fails To Include A Quantitative Health Risk Analysis Of The Impacts Of Toxic Air Contaminants From The Construction Phase And Operational Phase Of The Project For The Nearest Sensitive Receptor(s) The determination of a significance threshold for construction activities and operational activities is based on a quantitative risk analysis that requires the City to perform a multistep, quantitative health risk analysis for toxic air contaminants (TACs) from the construction and operational phases of the Project. No effort is made in the IS/MND to quantify the potential health impacts from TACs generated by construction activities or operational activities from the Project on these sensitive receptors. Given that the closest receptor to the Project site is the residence located less than 18 meters from the edge of the Project Site, it is clear that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a quantitative analysis of the potential health risks to the residents.

In addition to TACs from diesel exhaust (assumed to be diesel particulate matter or DPM), the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) analysis of tailpipe emissions shows that in addition to simple alkane hydrocarbons, the emissions also contain benzene (human carcinogen), 1,3-butadiene (human carcinogen), ethylbenzene (human carcinogen), toluene (neurotoxin), acetaldehyde (respiratory irritant), and formaldehyde (human carcinogen), and other air toxins. These air toxins make up approximately 22% of the total organic gases (TOGs) emitted from vehicles. 7 Short-term skin tests that produce results within 48 hours are now available. See Kerry Klein, NPR for Central California, New Valley Fever Skin Test Shows Promise, But Obstacles Remain, November 21, 2016; available at http://kvpr.org/post/new-valley-fever-skin-test-shows-promise-obstacles-remain.

10 | P a g e
CARB
TOG Speciation Profile
Run Exhaust8
CAS# Chemical Name Fraction
75070 Acetaldehyde 0.0028
107028 Acrolein 0.0013
71432 Benzene 0.0247
106990 1,3-Butadiene 0.0055
100414 Ethylbenzene 0.0105
50000 Formaldehyde 0.0158
110543 Hexane 0.0160
67561 Methanol 0.0012
78933 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.0002
91203 Naphthalene 0.0005
115071 Propylene 0.0306
100425 Styrene 0.0012
108883 Toluene 0.0576
1330207 Xylenes 0.0480
Clearly the majority of emissions of these compounds from the surrounding sites to the Project site will be associated with passenger vehicles, resulting in significant exposure to benzene (human carcinogen), 1,3-butadiene (human carcinogen), ethylbenzene (human carcinogen), toluene (neurotoxin), acetaldehyde (respiratory irritant), and formaldehyde (human carcinogen), and other air toxins.

The City therefore lacks supporting evidence for its conclusion that the emissions from the Project would not result in significant health effects by virtue of the distance to the receptors. The City’s failure to perform such an analysis is clearly a major flaw in the IS/MND and may be placing the residents of the nearby homes at risk from the construction phase and operational phase of the Project.

The inherent toxicity of TACs requires the City to first quantify the concentration of each TAC released into the environment at each of the sensitive receptor locations through air dispersion modeling, calculate the dose of each TAC at that location, and quantify the cancer risk and hazard index for each of the chemicals of concern. Following that analysis, then the City can make a 8 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/speciation-profiles-used-carb-modeling

11 | P a g e
determination of the relative significance of the emissions. The results should then be presented in an EIR prior to approving any agreements with the Proponent or issuing any permits for the Project.

4. Using The CalEEMod Software From The California Air Pollution Control Offices Association (CAPCOA) It Is Clear That Emissions From A Warehouse Constructed Onsite Would Release Substantial Concentrations Of Criteria Pollutants And Toxic Air Contaminants To The Immediate Vicinity Of The Project Site.

Using the CAPCOA’s CalEEMod software I have prepared an analysis of the construction and operational emissions of the Project assuming it is operated as a refrigerated warehouse. Based on the area of the Parcel a warehouse approximately 75,000 square feet could be installed onsite. Using the default parameters from the CalEEMod the model (Exhibit to this letter) assumed a construction phase lasting approximately 6-months in duration. Operation was assumed to being shortly thereafter. This analysis did not include the necessary offsite improvements to provide sewage, power, and street improvements. Based on the CalEEMod analysis it is clear that daily PM2.5 emissions would increase by 3.02 lbs per day during the construction phase and 0.26 lbs per day during the operational phase of the Project. For a Project located in the top 1% of all census tracks in California for exposure to PM2.5 this represents a substantial increase in the exposure of residents to the pollutant. The City must consider the end use of the Project Site on the nearby residents before allowing the rezoning of the Project Site.

Conclusion
The facts identified and referenced in this comment letter lead me to reasonably conclude that the Project could result in significant impacts if allowed to proceed. An EIR should be prepared to address these substantial concerns related to the construction and operational emissions from the Project that clearly were not identified in the IS/MND.

Sincerely,

12 | P a g e
Exhibit A: CalEEMod Analysis
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
1 / 48
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
2 / 48

3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
3 / 48

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

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

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
4 / 48

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

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
5 / 48

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

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. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
6 / 48

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
7 / 48

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Bakersfield Warehouse
Construction Start Date 6/1/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 18.0
Location 2919 Taft Hwy, Bakersfield, CA 93313, USA
County Kern-San Joaquin
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2893
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
General Heavy
Industry

75.0 1000sqft 1.72 75,000 — — — Refrigerated
Warehouse
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
8 / 48
Parking Lot 53.0 Space 0.48 0.00 — — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 35.5 35.5 14.1 16.0 0.03 0.64 7.20 7.85 0.59 3.45 4.05 — 3,029 3,029 0.11 0.09 2.63 3,062 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.65 1.38 11.2 13.6 0.03 0.41 0.49 0.90 0.38 0.12 0.50 — 2,978 2,978 0.10 0.09 0.07 3,008 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.42 1.35 4.84 5.82 0.01 0.18 0.30 0.49 0.17 0.10 0.27 — 1,212 1,212 0.04 0.03 0.40 1,223 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.26 0.25 0.88 1.06 < 0.005 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.05 — 201 201 0.01 0.01 0.07 202 Exceeds
(Annual)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 10.0 10.0 100 27.0 — — 15.0 — — 15.0 — — — — — — —
Unmit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
9 / 48

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.85 1.56 14.1 16.0 0.03 0.64 7.20 7.85 0.59 3.45 4.05 — 3,029 3,029 0.11 0.09 2.63 3,062 2026 35.5 35.5 10.7 14.1 0.03 0.37 0.49 0.86 0.34 0.12 0.46 — 3,012 3,012 0.10 0.09 2.40 3,043 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.65 1.38 11.2 13.6 0.03 0.41 0.49 0.90 0.38 0.12 0.50 — 2,978 2,978 0.10 0.09 0.07 3,008 2026 1.57 1.31 10.7 13.4 0.03 0.37 0.49 0.86 0.34 0.12 0.46 — 2,961 2,961 0.10 0.09 0.06 2,991 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.69 0.58 4.84 5.82 0.01 0.18 0.30 0.49 0.17 0.10 0.27 — 1,212 1,212 0.04 0.03 0.40 1,223 2026 1.42 1.35 3.08 3.94 0.01 0.11 0.14 0.25 0.10 0.03 0.13 — 848 848 0.03 0.02 0.29 857 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.13 0.11 0.88 1.06 < 0.005 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.05 — 201 201 0.01 0.01 0.07 202 2026 0.26 0.25 0.56 0.72 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 — 140 140 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 142

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.02 4.73 4.60 20.4 0.05 0.19 3.01 3.20 0.18 0.76 0.95 83.4 5,863 5,946 8.74 0.31 32.7 6,291 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
10 / 48
Unmit. 4.21 3.96 4.85 14.5 0.04 0.18 3.01 3.19 0.18 0.76 0.94 83.4 5,524 5,607 8.76 0.33 19.9 5,943 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.42 3.25 2.65 11.2 0.03 0.10 2.06 2.16 0.10 0.52 0.62 83.4 4,205 4,288 8.70 0.25 23.5 4,603 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.62 0.59 0.48 2.04 0.01 0.02 0.38 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.11 13.8 696 710 1.44 0.04 3.89 762 Exceeds
(Annual)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 10.0 10.0 100 27.0 — — 15.0 — — 15.0 — — — — — — —
Unmit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.01 1.87 2.14 15.0 0.04 0.03 3.01 3.04 0.03 0.76 0.80 — 4,025 4,025 0.14 0.22 13.2 4,107 Area 2.28 2.24 0.03 3.26 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.4 13.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 Energy 0.09 0.05 0.83 0.69 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,492 1,492 0.17 0.01 — 1,500 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 38.2 71.4 3.41 0.08 — 181 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 50.1 0.00 50.1 5.01 0.00 — 175 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 19.5 19.5
Stationa
ry

0.63 0.57 1.61 1.46 < 0.005 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 294 294 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 295 Total 5.02 4.73 4.60 20.4 0.05 0.19 3.01 3.20 0.18 0.76 0.95 83.4 5,863 5,946 8.74 0.31 32.7 6,291 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
11 / 48
Mobile 1.78 1.64 2.42 12.3 0.04 0.03 3.01 3.04 0.03 0.76 0.80 — 3,699 3,699 0.16 0.23 0.34 3,772 Area 1.70 1.70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.09 0.05 0.83 0.69 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,492 1,492 0.17 0.01 — 1,500 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 38.2 71.4 3.41 0.08 — 181 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 50.1 0.00 50.1 5.01 0.00 — 175 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 19.5 19.5
Stationa
ry

0.63 0.57 1.61 1.46 < 0.005 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 294 294 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 295 Total 4.21 3.96 4.85 14.5 0.04 0.18 3.01 3.19 0.18 0.76 0.94 83.4 5,524 5,607 8.76 0.33 19.9 5,943 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.25 1.16 1.59 8.68 0.03 0.02 2.06 2.09 0.02 0.52 0.55 — 2,627 2,627 0.10 0.16 3.95 2,680 Area 1.99 1.97 0.01 1.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.61 6.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.64 Energy 0.09 0.05 0.83 0.69 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,492 1,492 0.17 0.01 — 1,500 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 38.2 71.4 3.41 0.08 — 181 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 50.1 0.00 50.1 5.01 0.00 — 175 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 19.5 19.5
Stationa
ry

0.09 0.08 0.22 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 40.3 40.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 40.4 Total 3.42 3.25 2.65 11.2 0.03 0.10 2.06 2.16 0.10 0.52 0.62 83.4 4,205 4,288 8.70 0.25 23.5 4,603 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.23 0.21 0.29 1.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 435 435 0.02 0.03 0.65 444 Area 0.36 0.36 < 0.005 0.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.10 1.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.10 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 247 247 0.03 < 0.005 — 248 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.50 6.32 11.8 0.57 0.01 — 30.0 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 8.30 0.00 8.30 0.83 0.00 — 29.0 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.23 3.23
Stationa
ry

0.02 0.01 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 6.66 6.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 6.69 Total 0.62 0.59 0.48 2.04 0.01 0.02 0.38 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.11 13.8 696 710 1.44 0.04 3.89 762 Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
12 / 48

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.75 1.47 13.9 15.1 0.02 0.57 — 0.57 0.52 — 0.52 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,502 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.10 0.08 0.76 0.83 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
13 / 48
Off-Roa 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 d
Equipm
ent
Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 169 169 0.01 0.01 0.60 171 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 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — 8.42 8.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.53 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 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 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 — 1.39 1.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.41 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 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 0.00

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
14 / 48
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.42 1.19 10.9 11.0 0.03 0.47 — 0.47 0.43 — 0.43 — 2,717 2,717 0.11 0.02 — 2,726 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.59 1.59 — 0.17 0.17 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 22.3 22.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.4 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.70 3.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.71 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
15 / 48
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 0.00 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 101 101 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 103 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 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.77 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 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 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 — 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 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 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 0.00

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
16 / 48
Off-Roa 1.80 1.51 14.1 14.5 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 d
Equipm
ent
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.08 7.08 — 3.42 3.42 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.03 0.02 0.23 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 40.4 40.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.5 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.12 0.12 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.68 6.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.70 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
17 / 48
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 135 135 0.01 < 0.005 0.48 137 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 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.02 2.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.05 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 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 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 — 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34 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 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 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.49 1.24 10.6 11.9 0.02 0.40 — 0.40 0.37 — 0.37 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,209 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
18 / 48
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.49 1.24 10.6 11.9 0.02 0.40 — 0.40 0.37 — 0.37 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,209 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.50 0.41 3.55 3.97 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.12 — 0.12 — 737 737 0.03 0.01 — 739 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.09 0.08 0.65 0.72 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 122 122 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 122 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.15 0.13 2.37 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 425 425 0.02 0.01 1.52 431 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.46 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 403 403 < 0.005 0.06 1.11 422 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.13 0.16 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 373 373 0.01 0.01 0.04 377 Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
19 / 48
Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.49 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 404 404 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 422 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 130 130 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 131 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 135 135 < 0.005 0.02 0.16 141 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 21.4 21.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 21.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.4 22.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 23.4 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 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.41 1.18 10.1 11.8 0.02 0.36 — 0.36 0.33 — 0.33 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,208 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.41 1.18 10.1 11.8 0.02 0.36 — 0.36 0.33 — 0.33 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,208 Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
20 / 48
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.38 0.32 2.73 3.18 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 594 594 0.02 < 0.005 — 596 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.06 0.50 0.58 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 98.4 98.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 98.7 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.12 2.19 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 416 416 < 0.005 0.01 1.37 421 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.44 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 395 395 < 0.005 0.06 1.03 413 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.12 0.15 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 365 365 0.01 0.01 0.04 369 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.47 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 396 396 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 413 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 102 102 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 104 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 107 107 < 0.005 0.02 0.12 112 Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
21 / 48
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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.9 16.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 17.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.7 17.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 18.5 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 0.00

3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.79 0.67 5.88 8.19 0.01 0.25 — 0.25 0.23 — 0.23 — 1,244 1,244 0.05 0.01 — 1,248 Paving 0.12 0.12 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.02 0.02 0.16 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.1 34.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.2 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
22 / 48
Off-Roa
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.64 5.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.66 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.06 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 198 198 < 0.005 0.01 0.65 201 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 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.94 4.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.01 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 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 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 — 0.82 0.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.83 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 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 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
23 / 48
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

35.4 35.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.66 3.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.67 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.97 0.97 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.18 0.18 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
24 / 48
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 0.00 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 83.2 83.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 84.3 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 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.08 2.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.10 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 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 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 — 0.34 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.35 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 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 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
25 / 48
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
General
Heavy
Industry

2.01 1.87 2.14 15.0 0.04 0.03 3.01 3.04 0.03 0.76 0.80 — 4,025 4,025 0.14 0.22 13.2 4,107 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 2.01 1.87 2.14 15.0 0.04 0.03 3.01 3.04 0.03 0.76 0.80 — 4,025 4,025 0.14 0.22 13.2 4,107 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry

1.78 1.64 2.42 12.3 0.04 0.03 3.01 3.04 0.03 0.76 0.80 — 3,699 3,699 0.16 0.23 0.34 3,772 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 1.78 1.64 2.42 12.3 0.04 0.03 3.01 3.04 0.03 0.76 0.80 — 3,699 3,699 0.16 0.23 0.34 3,772 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry

0.23 0.21 0.29 1.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 435 435 0.02 0.03 0.65 444 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.23 0.21 0.29 1.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 435 435 0.02 0.03 0.65 444

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
26 / 48
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 497 497 0.08 0.01 — 502
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.3 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 507 507 0.08 0.01 — 512
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 497 497 0.08 0.01 — 502
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.3 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 507 507 0.08 0.01 — 512
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 82.3 82.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 83.1
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1.68 1.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.70 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 84.0 84.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 84.8

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
27 / 48
General 0.09 0.05 0.83 0.69 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 985 985 0.09 < 0.005 — 988 Heavy
Industry
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 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 0.09 0.05 0.83 0.69 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 985 985 0.09 < 0.005 — 988 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry

0.09 0.05 0.83 0.69 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 985 985 0.09 < 0.005 — 988 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 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 0.09 0.05 0.83 0.69 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 985 985 0.09 < 0.005 — 988 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry

0.02 0.01 0.15 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 163 163 0.01 < 0.005 — 164 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 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 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 163 163 0.01 < 0.005 — 164

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
28 / 48
Consum 1.61 1.61 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
er
Product
s
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.10 0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.58 0.54 0.03 3.26 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.4 13.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 Total 2.28 2.24 0.03 3.26 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.4 13.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

1.61 1.61 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.10 0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1.70 1.70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.29 0.29 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.10 1.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.10 Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
29 / 48
Total 0.36 0.36 < 0.005 0.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.10 1.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.10

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 38.2 71.4 3.41 0.08 — 181
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 38.2 71.4 3.41 0.08 — 181 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 38.2 71.4 3.41 0.08 — 181
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 38.2 71.4 3.41 0.08 — 181 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.50 6.32 11.8 0.57 0.01 — 30.0
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.50 6.32 11.8 0.57 0.01 — 30.0 Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
30 / 48

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 50.1 0.00 50.1 5.01 0.00 — 175
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 50.1 0.00 50.1 5.01 0.00 — 175 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 50.1 0.00 50.1 5.01 0.00 — 175
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 50.1 0.00 50.1 5.01 0.00 — 175 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.30 0.00 8.30 0.83 0.00 — 29.0
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 8.30 0.00 8.30 0.83 0.00 — 29.0

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
31 / 48

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 19.5 19.5
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 19.5 19.5
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 19.5 19.5
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 19.5 19.5
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.23 3.23
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.23 3.23

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
32 / 48
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Fire
Pump

0.63 0.57 1.61 1.46 < 0.005 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 294 294 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 295 Total 0.63 0.57 1.61 1.46 < 0.005 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 294 294 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 295 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Fire
Pump

0.63 0.57 1.61 1.46 < 0.005 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 294 294 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 295 Total 0.63 0.57 1.61 1.46 < 0.005 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 294 294 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 295 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Fire
Pump

0.02 0.01 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 6.66 6.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 6.69 Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
33 / 48
Total 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 6.66 6.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 6.69

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
34 / 48
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
35 / 48
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
36 / 48
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 6/1/2025 6/29/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/30/2025 7/4/2025 5.00 3.00 — Grading Grading 7/5/2025 7/13/2025 5.00 6.00 —
Building Construction Building Construction 7/14/2025 5/18/2026 5.00 220 — Paving Paving 5/19/2026 6/2/2026 5.00 10.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/3/2026 6/17/2026 5.00 10.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
37 / 48
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 12.5 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 10.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
38 / 48
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 31.5 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 12.3 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 6.30 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 112,500 37,500 1,247

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
39 / 48
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Site Preparation — — 4.50 0.00 —
Grading — — 6.00 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
General Heavy Industry 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 0.48 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year General Heavy
Industry
295 482 382 121,858 2,586 4,225 3,350 1,069,212
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
40 / 48

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 112,500 37,500 1,247

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) General Heavy Industry 889,810 204 0.0330 0.0040 3,072,924 Parking Lot 18,202 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) General Heavy Industry 17,343,750 0.00
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
41 / 48
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
General Heavy Industry 93.0 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced General Heavy
Industry
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor Fire Pump Diesel 1.00 1.00 50.0 350 0.73

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
42 / 48
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
43 / 48
Temperature and Extreme Heat 20.6 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.00 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
44 / 48
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 95.3
AQ-PM 98.7
AQ-DPM 56.3
Drinking Water 98.0
Lead Risk Housing 15.2
Pesticides 98.6
Toxic Releases 22.2
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
45 / 48
Traffic 9.69
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 58.2
Groundwater 14.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 58.8
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 75.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 63.5
Cardio-vascular 83.3
Low Birth Weights 54.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 66.8
Housing 5.48
Linguistic 58.6
Poverty 52.3
Unemployment 47.0

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 48.59489285
Employed 60.23354292
Median HI 62.9026049
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 22.22507378
High school enrollment 6.313358142
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
46 / 48
Preschool enrollment 20.76222251
Transportation —
Auto Access 82.44578468
Active commuting 11.21519312
Social —
2-parent households 46.65725651
Voting 39.65096882
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 87.9892211
Park access 21.21134351
Retail density 7.994353907
Supermarket access 16.66880534
Tree canopy 0.82124984
Housing —
Homeownership 86.01308867
Housing habitability 67.71461568
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 47.78647504 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 44.18067496
Uncrowded housing 36.04516874
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 34.59514949
Arthritis 88.7
Asthma ER Admissions 43.2
High Blood Pressure 73.3
Cancer (excluding skin) 85.3
Asthma 46.1
Coronary Heart Disease 88.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 71.2
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
47 / 48
Diagnosed Diabetes 68.9
Life Expectancy at Birth 17.4
Cognitively Disabled 56.3
Physically Disabled 49.3
Heart Attack ER Admissions 13.6
Mental Health Not Good 38.2
Chronic Kidney Disease 73.0
Obesity 30.3
Pedestrian Injuries 73.8
Physical Health Not Good 52.6
Stroke 84.7
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 15.4
Current Smoker 29.7
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 36.8
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 3.5
Elderly 90.4
English Speaking 47.8
Foreign-born 50.7
Outdoor Workers 14.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 72.3
Traffic Density 16.9
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices—
Bakersfield Warehouse Detailed Report, 1/24/2025
48 / 48
Hardship 67.1
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 29.0

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 74.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 33.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Assumed Max Size For Warehouse
Operations: Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps assumed fire pump James J. J. Clark, Ph.D.

Principal Toxicologist
Toxicology/Exposure Assessment Modeling
Risk Assessment/Analysis/Dispersion Modeling
Education:

Ph.D., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1995 M.S., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1993 B.S., Biophysical and Biochemical Sciences, University of Houston, 1987 Professional Experience:

Dr. Clark is a well recognized toxicologist, air modeler, and health scientist. He has 20 years of experience in researching the effects of environmental contaminants on human health including environmental fate and transport modeling (SCREEN3, AEROMOD, ISCST3, Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion Modeling); exposure assessment modeling (partitioning of contaminants in the environment as well as PBPK modeling); conducting and managing human health risk assessments for regulatory compliance and risk-based clean-up levels; and toxicological and medical literature research.

Significant projects performed by Dr. Clark include the following:

LITIGATION SUPPORT
Case: James Harold Caygle, et al, v. Drummond Company, Inc. Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama. Civil Action. CV-2009 Client: Environmental Litgation Group, Birmingham, Alabama Dr. Clark performed an air quality assessment of emissions from a coke factory located in Tarrant, Alabama. The assessment reviewed include a comprehensive review of air quality standards, measured concentrations of pollutants from factory, an inspection of the facility and detailed assessment of the impacts on the community. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc
OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd.

Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Rose Roper V. Nissan North America, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles – Central Civil West. Civil Action.

NC041739
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to multiple chemicals, including benzene, who later developed a respiratory distress. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare an exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to respiratory irritants. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.