08_Appeal Letter Lozeau Drury, March 26, 2025 including Comment Letter, Jan. 28, 2025.pdf

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 (C- 2) 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-the- nation/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-the- nation/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 non- Project-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. Half- face respirators equipped with N-100 or P-100 filters should be used during digging activities. Employees should wear respirators when working near earth- moving 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., dust- control 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 off- site 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 work- related 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 fit- testing.

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 Y ear, 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 Y ear 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 Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear 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

22.7—< 0.005< 0.00522.622.6—0.01—0.010.01—0.01< 0.0050.150.140.010.02Off-Roa 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

0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite 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
2,463—0.020.102,4552,455—0.59—0.590.64—0.640.0214.514.11.511.80Off-Roa 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

0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite 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
988—< 0.0050.09985985—0.06—0.060.06—0.06< 0.0050.690.830.050.09General 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
————————————————1.611.61Consum
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 Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear 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/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear 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 Y ear 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) Y es 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 to xicologist, air modeler, and health scientist. He has 20 years of experience in researching the eff ects 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 asse ssment 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.