Agenda, regular meeting, second session — Bakersfield City Council, August 13, 2025 (part 3 of 5)

identification, that activity will be conducted by a person holding a California Scientific Collecting Permit and Memorandum of Understanding to handle any candidate or listed species that could be captured. Survey buffer: 250 feet. • Vernal pool fairy shrimp (agency protocol): Unless otherwise approved by USFWS, a survey following USFWS 2017 Revised Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods shall be conducted in the season prior to construction.
• Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (agency protocol): The CDFW Approved Survey Methodology for the Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard (October 2019) or updated protocol(s) shall be implemented to determine whether this species is present. Surveys are valid for 1 year from the date of completion. Recommended survey buffer: 250 feet. • San Joaquin kit fox* (agency protocol): Prior to surface disturbance, a survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify burrows/dens/structures potentially occupied by San Joaquin kit fox following the definitions and timing recommended in U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011).

Recommended survey buffer during natal season (January 1-August 31): 500 feet; recommended survey buffer outside of natal season (September 1-December 31); 250 feet.
*A specific note on SJKF: SJKF have shown survival success and persistence is some urban areas of Bakersfield where features suitable for SJKF denning and foraging are found. Implementation of SJKF compatible features in Project design, such as artificial dens, or travel/escape access holes into fenced areas that could be used as denning or foraging areas applied to applicable areas of the Project such as retention basins, fenced utilities stations, or community parks, is highly encouraged.

Voluntary proactive coexistence measures and features for supporting SJKF recovery, implemented with the help of a Qualified Biologist and Agency input, is strongly encouraged to reduce cumulative impacts to SJKF.

11. BIO-9: If any state or federal listed species other than blunt-nosed leopard lizard are found to occupy the Project during any of the recommended surveys above or take of any of these species may occur (e.g., San Joaquin kit fox known or natal den is present), CDFW and/or USFWS (depending on listing status) shall be contacted regarding whether incidental take authorization is required from each agency. Incidental take authorization shall include additional minimization measures, such as passive relocation, avoiding natal periods, and habitat compensation for the temporary or permanent loss of the subject habitat.

12. BIO-10: If blunt-nosed leopard lizard is found to occupy the Project, in addition to contacting the USFWS regarding federal status per BIO-9, a qualified biologist shall prepare a blunt-nosed leopard lizard avoidance plan for submittal to CDFW that identifies measures to be implemented to avoid take as required under this species’ fully protected status, unless incidental take authorization is subsequently issued prior to construction.

13. BIO-11: Burrowing Owl and American Badger
• Burrowing owl (agency protocol): Given that burrowing owl may be present in the Project area, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey to identify occupied or S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 6 of 41 ends

potentially occupied burrows no more than 14 days prior to surface disturbance.

Recommended survey buffer: 250 feet.

If burrowing owl burrows are present and the recommended buffers in Table 4.1 cannot be implemented, burrow exclusion methods described in Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) shall be implemented with coordination with CDFW.

If required by CDFW, LGI homes, or developer shall set aside permanent mitigation habitat to mitigate for occupied burrowing owl burrows present on the Project. • American badger (no agency protocol): During the preconstruction survey, a qualified biologist shall determine whether American badger dens are present. American badger burrows shall be monitored following methods for San Joaquin kit fox dens.

American badger natal dens shall be avoided by a buffer of 500 feet unless otherwise specified by CDFW until the young are no longer dependent on the adults. If American badger dens remain active after the recommended monitoring period, den use may be discouraged by partially blocking the entrance to the den or using passive relocation techniques specified by CDFW. Recommended survey buffer: 250 feet.

Page 7 of 41 ends

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:

14. SJVAPCD Required PM10 Reduction Measures
As the Project would be completed in compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, dust control measures would be taken to ensure compliance specifically during grading and construction phases. The required Regulation VIII measures are as follows:
► Water previously exposed surfaces (soil) whenever visible dust is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity.
► Water all unpaved haul roads a minimum of three-times/day or whenever visible dust from such roads is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20%opacity. ► Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. ► Install and maintain a track out control device that meets the specifications of SJVAPCD Rule 8041 if the site exceeds 150 vehicle trips per day or more than 20 vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or moreaxles.
► Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for production purposes using water, chemical stabilizers or by covering with a tarp or other suitablecover.
► Control fugitive dust emissions during land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, leveling, grading, or cut and fill operations with application of water or by presoaking. ► When transporting materials offsite, maintain a freeboard limit of at least 6 inches and cover or effectively wet to limit visible dust emissions. ► Limit and remove the accumulation of mud and/or dirt from adjacent public roadways at the end of each workday. (Use of dry rotary brushes is prohibited except when preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit visible dust emissions and use of blowers is expresslyforbidden).
► Stabilize the surface of storage piles following the addition or removal of materials using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants.
► Remove visible track-out from the site at the end of each workday. ► Cease grading or other activities that cause excessive (greater than 20% opacity) dust formation during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one-hour period).

15. Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust
In addition, the GAMAQI guidance document lists the following measures as approved and recommended for construction activities. These measures are recommended:
► Maintain all construction equipment as recommended by manufacturer manuals. ► Shut down equipment when not in use for extended periods. ► Use electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment.
► Curtail use of high-emitting construction equipment during periods of high or excessive ambient pollutant concentrations.
► All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce NOx emissions. ► On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.

S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 8 of 41 ends

► On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.
► All construction workers shall be encouraged to shuttle (car-pool) to retail establishments or to remain on-site during lunch breaks. ► All construction activities within the project area shall be discontinued during the first stage smog alerts.
► Construction and grading activities shall not be allowed during first stage O3 alerts. First stage O3 alerts are declared when the O3 level exceeds 0.20 ppm (1-hour average).

16. Other Measures to Reduce Project Impacts
The following measures are recommended to further reduce the potential for long-term emissions from the Project. These measures are required as a matter of regulatory compliance:
► The Project design shall comply with applicable standards set forth in Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code to minimize total consumption of energy. ► Applicants shall be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures in the AQAP, SJVAPCD Rules, Traffic Control Measures, Regulation VIII and Indirect Source Rules for the SJVAPCD.
► The developer shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4601 - Architectural Coatings, during the construction of all buildings and facilities. Application of architectural coatings shall be completed in a manner that poses the least emissions impacts whenever such application is deemedproficient.
► The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4641 during the construction and pavement of all roads and parking areas within the project area.

Specifically, the applicant shall not allow the useof:
• Rapid cure cutback asphalt;
• Medium cure cutback asphalt;
• Slow cure cutback asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.3); or Emulsified asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.4). • The developer shall comply with applicable provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review).

Traffic/Circulation Impact Mitigation Measures

17. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall pay the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program.

18. Prior to issuance of building permits and if necessary as determined by the City Engineer, the applicant/developer shall obtain a street permit or get approved a Traffic Control Plan from the City Public Works Department.

THORNER ST
S

TEELHEA
D
D
R

BALD EAGLE ST
H
A
R
P
Y EA
GLE AV
E

EAGLE RIDGE ST

MORNING DR

PALADINO DR
2/9/2024
0 260 520
Feet
_
VTTM 7471
APN: 437-010-43
AERIAL

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
VTTM 7471
R-1 R-1 R-1 M-1
C-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-3
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
A
R-2
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-2-CH
R-2-CH
R-2-CH
R-1

THORNER ST
S

TEELHEA
D
D
R

BALD EAGLE ST
H
A
R
P
Y EA
GLE AV
E

EAGLE RIDGE ST

MORNING DR

PALADINO DR
2/9/2024
0 260 520
Feet
_
VTTM 7471
APN: 437-010-43
Zoning
Commercial Zone Designations
C-1 Neighborhood
Commercial
Industrial Zone Designations
M-1 Light Manufacturing
Resource Zone Designations
A Agricultural
Residential Zone Designations
R-1 One Family Dwelling
R-2 Limited Multiple
Family Dwelling Zone - 1
unit/2,500 sq. ft.

R-2-CH Limited Multiple
Family Dwelling Zone - 1
unit/2,500 sq. ft. - Church
Overlay Zone
R-3 Limited Multiple
Family Dwelling Zone - 1
unit/1,250 sq. ft.

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
VTTM 7471

THORNER ST
S

TEELHEA
D
D
R

BALD EAGLE ST
H
A
R
P
Y EA
GLE AV
E

EAGLE RIDGE ST

MORNING DR

PALADINO DR
GC
HR

R-MP R-MP LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
PS
LI
LMR
LMR
LMR
HMR
LR LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
2/9/2024
0 260 520
Feet
_
VTTM 7471
APN: 437-010-43
Land Use

RESIDENTIAL
LMR - Low Medium Density
Residential: > 4 units but
≤ 10 dwelling units/net
acre
HR - High Density
Residential: > 17.42 units
but ≤ 72.6 dwelling units/
net acre
HMR - High Medium
Density Residential: >

7.26 units but ≤ 17.42
dwelling units/net acre
LR - Low Density
Residential: ≤ 7.26
dwelling units/net acre

COMMERCIAL
GC - General Commercial

INDUSTRIAL

LI - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL

PUBLIC FACILITIES
PS - Public/Private Schools

RESOURCE
R-MP - Resource - Minerals
& Petroleum: 5 acre
minimum parcel size

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
VTTM 7471
PROJECT LOCATION MORNING DRIVE & PALADINO DRIVE NOT TO SCALE 110' STREET SECTION - ARTERIAL LOCAL STREET NOT TO SCALE 60' STREET SECTION - LOCAL 52' STREET SECTION - LOCAL NOT TO SCALE LOCAL STREET NS EJ VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 7471 MOJAVE PIPELINE CROSSING ON MORNING DRIVE NOT TO SCALE 110' STREET SECTION - ARTERIAL SAN JOAQUIN ENGINEERING, INC.

Civil Engineering Land Development Services LOT D - PRIVATE PASEO NOT TO SCALE LANDSCAPE LOT SHALL BE LANDSCAPED WITH GRASS, PLANTS AND MEANDERING SIDEWALK. PRIVATE PASEO TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE PRIVATE PASEO TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE LANDSCAPE LOT SHALL BE LANDSCAPED WITH GRASS, PLANTS AND MEANDERING SIDEWALK. LANDSCAPE LOT SHALL BE LANDSCAPED WITH GRASS, PLANTS AND MEANDERING SIDEWALK. J a s o n E . V a n C u r e n L.S. 7439 S Exp 3-31-26 T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I AL I C E N S E D L A N D S U R V E Y O R NS EJ VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 7471 A1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 C1 C1 C1 C1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 A1 A1 D1 SAN JOAQUIN ENGINEERING, INC.

Civil Engineering Land Development Services E1 F1 G1 G1 F1 F1 F1 F1 J a s o n E . V a n C u r e n L.S. 7439 S Exp 3-31-26 T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A L I C E N S E D L A N D S U R V E Y O R S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 13 of 41 ends

INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

1. Project (Title & No.): Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased)

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

3. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Courtney Camps, Associate Planner (661) 326-3070

4. Project Location: Southwest corner of Paladino Drive and Morning Drive

5. Applicant (name and address): San Joaquin Engineering, Inc. 200 New Stine Road, Suite 175
Bakersfield, CA 93309

6. General Plan Designation: LR (Low-Density Residential)

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

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

San Joaquin Engineering, Inc., representing LGI Homes – California, LLC (property owner), is proposing to subdivide 83.97 acres into 363 single-family residential lots, 5 landscape, 5 private landscape, 1 retention basin, 1 private retention basin, and 1 private park. The applicant is also requesting modifications to City standards including centerline radius, double frontage lots, non-radial lot lines, reverse corner lots, street length, storm drain easement and a waiver of the signatures of each party owning a recorded interest in, or right to minerals, not including lessees pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) Section 16.20.060 A.1.

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

The project site consists of a vacant parcel of land. Adjacent properties to the north, west and east are vacant land. In addition, there is Juliet Thorner Elementary School and existing singlefamily residential development to the south of the project site.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement):
• City of Bakersfield – Mitigated Negative Declaration consideration and adoption • City of Bakersfield – Improvement Plans
• City of Bakersfield – Building permits
• City of Bakersfield – Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program and Local Mitigation • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – Indirect Source Rule compliance • State Water Resources Control Board – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General permit
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 14 of 41 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

As indicated by the checklist on the following pages, the project would result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the environmental factors checked below (Impacts reduced to a less than significant level through the incorporation of mitigation are not considered potentially significant):

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

Signature Date
Courtney Camps, Associate Planner
Printed name
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture / Forestry
Resources
☐ Air Quality
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology and Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
☐ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
☐ Hydrology / Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Population / Housing ☐ Public Services ☐ Public Services ☐ Noise ☐ Transportation / Traffic ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Wildfire ☐ Wildfire ☐ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
11/21/2024
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 15 of 41 ends

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 16 of 41 ends

I. AESTHETICS:

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ III. AIR QUALITY:

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 17 of 41 ends

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:

Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES:

Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outsides of dedicated cemeteries? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
VI. ENERGY:

Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS:

Would the project;
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 18 of 41 ends

for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iv. Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
VIlI. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:

Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 19 of 41 ends

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:

Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING:

Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES:

Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
XIII. NOISE:

Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 20 of 41 ends

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING:

Would the project;
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
v. Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
XVI. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
XVII. TRANSPORTATION:

Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 21 of 41 ends

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
XX. WILDFIRES:

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 22 of 41 ends

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
I. AESTHETICS
a. No impact. The project is located within the City limits at Paladino Drive and Morning Drive in northeast Bakersfield. The existing visual environment in the area adjacent to the project is predominately vacant land with adjacent single family residential to the south of the site.

Vacant land is located to the north, east and west. The construction of single-family residential at the site would be in character and compatible with existing urban land uses in the vicinity of the site and is a natural extension of the urban growth occurring in the project area. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
b. No impact. There are no trees, rock outcrops, or historic buildings (Hudlow 2003) located at the project site. Additionally, the project is not located adjacent to or near any officially designated or potentially eligible scenic highways to be listed on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System. The closest section of highway eligible for state scenic highway designation is State Route (SR) 14 located in Kern County over 55 miles to the east. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
c. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to responses I.a, I.b and I.d. The project does not conflict with any applicable vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements or design criteria of federal, state, or local agencies and, the project would be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) designations and Zoning Ordinance classifications for the project area. The area is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as visually important or “scenic.” Therefore, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
d. Less-than-significant impact. This project involves incremental urban growth within the City of Bakersfield’s jurisdiction. This project would have to comply with City development standards, including Title 17 (zoning ordinance), Title 15 (buildings and construction), as well as California Code of Regulations Title 24. Together, these local and state requirements oblige project compliance with current lighting and signage standards that minimize unwanted light or glare to spill over into neighboring properties. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 23 of 41 ends

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
a. Less-than-significant impact. The 83.97-acre project site is designated as Grazing Land by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (DOC 2020). The site is zoned R-1 and is currently fallow land not used for grazing. The project will not convert 100 acres or more of farmlands designated Prime, Unique, or of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses.

Large parcel size is, in general, an important indicator of potential agricultural suitability and productivity. CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 does not regard the cancellation of less than 100 acres of land from the Williamson Act to be of statewide, regional, or area wide significance. Therefore, the project would not significantly convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use. b. No impact. The project site is currently zoned R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) and is not under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
c. No impact. As discussed in II.b, the project site is zoned R-1. There are no forest lands located on the site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. d. No impact. Please refer to response II.c. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest. e. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to responses II.a through II.d. This project is in an area designated for urban development by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

The project itself is typical of the development found in Metropolitan Bakersfield. Therefore, the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

III. AIR QUALITY
a. Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. An Air Quality Impact Analysis was conducted for the project. The methodology for the analysis followed the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) for quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential impacts to air resources and the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land‐Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (Trinity Consultants 2024).

The project is located within the SJVAPCD jurisdiction, in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for ozone, particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM 10) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5). The SJVAPCD has annual emission significance thresholds used to determine whether a project would result in a substantial contribution for both operational and construction emissions (See Table 4- 3 and Table 4-4). As shown in Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 below, project-generated emissions are below the SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds, and the project is consistent with current air quality attainment plans including control measures and regulations (Trinity Consultants 2024). Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on the implementation of an air quality plan.

S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 24 of 41 ends

Table 4-3. Short-Term Project
Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated
2025 0.20 1.82 1.86 0.00 0.71 0.35
2026 0.75 1.23 1.69 0.00 0.09 0.05
2027 0.25 1.30 1.82 0.00 0.09 0.05
2028 1.60 1.05 1.59 0.00 0.08 0.04
2029 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum Annual Emissions 1.60 1.82 1.86 0.00 0.71 0.35
Mitigated
2025 0.20 1.82 1.86 0.00 0.25 0.15
2026 0.75 1.23 1.69 0.00 0.09 0.05
2027 0.25 1.30 1.82 0.00 0.09 0.05
2028 1.60 1.05 1.59 0.00 0.08 0.04
2029 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum Annual Emissions 1.60 1.82 1.86 0.00 0.25 0.15
Significance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded for a Single Year
After Mitigation? No No No No No No
Source: Trinity Consultants 2024
Note: 0.00 could represent < 0.00
Source: (Trinity Consultants 2024)
Table 4-4. Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 1.62 1.47 12.99 0.03 3.23 0.83
Area 0.40 0.02 1.87 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Operational Emissions 2.02 1.49 14.86 0.03 3.24 0.83
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: (Trinity Consultants 2024)
b. Less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated. The SJVAPCD through its GAMAQI has determined that projects that exceed regional thresholds would have a cumulatively considerable health impact. As discussed in response III.a above, emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 associated with the construction and operation of the Project would not exceed the SJVAPCD significance thresholds. Therefore, the project would not have substantial adverse effects related to criteria pollutants. c. Less-than-significant impact. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved that expose sensitive receptors to sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Examples of the types S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 25 of 41 ends

of land use that are sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools.

The most sensitive portions of the population are children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. The closest sensitive receptor is Juliet Thorner Elementary School located less than 0.5 miles south of the site.

The project site is situated in a city growth area. The project includes urbanization of a site that was formerly used for agricultural purposes. Construction activities would generate fugitive dust that could contain Coccidioides immitis (C. immitis) spores. Therefore, implementation of the project would have a low probability of the site having C. immitis growth sites and exposure to the spores from disturbed soil. The project will minimize the generation of fugitive dust during construction activities by complying with SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII. Therefore, this regulation, combined with the relatively low probability of the presence of C. immitis spores, would reduce Valley fever impacts to less than significant (Trinity Consultants 2024). Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. d. Less-than-significant impact. The project type proposed (i.e., single-family residential) is not on the GAMAQI list (page 27, table 4-2) of those land uses generally regarded as the type to have site odor problems. Therefore, the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The land use proposed for this project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. Less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated. A Biological Resource Evaluation was prepared for the project to document biological resources identified during a reconnaissance field study and identify potential impacts. The project is located near the northeastern edge of the urbanized portion of Bakersfield, California. Surrounding land consists of largely undeveloped fields with nearby residential development to the south and southwest, and minimally disturbed oil field development to the north. The average elevation of the project site is approximately 765 feet (233 meters) above sea level. Historic initial grading for residential development occurred over the entire site in 2006. Historic satellite imagery (Google Earth Pro) suggests the area has been fallow for extended times since 2006; however, significant very recent disturbance through scrapping or grading was evident during the reconnaissance surveys conducted for this evaluation. Several specialstatus wildlife species and resident and migratory birds either are present or may occur on the project site. Nesting birds and evidence of San Joaquin kit fox were observed during the surveys. Potential impacts to several other special-status species that were not observed were identified (McCormick Biological Inc. 2024). The project must comply with listed plant and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), as directed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, respectively.

Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant with mitigation incorporated impact on special status species.

Mitigation Measure 3 requires a survey prior to ground disturbance for any special-status wildlife species and compliance with any requirements of the CDFW and USFWS to reduce or avoid significant impacts to biological resources. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3 requires training of on-site personnel to increase awareness of WEAP. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 26 of 41 ends

as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. (McCormick Biological, Inc. 2024) b. No Impact. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities located at the site. This project is also not located within, or adjacent to, the Kern River riparian habitat area. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community (McCormick Biological, Inc. 2024). c. No Impact. There are no wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, located at the project site, and no features identified as wetlands categories are found in the National Wetlands Inventory within the project site (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2021). Therefore, the project would result in no impacts on federally protected wetlands (McCormick Biological, Inc. 2024).
d. Less than significant impact. No evidence of nursery sites was observed during the site survey. In addition, the project site is not within an essential habitat connectivity area (CDFW, 2010). Therefore, the project would result likely in no impacts on migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites (McCormick Biological, Inc. 2024). e. No Impact. The project site does not include biological resources that are protected by local policies. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources (McCormick Biological, Inc. 2024). f. No Impact. Please refer to response IV.e. The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. No Impact. A Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for the project to identify historic and cultural resources within the project site. A records search and field survey of the project site was conducted. No prehistoric or historical cultural resources were discovered during the field survey (Hudlow 2003). According to the Historic Buildings and Sites in Bakersfield Map, the project site does not include a historic building or site (City of Bakersfield 2022). Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse effects on historical resources.
b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No archeological resources have been documented within the project site (Hudlow 2003). In addition, according to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the MCGP, the majority of archeological sites within the city lie outside of urban development areas. The soil within the project site has been disturbed previously; therefore, the likelihood of archeological resources being present and intact is low. However, in the event that any unknown resources are encountered, Mitigation Measure 1 would be implemented. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 1, the project would not significantly affect archeological resources. c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site is developed and is not within or adjacent to a former cemetery. The project could inadvertently uncover, or damage previously unknown human remains. Mitigation Measure 2 requires that if any human remains are found at the site during construction, work would cease, and the S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 27 of 41 ends

remains would be handled pursuant to applicable law. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 2, the project would not significantly disturb any human remains.

VI ENERGY
a. Less-than-significant impact. The project would comply with modern building standards, including California Code of Regulations Title 24, which outlines energy efficiency standards for new residential buildings to ensure that they do not wastefully, inefficiently, or unnecessarily consume energy.
b. Less-than-significant impact. There is no adopted plan by the City of Bakersfield for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As mentioned above, the project would comply with California Code of Regulations Title 24. Additionally, the City encourages applicants and developers to go beyond the required standards and make their developments even more efficient through programs such as LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, which is a green building rating system that provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings. Other encouraged programs available to applicants and developers are Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards and 2005 building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a. The following discusses the potential for the project to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects as a result a various geologic hazards. The City is within a seismically active area. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these major active fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge-Kern County, Garlock, Pond Poso, and White Wolf faults. There are numerous additional smaller faults suspected to occur within the Bakersfield area which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge-Kern County) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides. a.i Less-than-significant impact. Ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of a fault during an earthquake. The project site is not included within the limits of an “Earthquake Fault Zone” as defined in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (DOC 2022). Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. a.ii Less-than-significant impact. The City is within a seismically active area. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (specifically Seismic Zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake construction standards. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking.
a.iii Less-than-significant impact. The most common seismic-related ground failure is liquefaction and lateral spreading. In both cases, during periods of ground motion caused by an event such as an earthquake, loose materials are transformed from a solid state to S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 28 of 41 ends

near-liquid state as a result of increased pore water pressure. Such ground failure generally requires a high-water table and poorly draining soils in order for such ground failure to occur. Soils underlain the southerly portion of the project site include Delano sandy loam, 0 to 2% slopes and Delano sandy loam, 5 to 9%, and the northerly portion Delano sandy loam 2 to 5% slope and Delano variant clay loam 0 to 9% slope. The potential for liquefaction at the project site is low. The site is not within an area with a high ground water.

In addition, future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
a.iv Less-than-significant impact. In Kern County, the common types of landslides induced by earthquake occur on steeper slopes found in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon; in these areas, landslides are generally associated with bluff and stream bank failure, rockslide, and slope slip on steep slopes. The project site slopes are between 5 to 9%, but such slopes would not be considered sleep enough to be considered at risk for landslides. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides.
b. Less-than-significant impact. The project site’s soils have low-to-medium susceptibility to erosion by rainfall (USDA 2022). The relatively low precipitation in the project area [on average about 6 inches/year results in surface runoff that is intermittent and temporary in nature. The erosion potential at the site and the fact that the soils are well drained coupled with low average rainfall in the area does not make the project site susceptible to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.

Construction of the site would temporarily disturb soils, which could loosen soil, and the removal of vegetation could contribute to future soil loss and erosion by wind and storm water runoff. The project would have to request coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (No. 2012-0006-DWQ) (General Permit) because the project would result in 1 or more acres of ground disturbance. To conform to the requirements of the General Permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would need to be prepared that specifies best management (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants, including eroded soils (such as topsoil), from moving offsite.

Implementation of the General Permit and BMPs requirements would mitigate erosion of soil during construction activities.

During operation, the soils would be sufficiently compacted to required engineered specifications, revegetated in compliance with City requirements, or paved over with impervious surfaces such that the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
c. Less-than-significant impact. As discussed in VI.a.iii and VI.a.iv, the project site’s soils would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides.

Subsidence is part of the baseline condition in the project area due to historic groundwater pumping the resultant subsidence that occurs with such activities. The project would not S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 29 of 41 ends

substantially contribute to this baseline condition because the projected water use would be consistent with Cal Water’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (Cal Water 2016), which takes into consideration sustainability of the groundwater basin and the need to reduce reliance on groundwater pumping in the future.

Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
d. Less-than-significant impact. When a soil has 35% or more clay content, it is considered a clayey soil. Delano soils generally have 10 to 35% clay content (USDA 2022) and therefore, have a low to high shrink swell. Additionally, future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property. e. No impact. The project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system. The project would hook up to existing City sewer in the area. Therefore, the project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
f. No impact. According to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the MCGP, the city has a very low potential to contain paleontological resources. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on unique paleontological resources, sites or unique geologic features.

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a. Less-than-significant impact. Total greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) emissions generated during all phases of construction were combined and are presented in Table 4-7. The SJVAPCD does not recommend assessing the significance of construction‐related emissions. However, other jurisdictions, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, have concluded that construction emissions should be included since they may remain in the atmosphere for years after construction is complete. In order to account for the construction emissions, amortization of the total emissions generated during construction were based on the life of the development (residential—30 years) and added to the operational emissions (Trinity Consultants 2024).

Total GHG emissions generated during operations are presented in Table 4-7. The project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect related to greenhouse gas emissions (Trinity Consultants 2024).

S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 30 of 41 ends

Table 4-7. Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year)
Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mitigated Construction Emissions
Construction Emissions 1,352.11 0.05 0.03 1,363.47
Mitigated Operational Emissions
Mobile Emissions 3,056.70 0.18 0.15 3,108.48
Area Emissions 9.09 0.00 0.00 9.15
Energy Emissions 316.75 0.05 0.01 319.89
Water Emissions 30.26 0.49 0.01 45.96
Waste Emissions 29.35 2.93 0.00 102.68
Refrigerant Emissions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84
Total Project Operational Emissions 3,442.16 3.65 0.16 3,587.01 Annualized Construction Emissions1 45.07 0.00 0.00 45.45 Project Emissions 3,487.23 3.66 0.17 3,632.46
*Note: 0.00 could represent <0.00
Per South Coast AQMD’s Methodology
Source: (Trinity Consultants 2024)
b. Less-than-significant impact. The City of Bakersfield has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. In addition, the City has not completed the GHG inventory, benchmarking, or goal‐ setting process required to identify a reduction target and take advantage of the streamlining provisions contained in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted for Senate Bill (SB) 97 and clarifications provided in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted on December 28, 2018 (Trinity Consultants 2024).

The SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Action Plan, but it does not include measures that are applicable to development projects. Therefore, the SJVAPCD Climate Action Plan cannot be applied to the project. Since no other local or regional Climate Action Plan is in place, the project is assessed for its consistency with Air Resources Board’s (ARB) adopted Scoping Plans. This would be achieved with an assessment of the project’s compliance with Scoping Plan measures contained in the 2008 Scoping Plan and the 2017 Scoping Plan Update (Trinity Consultants 2024).

The AB 32 Scoping Plan contains a variety of strategies to reduce the State’s emissions. As shown in Table 4-7, the project is consistent with strategies that are applicable to the project. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update strategies primarily rely on increasing the stringency of existing regulations with which the project would continue to comply, support through the project’s design, and implementation of the General Plan goals and policies (Trinity Consultants 2024).

Accordingly, taking into account the proposed project’s emissions, project design features, and the progress being made by the State towards reducing emissions in key sectors such as transportation, industry, and electricity, the project would be consistent with State GHG Plans and would further the State’s goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and does not obstruct their attainment. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse effects related to an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 31 of 41 ends

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. Less-than-significant impact. The project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. However, construction activities would require the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials such as fuels and greases for the fueling/servicing of construction equipment, and there is the potential for upset and accident conditions that could release such material into the environment. Such substances would be stored in temporary storage tanks/sheds that would be located at the site. Although these types of materials are not acutely hazardous, they are classified as hazardous materials and create the potential for accidental spillage, which could expose construction workers. All transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials used in the construction of the project would be in strict accordance with federal and state laws and regulations. During construction of the project, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all applicable materials present at the site would be made readily available to onsite personnel. During construction, non-hazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of at approved facilities for handling such waste. Also, during construction, waste disposal would be managed using portable toilets located at reasonably accessible onsite locations.

The project is the development of up to 363 SFR units. Day-to-day activities in residences do not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. Maintenance of residences would require the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides. Residential users should follow any instructions for use and storage provided on product labels carefully to prevent any accidents at home. Users should also read product labels for disposal directions to reduce the risk of products exploding, igniting, leaking, mixing with other chemicals, or posing other hazards on the way to a disposal facility. Additionally, residential hazardous waste can be dropped off at Metro Kern County Special Waste Facility located at 4951 Standard Street or at one-day hazardous waste collection events that take place throughout the year. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to response VIII.a. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment.
c. No impact. The closest school is Juliet Thorner Elementary School located less than 0.5 miles to the south of the site. Therefore, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school.
d. No impact. According to EnviroStor, no hazardous waste sites or materials are located within the project site (DTSC 2022). Therefore, the project would not result in a substantially adverse effect related to hazardous materials listed on Government Code 65962.5.

S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 32 of 41 ends

e. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area (Kern County 2012). The closest airport to the project site is the Bakersfield Municipal Airport located about 10 miles to the southeast of the site. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. f. Less-than-significant impact. The project would have to develop or improve roads to the site as well as internal roads that are in compliance with the City’s Fire Code to allow emergency vehicles adequate access to the site and all portions of the site. Access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period, and appropriate detours would be provided in the event of potential temporary road closures. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in a substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield and is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Bakersfield 1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
g. Less-than-significant impact. The project site is located within a “moderate” fire hazard severity zone (CalFire 2008). The project site currently does not possess excessive fuel loads.

With the project, the site would be developed with hardscapes and irrigated landscaping, which would reduce fire potential at the site. Additionally, the City and County require “defensible space” within areas of the County susceptible to wildland fires as shown on CalFire maps through the Fire Hazard Reduction Program. Defensible space is the buffer created between a building and the grass, trees, shrubs, or any wildland area that surrounds it. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands.

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. Less-than-significant impact. Construction would include ground disturbing activities. As discussed in VI.b, the project site’s soil types have a low-to-medium susceptibility to sheet and rill erosion by rainfall and a low susceptibility to wind erosion at the ground surface.

Disturbance of onsite soils during construction could result in soil erosion and siltation, and subsequent water quality degradation through increased turbidity and sediment deposition during storm events to offsite locations. Additionally, disturbed soils have an increased potential for fugitive dust to be released into the air and carried offsite. As described in VI.b, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit. To conform to the requirements of the General Permit, a SWPPP would need to be prepared that specifies BMPs to prevent construction pollutants from moving offsite. The project is required to comply with the General Permit because project-related construction activities would disturb at least 1 acre of soil.

The City owns and maintains a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). The project’s operational urban storm water discharges are covered under the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Order No. R5-2016-0040; NPDES No. CAS0085324) (MS4 S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 33 of 41 ends

Permit) (CVRWQCB 2016). The MS4 Permit mandates the implementation of a storm water management framework to ensure that water quality is maintained within the City as a result of operational storm water discharges throughout the City, including the project site.

By complying with the General Permit and MS4 Permit, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b. Less-than-significant impact. Potable water from the project would be supplied by California Water Service (Cal Water). Cal Water provided a “Will Serve Letter” (Cal Water 2024) for the project, and therefore groundwater levels have already been accounted for in the UWMP with the project (a future entitlement). Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.
c.i Less-than-significant impact. The project site contains ephemeral channels that do not have connectivity to a jurisdictional waterway and discharge to land. The project site would be graded and, as a result, the internal drainage pattern at the site would be altered from the baseline condition. Additionally, the project would result in increased impervious surfaces (i.e., building pads, sidewalks, asphalt parking area, etc.) at the site, which would reduce percolation to ground and result in greater amounts of storm water runoff concentrations at the site. If uncontrolled, differences in drainage patterns and increased impervious surfaces could result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite.

However, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit during construction and MS4 permit during operation. In order to comply with the MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with adopted building codes, including complying with an approved drainage plan, which avoids on- and offsite flooding, erosion, and siltation problems. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. c.ii Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to response IX.c.i Therefore, the project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
c.iii Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to responses IX.a and IX.c.i. Therefore, the project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
c.iv No Impact. The project site is located within an area designated Zone X (FEMA 2017), which is outside the 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, the project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. d. No Impact. The project is not located near any ocean or an enclosed body of water and therefore, would not be subject to inundation by tsunami or seiche. A mudflow is a type of landslide where earth and surface materials are rapidly transported downhill under the force of gravity. As discussed in VII.a.iv, landslides, including mudflow, occur on steeper slopes in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon. The project site is generally flat, there are no such geologic features located at the project site, and the site is not located S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 34 of 41 ends

near the Kern River Canyon. Therefore. The project site would not be inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow.
e. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to response X.c.i. There is currently no adopted groundwater management plan for the project site or its vicinity. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to obstructing a water quality control plan or a sustainable groundwater management plan.

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. No impact. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern of the City or is an infill development. The project is not a long and linear feature, such as a freeway, railroad track, block wall, etc., that would have the potential to divide a community. The project is the development of a finite 83.97-acre project site that does not impede existing or future movement or development of the City. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community.
b. No impact. The project does not require any land use or zoning change. The proposed single-family residential development is consistent with the Low-Density designation of the MBGP and R-1 (Single Unit Dwelling) zone on the site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
a. No impact. The project site is not within the administrative boundaries of an oilfield and there are no oil wells found on the site (DOGGR 2022). The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
b. No impact. The project site is currently designated LR (Low Density Residential). No portion of the site is designated for a potential mineral resource extraction use such as R-MP (Mineral and Petroleum). Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

XIII. NOISE
a. Less-than-significant impact. The project would generate noise during construction by the use of construction equipment. Typical construction equipment generates sound levels between 80 and 85 A-weighted decibels (dBA), which is a decibel system reflective of human hearing characteristics. At 80 to 85 dBA, the human response to such a sound level is annoyance and difficulty hearing conversation. Using the rule of thumb that noise attenuates 7.5 dBA per a doubling of distance away from the sound-emitting source, it would require 800 feet away from an 85-dBA sound-emitting source to obtain a 55 dBA sound level, which is considered “quiet” to the human ear. There are sensitive receptors (existing SFR) within 800 feet to the south of the project site. However, project construction would be limited to 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends per Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 9.22 (Noise).

Project operations would generate sound levels typical of single-family residential land uses and residents would have to comply with Bakersfield Municipal Code regarding noise.

S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 35 of 41 ends

Therefore, the project would not expose persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
b. Less-than-significant impact. Some groundborne vibration and noise would originate from earth movement and building activities during the project’s construction phase.

However, blasting, pile-driving, break-ramming, jackhammering, chipping, and other high impact-related construction activities that result in the creation of the greatest groundborne vibrations and noise levels would not occur as a consequence of the project.

Additionally, groundborne vibration and noise attenuates at a shorter distance than airborne noise. Operation of single- and multi-family residential would not result in appreciable groundborne vibration or noise. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. c. No impact. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. Less-than-significant impact. The project would accommodate population growth in this area through the development of new homes, and the project is the logical extension of existing urban development. The project would also require the extension of infrastructure.

Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on growth. b. No impact. The project site consists of vacant land. Therefore, the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a.i Less-than-significant impact. Fire Protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County.

Though the project may necessitate the addition of fire equipment and personnel to maintain current levels of service, this potential increase in fire protection services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection.
a.ii Less-than-significant impact. Police protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department upon project build out. Current City Police services standards require 1.09 officers for every 1,000 people in the City. However, this potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on police protection performance objectives. a.iii Less-than-significant impact. The project would produce up to 363 units to accommodate 1,158 residents and generate approximately 175 school-aged children as indicated in Table 6 below.

S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 36 of 41 ends

Table 6 Generation of School Aged Children
Number and Type
of Dwelling Units Elementary (K-8) High School (9-12) Total Pupils 363 single-family
units 363 x 0.31 363 x 0.17 175
Totals 113 62
This increase may necessitate the construction of additional school facilities. However, the need for additional schools can be paid for by existing school impact fees and increased property tax revenues. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools. a.ivLess-than-significant impact. The project proposes a population increase of 1,158 and may result in an impact upon the quality and/or quantity of existing recreational opportunities and may also create a need for new parks or recreational facilities. The parkland requirements for the proposed project are calculated based on the General Plan and City Ordinance park standards of 2.5 acres for every 1,000 people and therefore, the park acreage estimated for the project is 1.39 acres. In addition, every residential unit must pay a park land development fee at the time of the issuance of building permits. Compliance with the park acreage dedication ordinance and the park development fee ordinance ensures that parks are dedicated and built in accordance with City standards to accommodate the increased population. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks.
a.v Less-than-significant impact. The project and eventual buildup of this area would result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City. Though the project may necessitate increased maintenance for other public facilities, this potential increase can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities.

XVI. RECREATION
a. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. Therefore, the project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
b. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. Therefore, the project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 37 of 41 ends

XVII. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. Less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated. The project would result in temporary construction-related traffic impacts. Construction workers traveling to and from the project site as well as construction material delivery would result in additional vehicle trips to the area’s roadway system. Construction material delivery may require a number of trips for oversized vehicles that may travel at slower speeds than existing traffic and, due to their size, may intrude into adjacent travel lanes. These trips may temporarily degrade level of service (LOS) on area roadways and at intersections. Additionally, the total number of vehicle trips associated with all construction-related traffic (including construction worker trips) could temporarily increase daily traffic volumes on local roadways and intersections.

The project may require temporary lane closures or the need for flagmen to safely direct traffic on roadways near the project site. However, once the project is built, it would not result in any permanent traffic-related effects.

Policy 36 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Circulation Element states:

Prevent streets and intersections from degrading below Level of Service “C” where possible due to physical constraints (as defined in a Level of Service standard) or when the existing Level of Service if below “C” prevent where possible further degradation due to new development or expansion of existing development with a three-part mitigation program: adjacent right-of-way dedication, access improvements and/or an area-wide impact fee. The area-wide impact fee would be used where the physical changes for mitigation are not possible due to existing development and/or the mitigation measure is part of a larger project, such as freeways, which will be built at a later date.

Policy 36 of the Circulation Element of the MBGP requires the City to prevent streets and intersections from degrading below a level of service C, where possible, through dedication of adjacent right-of-way, access improvements, or an area wide impact fee.

In addition, the Subdivision Ordinance requires all on-site street improvements and a proportional share of boundary street improvements to be built at the time the property is developed.

Mitigation Measures 17 and 18 require that the applicant/developer participation in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program and the payment of Local Mitigation fees.

With implementation of these mitigation measures, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
b. Less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to response XVII.a. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 17 and 18, the project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. c. Less-than-significant impact. The project would have to comply with all conditions placed on it by the City Traffic Engineering Division in order to comply with accepted traffic engineering standards intended to reduce traffic hazards, including designing the roads so that they do not result in design feature hazards. The project is within the City limits and surrounded by compatible existing and planned land uses and land use designations.

S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 38 of 41 ends

Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.
d. Less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated. There is the potential that, during the construction phase, the project would impede emergency access. For projects that require minor impediments of a short duration (e.g., pouring a new driveway entrance), the project would be required to obtain a street permit from City Public Works. If a project requires lane closures and/or the diversion of traffic, then a Traffic Control Plan would be required. Mitigation Measure 18 requires that, if the City Engineer determines necessary, the applicant/developer shall obtain a street permit or develop an approved a Traffic Control Plan, for the construction period. With implementation of mitigation, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The Cultural Resources Assessment (Hudlow 2003) determined that there is no landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe located at the project site.

Additionally, no portion of the site is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources (Hudlow 2003). However, in the event that any unknown resources are encountered, Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 would be implemented. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on tribal cultural resources.
b. Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. See response XVII.a. above.

Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. Less-than-significant impact. The project would be connected to sanitary sewer where wastewater produced as a result of the project would be treated to CVRWQCB requirements at a permitted wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), including any NPDES permitting and waste discharge requirements (WDRs) specific to the applicable WWTP.

Therefore, the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. b. Less-than-significant impact. The Cal Water has provided a “Will Serve Letter” stating that water service can be supplied to the development (Cal Water 2024). The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Therefore, the project would have sufficient water supplies available from existing entitlements and resources, and new or expanded entitlements would not be needed.
c. Less-than-significant impact. Wastewater as a result of the project would be treated at WWTP No. 2, which is owned and operated by the City. Based on previous analyses, it is assumed that average daily water demand per dwelling unit is 325 gallons. With 363 dwelling units for the project, the project’s average daily water demand would be 117,975 gpd [or 0.05 million gallons per day (MGD)] and therefore, it is assumed that wastewater capacity requirements to serve the project would also be 0.05 MGD. WWTP No. 2 has an overall capacity of 25 MGD with an average daily flow of 13.7 MGD. The current available capacity of 13.3 MGD (Bakersfield 2022). The project’s contribution would account for less than 0.5% of the available capacity and therefore, WWTP No. 2 has sufficient capacity to serve the project. As a result, it has been determined that wastewater treatment provider S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 39 of 41 ends

which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. d. Less-than-significant impact. It is assumed that solid waste generated as a result of the project would be disposed at the Bena Landfill located at 2951 Neumarkel Road, Bakersfield, CA 93307. The amount of solid waste generated by the project would be negligible. The project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
e. Less-than-significant impact. By law, the project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, including those relating to waste reduction, litter control, and solid waste disposal.

XX. WILDFIRE
a. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to response IX.f. There is the potential that, during the construction phase, the project would impede emergency access. For projects that require minor impediments of a short duration (e.g., pouring a new driveway entrance), the project would be required to obtain a street permit from City Public Works. If a project requires lane closures and/or the diversion of traffic, then a Traffic Control Plan/Street Permit would be required by the City Engineer.
b. Less-than-significant impact. As discussed in response IX.g, the project site is within a “moderate” land fire hazard zone. The project site currently does not possess excessive fuel loads. With the project, the site would be developed with hardscapes and irrigated landscaping, which would reduce fire potential at the site. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on wildfire pollutant exposure or uncontrolled spread of wildfire.
c. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to response XX.b above. d. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to response XX.b above.

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Less-than-significant. The project must comply with listed plant and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), as directed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, respectively. There are no important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory found at the site. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b. Less-than-significant impact. As described in the responses above, the project has no impacts that would be defined as individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c. Less-than-significant impact. As described in the responses above, the project would have less than significant impacts and environmental effects which would not likely cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 40 of 41 ends

BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCE LIST

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

2. Bakersfield. 1999. Proposed Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual. June.

3. Bakersfield. 2001. Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report.

4. Bakersfield. 2002. Bikeway Master Plan.

5. Bakersfield. 2013. City of Bakersfield Bicycle Transportation Plan. November.

6. Bakersfield 2016. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report. Revised: January 20, 2016.

7. Bakersfield. 2017. Wastewater Treatment Plants.

8. City of Bakersfield. (2022, July 26). Historic Buildings and sites in Bakersfield. ArcGIS StoryMaps. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/eb1b154414724e1d8b39ef7ff1ee46a2

9. CalFire (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2008. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, Kern County.

10. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). California State Scenic Highway Mapping System.

11. Cal Water (California Water Service),
https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/BK_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf

12. Cal Water. Will Serve Letter, 2024.

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

14. CDFW. (2010, February). California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project. California, United States. Retrieved May 17, 2023, from
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18366&inline

15. DOC (Department of Conservation). 2018. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

16. DOC (Department of Conservation Seismic Zones and soils https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/

17. 2020 Federal Census https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/bakersfieldcitycalifornia (2022).

18. CalGEM Well Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder , (2022).

19. DTSC (Department of Toxic Substance Control). 2017. EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=bakersfield%2C+ca S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\03_CEQA\IS_MND_7471.docxx

Page 41 of 41 ends

20. DWR (Department of Water Resources 2022)
https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#gwlevels

21. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2017. FEMA Flood Map Service Center:

Welcome! Available:<https://msc.fema.gov/portal>. Accessed: October 19, 2017.

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

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

24. Kern County. 2017. Lake Isabella Flood Area.

25. SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2022. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

26. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). Soil survey of Kern County, northeastern part, and southeastern part of Tulare County, California.
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

27. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2021, May 1). National Wetlands Inventory. United States. Retrieved May 17, 2023, from
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/

28. Biological Resource Evaluation, Assessor's Parcel Map Number 437-010-43, County of Kern, Bakersfield, California, McCormick Biological, Inc., August 2024.

29. A Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey, TTM 6191. Scott M. Hudlow, Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates, May 2003.

30. Air Quality Impact Analysis, TTM 7471, County of Kern, Bakersfield, California, Trinity Consultants, April 2024.

Biological Resource Evaluation
Tract 7471 Residential Development
APN: 437-010-43
Bakersfield, California
Prepared For:

LGI Homes- California, LLC.
2251 Douglas Blvd., Suite 110
Roseville, CA 95661
Prepared By:

McCormick Biological, Inc.
3600 Pegasus Dr., Suite 12
Bakersfield, CA 93308
www.mccormickbiologicalinc.com
August 2024
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... i ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................................................ii Section 1- INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Description.............................................................................................................................1

1.3 Purpose, Goals, Objectives ................................................................................................................1

1.4 Regulatory Background......................................................................................................................2

1.4.1 Federal and State Endangered Species Acts...............................................................................2

1.4.2 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act..............................................................................2

1.4.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ...........................................................................................................2

1.4.4 California Fish and Game Code (C.F.G.C. § 1580 et seq.)...........................................................3

1.4.5 Local Jurisdictions........................................................................................................................5 Section 2- METHODS ..........................................................................................................................9

2.1 Definition of Special Status Species...................................................................................................9

2.2 Literature and Database Review .....................................................................................................10

2.3 Reconnaissance Surveys ..................................................................................................................11

2.3.1 Fairy Shrimp Sampling..........................................................................................................12 Section 3- RESULTS...........................................................................................................................13

3.1 Literature and Records Review........................................................................................................13

3.2 Reconnaissance Surveys ..................................................................................................................13

3.2.1 General Site Conditions.............................................................................................................13

3.2.2 Common Plants and Vegetation...............................................................................................14

3.2.3 Common Wildlife.......................................................................................................................14

3.3 Special Status Plants ........................................................................................................................16

3.4 Special Status Wildlife Species.........................................................................................................21

3.4.1 Invertebrates.............................................................................................................................21

3.4.2 Amphibians................................................................................................................................25

3.4.3 Reptiles......................................................................................................................................25

3.4.4 Birds...........................................................................................................................................31

3.4.5 Mammals...................................................................................................................................35

3.6 Critical Habitat..................................................................................................................................39

3.7 Sensitive Natural Communities.......................................................................................................39

4.1 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................................41

4.2 Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................................45

4.3 Recommendations....................................................................................................................46 Section 5- LIST OF PREPARERS ..........................................................................................................52 Appendix A......................................................................................................................................60 Appendix B ......................................................................................................................................87 Appendix C ....................................................................................................................................108 Appendix D....................................................................................................................................110 Appendix E ....................................................................................................................................134 Appendix F ....................................................................................................................................137 Appendix G....................................................................................................................................140 List of Figures
1-1 Vicinity Map.................................................................................................................................7 1-2 Designated Land Use Map ............................................................................................................8 3-1 CNDDB sensitive natural communities results.............................................................................15 3-2 CNDDB special-status plants (A-E) results (10-mile radius) ..........................................................17 3-3 CNDDB special-status plants (F-Z) results (10-mile radius) ...........................................................18 3-4 CNDDB special-status plants (A-E) results (2-mile radius).............................................................19 3-5 CNDDB special-status plants (F-Z) results (2-mile radius) .............................................................20 3-6 CNDDB special-status invertebrate results (10-mile radius) .........................................................23 3-7 CNDDB special-status invertebrate results (2-mile radius) ..........................................................24 3-8 CNDDB special-status reptile and amphibian results (10-mile radius) ..........................................27 3-9 CNDDB special-status reptile and amphibian results (2-mile radius) ............................................28 3-10 CNDDB special-status bird results (10-mile radius) ....................................................................33 3-11 CNDDB special-status bird results (2-mile radius) ......................................................................34 3-12 CNDDB special-status mammal results (10-mile radius) ............................................................36 3-13 CNDDB special-status mammal results (2-mile radius) ..............................................................37 3-14 Reconnaissance survey results..................................................................................................40 List of Tables
3-1 Reconnaissance Field Surveys Personnel and Timing ...................................................................13

4.1 Protected Biological Resources - Recommended Avoidance Buffers.............................................50 B-1 Special status animals with potential to occur............................................................... Appendix B B-2 Special status plants with potential to occur.................................................................Appendix B F-1 Plant Species Observed During the Reconnaissance Surveys.......................................... Appendix F F-2 Animals Observed During Reconnaissance Surveys........................................................ Appendix F i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report documents the biological resources found during reconnaissance-level biological surveys conducted on February 14, March 20, March 29, and April 4, 2024 on approximately 83.96 acres of open land in an unincorporated area of Bakersfield, California, for the proposed LGI Home Tract 7471 (formerly Tract 6191) Residential Development (Project; APNs: 437-010-43). The site is located on the margin of undeveloped foothill grassland habitat and urban portions of Bakersfield, California.

To evaluate for the potential of biological resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) McCormick Biological, Inc. (1) obtained lists from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and California Native Plant Society identifying special-status species that may occur on or near the Project; (2) reviewed other relevant site information such as aerial images, and topographic maps; and (3) conducted field reconnaissance surveys of the Project site.

The purpose of this report is to document biological resources identified during the survey conducted for the proposed Project and to evaluate the potential for special status biological resources to occur on the Project site. This report also includes an evaluation of the occurrence potential for special-status biological resources not observed during surveys, based on the habitat conditions observed compared to those required by each species identified during the literature review.

The Project is located within the geographic range of several threatened and/or endangered wildlife taxa including San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica; SJKF) and blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila; BNLL). In addition, the site is within the range of listed plant taxa, including endangered Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei).

Listed plants and wildlife are protected primarily through the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and/or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Each of these laws, among other provisions, prohibits take of listed threatened and endangered species. Although the definition of take under each law varies somewhat, in general, injuring or killing listed species without a permit issued from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is unlawful. Under FESA, harassment and/or harm are also considered take for which the USFWS requires a permit.

We conclude that several special-status wildlife species and resident and migratory birds either are present or may occur on the Project site. Nesting birds and evidence of San Joaquin kit fox were observed during the surveys. Potential impacts to several other special-status species that were not observed were identified. Except for cumulative impacts, recommendations included in this report would be expected to reduce Project effects to biological resources to a level of “less than significant.” Cumulative impacts to biological resources from this Project combined with other Projects expected near the eastern and northeastern limits of urban Bakersfield are potentially significant. The Project will not conflict with existing or adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, local or regional conservation plans, or local ordinances protecting biological resources. No wetlands, riparian habitat, waters of the U.S., or waters of the State were observed during the biological surveys. ii

ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Definition
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CWA Clean Water Act
DPS Distinct Population Segment
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FE Federally listed as Endangered
FESA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA Federal Endangered Species Act
FP Fully Protected
FT Federally listed as Threatened
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCE State Candidate for Listing as Endangered
SCT State Candidate for Listing as Threatened
SWL State watch list
SE State-listed as Endangered
SSC State Species of Special Concern
ST State-listed as Threatened
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USC United States Code
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
Biological Resource Evaluation 1 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Section 1- INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description
LGI Homes proposes to develop approximately 83.96 acres of open land on the edge of urban development, located on the southwest corner of Morning Drive and Paladino Drive, Bakersfield, California, into single family homes residential development.

1.2 Project Area
The Project Site is a single parcel of land (APN: 437-010-43) measuring approximately 83.96 acres in Section 13, Township 29S, Range 28E M.D.B. & M, in central Kern County, California (Figures 1-1 and 1-2).

The Project Site is located approximately within the city limits of Bakersfield, California. The topography of the Project and surrounding area is generally level with an elevation of 760-770 feet above mean sea level.

The Project site is located near the northeastern edge of the urbanized portion of Bakersfield, California.

Surrounding land consists of largely undeveloped fields with nearby residential development to the south and southwest, and minimally disturbed oil field development to the north. The average elevation of the Project Site is approximately 765 feet (233 meters) above sea-level. Historic initial grading for residential development occurred over the entire site in 2006. Historic satellite imagery (Google Earth Pro 2024) suggests the area has been fallow for extended times since 2006; however, significant very recent disturbance through scrapping or grading was evident during the reconnaissance surveys conducted for this evaluation.

The Project is located in the southern San Joaquin Valley; a broad, treeless plain in the rain shadow of the Coast Ranges. The region’s climate can be characterized as Mediterranean; with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Summer high temperatures typically exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F; 38 degrees Celsius [°C]); with an average of 110 days per year over 90 °F (32 °C). Winter temperatures in the San Joaquin Valley are mild, with an average of only 16 days per year with frost (Twisselmann 1967). Rainfall varies, increasing from west to east, with the west side of the valley receiving an average of around 4 inches (10 centimeters) per year and the east side averaging about 6 inches (15 centimeters) per year.

Winter fog, called tule fog, sometimes forms during the months of November, December, and January, supplementing the annual precipitation. Approximately 90% of the rainfall in the region occurs between the 1st of November and the 1st of April. Drought cycles occur periodically, becoming severe enough that plant and animal populations can experience large fluctuations. The vegetation communities in the San Joaquin Valley are distinguishable from the Mojave Desert to the east due to tule fog, higher humidity, and isolation from continental climatic influences by mountain ranges (Twisselmann 1967).

1.3 Purpose, Goals, Objectives
The purpose of this report is to document biological resources identified during biological reconnaissancelevel survey, follow-up site visits and literature review of the Project site, assess the potential for specialstatus biological resources, analyze potential impacts to those resources, and to recommend avoidance and minimization measures for implementation prior to and during Project activities.

Biological Resource Evaluation 2 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
The literature review, survey results, and the professional experience of McCormick Biological, Inc. (MBI) staff were combined to evaluate the potential Project effects on biological resources. The field work consisted of 3 reconnaissance surface surveys, covering the entire Project area, to evaluate the potential suitability of habitat conditions for occupation by special-status species. This evaluation is based on the existing natural vegetative communities, current site conditions and quality, and diagnostic sign detected during the surveys.

1.4 Regulatory Background
This section identifies the regulatory compliance framework that has been considered during both the field work and development of this biological resource assessment. The regulatory framework establishes criteria in which significance is determined and whether a project will have a significant impact on species, biological resources, or the environment.

1.4.1 Federal and State Endangered Species Acts
The Project site is within the range of several state- and federal-listed species which are protected through various statutes. Listed plant and animal species are protected primarily through FESA and/or CESA. Each of these laws, among other provisions, prohibits take of listed threatened and endangered species.

Although the definition of take under each law varies, in general, injuring or killing listed species without a permit issued from the USFWS and/or the CDFW is unlawful. Under FESA, harassment and/or harm could also be considered take, which requires a permit. The California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) has classified some species as fully protected. Under this designation, no take of these species is allowed, even with authorization under CESA or FESA permitting.

1.4.2 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) of 1940, as amended, protects bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucoephalus) and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) by prohibiting the “taking” of bald and golden eagles, including parts (e.g., feathers), nest, or eggs. Civil and criminal penalties have been established for violation of the act. The take definition includes to “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” To disturb means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially inferring with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. The prohibitions extend to previously used nest sites at a time when eagles are not present if such disturbance interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering and causes injury, death, or nest abandonment (Federal Register [FR], volume 72, page 31132; 50 CFR 22.3).

Take of bald and golden eagles may be permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through regulation, and may be obtained for certain scientific, educational, and depredation control purposes, as well as religious purposes for native American tribes and to protect the interests of particular localities.

1.4.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Among other provisions, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (2023) prohibits the destruction of nests, eggs, and/or young of all designated migratory bird species. With very limited exceptions, all birds are included in this prohibition (MBTA 2023).

Biological Resource Evaluation 3 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024

1.4.4 California Fish and Game Code (C.F.G.C. § 1580 et seq.) The following paragraphs summarize several sections of the CFGC and are applicable to analysis of biological resource impacts that may be associated with the Project.

Section 1580
This section declares the policy of the state is to protect threatened or endangered native plants; wildlife; aquatic organisms or specialized habitat types; both terrestrial and non-marine aquatic, or large, heterogeneous natural gene pools for the future use of mankind through the establishment of ecological reserves.

Sections 1600–1616
This portion of the CFGC requires notification to the CDFW if any of the following may occur within a river, stream, or lake in the state of California:
• Substantial diversion or obstruction of the natural flow, • Substantially changing or using any material from the bed, channel, or bank, • Depositing or disposing of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.

This notification may result in a Streambed Alteration Agreement between the Project applicant and the CDFW. Activities in intermittent streams and canals may require Streambed Alteration Agreements.

Section 1900, et seq.

This portion of the CFGC is known as the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (2023). The purpose of this chapter is to preserve, protect and enhance endangered or rare native plants of California. Many species and subspecies of native plants are endangered because their habitats are threatened with destruction, drastic modification, or severe curtailment. Commercial exploitation, disease, and other factors also represent threats to species and subspecies of native plants. This portion of the code designates rare, threatened, and endangered plant taxa of California.

Section 1930–1933
These sections established the Significant Natural Areas Program and declared it to be administered by the CDFW, because areas containing diverse ecological and geological characteristics are vital to the continual health and well-being of the state’s citizens and natural resources. The CDFW is responsible for obtaining access to the most recent information with respect to natural resources by maintaining, expanding, and keeping a current data management system (California Natural Diversity Database [CNDDB]), designed to document information on these resources. This data is required to be made available to interested parties on request, and costs are to be shared by all who use the data management system.

The state’s most significant natural areas are to be designated and; after consultation with federal, state, and local agencies; educational institutions, civic and public interest organizations, private organizations, landowners, and other private individuals; periodic reports regarding the most significant natural areas are to be prepared. The CDFW is required to maintain and perpetuate these significant natural areas for Biological Resource Evaluation 4 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
present and future generations in the most feasible manner. The code also requires that the CDFW coordinate services to federal, state, local and private interests wishing to aid in the maintenance and perpetuation of significant natural areas.

Section 3503
This section prohibits taking, possessing, or needlessly destroying the nest or eggs or any bird. Birds of prey are included in Section 3503.5.

Section 3513
California’s migratory birds are protected under this section by making it unlawful to take or possess any migratory, non-game bird (or any part of such bird) as designated in the MBTA.

Section 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515
These sections prohibit take of animals that are classified as fully protected in California. Take of fully protected species is specifically prohibited, even if other sections of the CFGC provide for incidental take of the species.

Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15000 et seq.

This portion of the CCR prescribes the regulations to be followed by all local and state agencies in implementing CEQA.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification or Waiver)
The state of California regulates water quality related to discharge of fill material into waters of the state pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 (2023). Section 401 compliance is a federal mandate implemented by the state. The local Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has jurisdiction over all those areas defined as jurisdictional under Section 404 of the CWA and regulates water quality for all waters of the State. These waters may include isolated wetlands as defined under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (2023). Regulated discharges include those that can affect water quality, even if there is no significant nexus to a traditional navigable water body required for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) determination of jurisdiction over waters of the U.S. A Waste Discharge Permit may be required to comply with the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act even if the CWA (including Section 401 water quality certifications or Section 404 permits) would not apply.

The USACE, under Section 404 of the CWA, regulates discharges of dredged or fill material in “waters of the U.S.”
Biological Resource Evaluation 5 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024

1.4.5 Local Jurisdictions
Kern County General Plan and Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The Project is in Bakersfield City limits within the boundary of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan section of the Kern County General Plan. Kern County General Plan (2009) Land Use, Open Space, and Conservation Element contains policies and implementation measures regarding threatened and endangered species:

Applicable Policies
• Threatened or endangered plant and wildlife species should be protected in accordance with State and federal laws.
• County should work closely with State and federal agencies to assure that discretionary projects avoid or minimize impact to fish, wildlife, and botanical resources. • The County will seek cooperative efforts with local, State, and federal agencies to protect listed threatened and endangered plant and wildlife species through the use of conservation plans and other methods promoting management and conservation of habitat lands. • The County will promote public awareness of endangered species laws to help educate property owners and the development community of local, State, and federal programs concerning endangered species conservation issues.
• Under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the County, as lead agency, will solicit comments from the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when an environmental document (Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report) is prepared. • Riparian areas will be managed in accordance with United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the California Department of Fish and Game rules and regulations to enhance the drainage, flood control, biological, recreational, and other beneficial uses while acknowledging existing land use patterns.

Implementation Measures
• Discretionary projects shall consider effects to biological resources as required by the California Environmental Quality Act.
• Consult and consider the comments from responsible and trustee wildlife agencies when reviewing a discretionary project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. • Pursue the development and implementation of conservation programs with State and federal wildlife agencies for property owners desiring streamlined endangered species mitigation programs.

The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (2007) includes general goals and policies that provide guidance for decision makers regarding the future affects to biological resources within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan planning area. These goals and policies provide guidance for decision makers regarding the future affects to threatened and endangered species within the specific plan area, which includes the proposed project. The following excerpts from the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Biological Resource Evaluation 6 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
show the goals and policies that are applicable to the biological resources issues associated with the proposed project:

GOALS OF THE LAND USE PLAN (Pages II-5)

5. Accommodate new development which capitalizes on the planning area’s natural environmental setting, including the Kern River and Foothills.

6. Accommodate new development that is sensitive to the natural environment, and accounts for environmental hazards.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE GOALS (Pages V- 4)

1. Conserve and enhance Bakersfield's biological resources in a manner which facilitates orderly development and reflects the sensitivities and constraints of these resources.

2. To conserve and enhance habitat areas for designated “sensitive” animal and plant species.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE POLICIES (Page V-5)

1. Direct development away from "sensitive biological resource" areas, unless effective mitigation measures can be implemented (I-1, I-3, I-4).

2. Preserve areas of riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat within floodways along rivers and streams, in accordance with the Kern River Plan Element and channel maintenance programs designed to maintain flood flow discharge capacity (I-4).

3. Discourage, where appropriate, the use of off-road vehicles to protect designated sensitive biological and natural resources (I-2).

4. Determine the feasibility of enhancing sensitive biological habitat and establishing additional wildlife habitat in the study area with State and/or Federal assistance (I-3).

5. Determine the locations and extent of suitable habitat areas required for the effective conservation management of designated "sensitive" plant and animal species (I-3).

6. Investigate the feasibility of including natural areas selected for the habitat conservation plan as a component of the regional park system (I-3).

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

1. When considering discretionary development proposals, consult available biological resource data covering the area. Determine the potential impacts and necessary mitigation measures for identified biological resources, as required in the California Environmental Quality Act. Regularly consult with responsible resource agencies

2. Develop ordinances (where appropriate) to protect sensitive biological resources from adverse impacts of off-road vehicle use.

3. Protect sensitive habitat values of the Kern River Corridor through implementation of the Kern River Parkway Plan, Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and Kern River Plan Element.

Biological Resource Evaluation 7 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Figure 1-1: Vicinity Map
Biological Resource Evaluation 8 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Figure 1-2: Designated Land Use Map
Biological Resource Evaluation 9 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Section 2- METHODS

2.1 Definition of Special Status Species
For the purposes of this document, special status wildlife and plants include all species that meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Special-status species considered in this evaluation include those that may occur in the project vicinity that have statutory protections and include federal- and state-listed (rare, threatened, or endangered; fully protected) species and candidates for listing under the respective endangered species acts.
o Listed or candidates for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under CESA (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.). A species, subspecies, or variety of plant is endangered when the prospects of its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors (Fish and Game Code §2062). A plant is threatened when it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management measures (Fish and Game Code §2067).
o Listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code §1900 et seq.). A plant is rare when, although not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies, or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens (Fish and Game Code §1901). o Special-status bird species that are not listed as threatened or endangered have been included if the project site or observed vicinity includes potential nesting habitat or the species was observed during biological survey activities. Potential impacts to specialstatus bird species have also been considered if habitat that may be important to the species outside of breeding season was observed.
o Species may meet the criteria for inclusion on the lists consulted during the literature review if a special interest group, such as the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG), has concluded through empirical or published data that the species is declining and warrants concern and, potential habitat is present on the project site or vicinity. • Meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA §15380(b) and (d). Species that may meet the definition of rare or endangered include the following:
o Species considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” (Lists 1A, 1B and 2) (CNPS 2024a); o Species that may warrant consideration on the basis of local significance or recent biological information.
o Some species included on the California Natural Diversity Database’s (CNDDB) Special Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFW 2023a) or Special Animals List (CDFW 2023b). o Considered as sensitive by groups such as the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG), where such a group has concluded based on published and/or empirical data that the species is declining and warrants concern.
• Considered a locally significant species, that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA §15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). Examples include a species at the outer limits of its known range or a species occurring on an uncommon soil type.

Biological Resource Evaluation 10 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Species evaluated in this biological resource assessment have been collectively referred to as “specialstatus species.”

2.2 Literature and Database Review
Data sources included in the literature review included the following:
• California Natural Diversity Data Base information (CNDDB – RareFind 5), which is administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), formerly known as the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). This database covers sensitive plant and animal species as well as sensitive natural communities that occur in California. Records from nine USGS quadrangles surrounding the project site (Knob Hill, Oil Center, Lamont, Pine Mountain, Edison, North of Oildale, Rio Bravo Ranch, Oildale, Gosford) were obtained from this database to inform the field survey (CNDDB 2024). For the purposes of this report, the term “historic” observations refer to those occurrences that are 20 years or older. Observations recorded in CNDDB noted as “recent” are less than 20 years old. Species that are recorded by the CNDDB that have no official status (e.g., Watch List) were not further considered in the impact evaluation unless observed during the reconnaissance site visits or they meet one of the definitions above. • California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants, which utilizes four ranks of sensitive plant species to assist with the conservation of rare or endangered botanical resources. Records from the nine USGS quadrangles surrounding the project site were obtained from this database to inform the field survey (CNPS 2024a). • Designated and Proposed USFWS Critical Habitat Polygons were reviewed to determine whether critical habitat has been designated or proposed within or in the vicinity of the project site (USFWS 2024a).
• The USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation Database (IPaC) was reviewed to determine federal listed plant and wildlife species, as well as critical habitats that occur in in the vicinity of the project (USFWS 2024c).
• The Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) Bat Species Regional Priority Matrix was reviewed to determine bat species which hold a high level of conservation concern that may occur in the vicinity (WBWG 2024).
• USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; USFWS 2024b)
In addition to the databases listed above, historic and current aerial imagery, existing environmental reports for development in the project vicinity, regional habitat conservation plans and local land use policies related to biological resources were reviewed.

MBI Senior Biologist Erika Noel conducted the literature review and records search on February 13, 2024, to identify the previously reported observations and potential for occurrence of sensitive or special-status plant and wildlife species in the vicinity of the project site. MBI staff reviewed these lists and other pertinent information to complete the list of special-status species evaluated. The list was then reviewed based on-site characteristics, the project description, and observations, to assess the potential for occurrence. Potential impacts were determined in relation to each special-status species that may occur on the proposed project site and the aspects of the Project that could result in impacts to those species.

Species whose occurrence in the vicinity and life history makes them vulnerable to impacts even if they are not known to occur directly on the project site were also evaluated.

Biological Resource Evaluation 11 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
The potential for each special status species to occur in the study area was evaluated according to the following criteria:
• None. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable to meet the viable requirements of the species (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime).
• Potential (Low/Moderate/High). Conditions on the site may, in some way, support a portion of the species ecology (foraging, reproduction, movement/migration). If potential for the species was identified, a qualitative judgment was made as to the level of that potential given the observations compared to species habitat requirements and presence/quality of those elements on the Project site. If protocol surveys were conducted, negative results did not exclude the potential for a species to occur.
• Present. Species or diagnostic sign was observed on site or has been recorded on the site (CNDDB or other reports) within the last 5 years.
• Not Present. Protocol surveys were conducted and/or surveys were conducted at an appropriate time for observation of the species (e.g., plant blooming period) and it was not observed.

2.3 Reconnaissance Surveys
To visualize 100 percent of the Project area over multiple visits, temperatures and other conditions, the entire 83.96-acre Project site was surveyed on February 14, 2024 and March 20, 2024. Site visits were conducted on March 29, 2024 and April 4, 2024 to assess the condition of pools on the site and to check transmission towers and power poles for raptor/corvid nesting. Pools were examined for presence of wildlife, include adult amphibians, egg masses, and larvae during all site visits. Surveys were conducted by MBI Senior Biologist, Erika Noel, assisted by MBI Staff Biologists, Waleed Alnatour, Trevor Williams, and Maria Ortega. The reconnaissance surveys consisted of walking belt transects spaced at 75-100 feet apart, within the proposed project footprint. A 200-foot buffer was also evaluated. A 0.5-mile buffer was evaluated for its potential to support nesting special status raptors. All vertebrate wildlife species observed during the survey were identified and documented. Species findings included indirect observations (aurally), direct observations, and identifiable species sign (e.g., scat, tracks, feather/fur, prey remains, nests/burrows or any other indication of wildlife presence) deemed necessary to determine potential site occupation and habitat suitability. Species identification was aided through the use of binoculars and field guides, and locations of significant findings were recorded using the global-positioning system in handheld electronic devices (cell phone, tablet, etc.). Location information was saved to ArcGIS Field Maps for later analysis and inclusion in the report.

All plant taxa encountered during surveys were identified to species to the extent possible. Identifications were made using keys contained in The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, and updates and revision to taxonomic changes found in the Jepson eflora (Baldwin et al., 2012; Jepson Flora Project 2024).

Plant identifications were made in the field if key characters were identifiable, using a 10x or greater magnification field hand lens if needed, and were collected and identified using a dissecting microscope if field identification was not possible.

Biological Resource Evaluation 12 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Vegetation communities were identified by assessing dominant plant species and comparing to communities identified in the CNPS A Manual of California Vegetation online database (CNPS 2024b).

General habitat and site conditions were extensively photographed during the first site visit to visually depict conditions during 2024, with follow-up photographs as needed during subsequent site visits. In addition, special-status species or habitat features, such as vegetation communities or ephemeral channels, were also photographically documented if present.

2.3.1 Fairy Shrimp Sampling
Opportunistic, non-protocol fairy shrimp sampling was conducted on April 8, 2024, by MBI Permitted Biologists Ashleigh Pryor and Amy Fetters under Federal Permit TE-59559C-1, subsequent to fairy shrimp observations recorded during reconnaissance surveys.

Biological Resource Evaluation 13 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Section 3- RESULTS

3.1 Literature and Records Review
The literature review resulted in identification of 23 special-status plant species, 1 special-status bryophyte, 31 special-status wildlife species, and 4 sensitive habitat communities that were evaluated because they could occur in the vicinity of the proposed project (Appendix A and Appendix B). The general site conditions, observations during reconnaissance surveys, combined with the habitat requirements and known ranges of these species were evaluated to determine potential for occurrence of these species on the proposed project site. No USFWS designated Wetlands or Critical Habitat Polygons occur within the Project site (Appendix C).

3.2 Reconnaissance Surveys
The remainder of this section discusses the February 14, 2024, March 20, 2024, March 29, 2024, and April 4, 2024 (Table 3-1) reconnaissance field surveys and evaluation of those results based on the literature review and professional judgment of MBI personnel. Special-status species that are discussed in the following sections are those that were identified as potentially being affected by the proposed project or are discussed due to sensitivity in the region.

Table 3-1. Reconnaissance Field Surveys Personnel and Timing.

Date Personnel Time Weather Conditions Temperature
February
14, 2024
Erika Noel, Waleed
Alnatour, Trevor Williams,
Maria Ortega
0755-1244 10-20% cloud cover; 1
mph wind 46-65° F
March
20, 2024
Erika Noel, Trevor
Williams, Maria Ortega 0831-1032 0-10% cloud cover; 3-5 mph wind 60-64° F March
29, 2024
Erika Noel 0840-0950 30-40% cloud cover; 2
mph wind 52-52° F
April 4,
2024
Erika Noel 1230-1250 Mostly cloudy; wind not
recorded 54-54° F

3.2.1 General Site Conditions
The Project site was heavily disturbed at the time of the reconnaissance surveys (Appendix D). Per Google Earth (Google Earth 2024) historic 1992 aerial imagery, a portion of the site was used for oil and gas development while the rest remained undeveloped. According to the 2002 Google Earth Imagery, oil and gas development was at some point abandoned and structures removed, allowing the site to fallow.

During the reconnaissance survey conducted on February 14, 2024, a work crew was present in the northeast corner of the Project conducting well abandonment services. It was not made known to MBI the type of well on site or when it was put into production.

Evidence of recent grading and/or scraping that resulted in vegetation removal was apparent during the reconnaissance surveys. Between the 2002 Google Earth Imagery to 2006, the site appeared mostly undeveloped. April 2008 imagery shows the site to have been graded, possibly for residential development. Subsequent imagery shows no development occurred and no further disturbance was Biological Resource Evaluation 14 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
evident. In October 2023 Google Earth imagery shows signs of ground disturbance and removal of visible vegetation. The site conditions observed during the 2024 reconnaissance surveys reflect additional recent ground disturbance evident based on the absence of annual vegetation that would have responded to seasonal rains that occurred after the site alteration event visible in October 2023 aerial imagery (Appendix E) and compared to vegetation present on surrounding parcels. No imagery is available for the time period between October 2023 and MBI’s February 2024 initial site visit. Special-status and /or common plants and animals that are susceptible to this type of disturbance may have been present prior to the ground disturbance documented above. Evidence of the presence of these species was therefore not available for this Biological Resources Evaluation.

3.2.2 Common Plants and Vegetation
Sparse vegetation, consisting of both non-native and native annual species was observed; however, with the majority of the Project consisted of bare ground. Soils were primarily sandy loam (USDA Soils Map 2024), with no unique characteristics likely to support special-status communities. Evidence of recent vegetation removal was evident at the time of the survey, reducing overall diversity and cover. The remaining vegetation was dominated by red brome (Bromus rubens) and other early successional species of the region. A list of all plant species observed during the reconnaissance surveys can be found in Appendix F, Table F-1.

Where present, the vegetation of the Project can be characterized as Bromus rubens-Schismus (arabicus, barbatus) Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance. Very little vegetation was present, and no perennial plants were identified (Table B-1). Although sensitive natural communities were identified within the 10-mile radius search, none were present on the Project site (Figure 3-1).

3.2.3 Common Wildlife
Amphibians and Reptiles
Amphibians require standing or flowing water for part or all of their life cycle. Ponds, seasonal pools, and drainages provide suitable habitat for common as well as some sensitive amphibian species. Due to recent rain, several ephemeral pools were observed within the Project limits; however,no amphibian species were observed within the Project site. Amphibians may temporarily occupy these areas during the wet season if ponded water is present for a sufficient time period. Such species known from the vicinity of the Project include western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) and Baja California treefrog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca hypochondriaca).

Habitat structure contributes to the potential diversity of reptiles within an area. Reptiles occur within a diverse mixture of habitats used for foraging, shelter, and breeding. Small mammal burrows contribute to cover opportunities, which they use as a refuge from differing ambient temperatures and predator avoidance. The Project site provides suitable habitat for several common reptile species. Common sideblotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) was observed during survey efforts. This species is an early colonizer from adjacent parcels and is relatively tolerant of disturbance. Other common lizards known to occur in the vicinity include California whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris munda) and San Joaquin fence lizard (Sceloporus Biological Resource Evaluation 15 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Figure 3-1: CNDDB sensitive natural communities results- 10-mile radius Biological Resource Evaluation 16 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
occidentalis biseriatus); however, these species were not observed during the surveys and are somewhat less tolerant of disturbance. No other reptiles were observed during the surveys.

Birds
The open habitat of the Project area is well suited for predatory bird species as well as several passerines.

The power poles/towers and utility lines within the vicinity of the Project provide suitable nesting habitat for common raptors and corvids, and the Project site provides suitable foraging habitat for many raptors known to occur in the region. One active common raven (Corvus corax) nest was observed on a transmission tower during the surveys. While the site has limited value as nesting habitat for most passerines, it can support ground nesting species such as horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). One ground nesting species that is tolerant of disturbance, killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), was observed nesting on the Project site during the March 20, 2024 survey (Appendix D, Photo D-42).

Several bird species of concern were identified in the IPaC report (Appendix B, Table B-1). None of these species were observed and they are not expected on the Project site.

Bird species observed at the time of the survey can be found in Appendix F, Table F-2.

Mammals
Two wildlife mammal species were observed during the surveys, coyote (Canis latrans) and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica: SJKF) track was observed within the Project site suggesting SJKF have traveled through the site and may forage onsite.

Additional discussion of this species is included in Section 3.3, below. The current disturbed conditions on the Project site provide low quality habitat suitable for some common small mammalian species that are tolerant of disturbance. as the disturbed conditions provide marginal cover and food gathering opportunities for these species. A healthy and diverse small mammal community is needed to provide a prey base for larger mammals and birds of prey.

The Project site provides predatory mammals such as coyote and SJKF a marginal prey base. SJKF are further addressed in section 3.3 Special Status Wildlife Species.

3.3 Special Status Plants
The literature review resulted in identification of 23 special-status plant species and 1 special-status bryophyte (Figure 3-2 through Figure 3-5; Appendix A and Appendix B, Table B-1). Of the 23 special-status plant species and 1 special-status bryophyte identified in the literature review, 10 special status plants, 1 CNPS Rare Plant Rank 4.2 (“watch list”) plant species, and no bryophytes have potential to occur based on habitat suitability. None of the 10 special status plants and 1 CNPS 4.2 rare plant with potential to occur were present or observed during the reconnaissance surveys. Special status/rare plants with potential to occur on the Project site include: California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus), Kern mallow (Eremalche parryi ssp. kernensis), Hoover’s eriastrum (Eriastrum hooveri), Tracy’s eriastrum (Eriastrum tracyi) Tejon poppy (Eschscholzia lemmonii ssp. kernensis), San Joaquin woolly-threads (Monolopia congdonii), Piute Mountains navarretia (Navarretia setiloba), Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei), San Joaquin adobe sunburst (Pseudobahia peirsonii), San Joaquin blue curls Biological Resource Evaluation 17 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Figure 3-2: CNDDB special-status plants results- 10-mile radius (Plants A - E).

Biological Resource Evaluation 18 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Figure 3-3: CNDDB special-status plants results- 2-mile radius (A – E).

Biological Resource Evaluation 19 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Figure 3-4: CNDDB special-status plants results- 10-mile radius (Plants F - Z).

Biological Resource Evaluation 20 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Figure 3-5: CNDDB special-status plants results- 2-mile radius (F – Z).

Biological Resource Evaluation 21 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
(Trichostema ovatum), and Oil neststraw (Stylocline citroleum). All of the aforementioned species have blooming periods for which identification is required, except Bakersfield cactus. Bakersfield cactus was not observed during the fieldwork conducted. This species is a perennial succulent and is identifiable yearround. Therefore, impacts to Bakersfield cactus are not expected.

Focused floristics surveys during optimal blooming periods for the all the potentially occurring plant species were not conducted for this impact analysis. It is not known if previous floristic studies were conducted on the site prior to any of the historic site disturbance. Given the level of current and historic disturbance to Project site, as described in Section 3.2.1 General Site Conditions, potential for special status plants species to occur is unlikely, except for San Joaquin blue curls. In additional to occurring in annual grassland habitat, San Joaquin blue curls occurs throughout the region in highly disturbed habitat conditions, such as oil production areas, roadway interchanges, road shoulders, and other frequently disturbed areas.

3.4 Special Status Wildlife Species
This section assesses the occurrence potential for special-status wildlife species that may occur on the proposed Project. MBI identified 14 special-status wildlife species with potential to occur on the Project site based on general habitat conditions, habitat elements important to each species, range of occurrence, soils, vegetation, and elevation. Several special-status species were identified in the literature review for which the Project site is outside of the current known range and/or they have habitat requirements that are not present on the Project site or in the general vicinity (Appendix B; Table B-2). Species that have no potential to occur due to various factors such as lack of suitable habitat and the site being outside of the known elevation or geographic range, or the species having been extirpated from the region, are identified in the table but not discussed any further in the body of this report. In addition, many special-status avian species were identified during the database query that may occasionally forage on or fly over the Project site but are not expected to nest on site due to lack of nesting habitat or suitable substrates; therefore, they are not discussed further in the body of this report.

3.4.1 Invertebrates

3.4.1.a Crotch’s Bumble Bee (Bombus crotchii) (SCE)
Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB) is a state candidate for listing as endangered. This species was historically known from throughout much of California but has recently lost substantial habitat in the northern Central Valley due to agricultural development. The conversion of the San Joaquin Valley for agricultural uses has similarly reduced the available habitat for the species in that portion of the range. These threats along with several other human impacts have caused declines in this species that have recently warranted listing consideration. CBB occurs in grasslands and upland scrub habitats that contain suitable flowering resources to support small colonies. Colonies are annual and consist of a queen, workers, and reproductive drones (males) and gynes (new queens). Bumble bee queens emerge from overwintering in early spring and locate a nest site, often in abandoned rodent burrows, but may also use bird nests, rock piles, tufts of grass, or tree cavities. Colonies are active until early to late summer when mated queens seek overwintering sites (Hatfield et al. 2015). Bumble bees forage for nectar and pollen from the plants that they pollinate, with food plants including Asclepias, Chaenactis, Lupinus, Medicago, Phacelia, and Salvia (Williams et al. 2014).

Biological Resource Evaluation 22 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Three CNDDB records for CBB have been reported within 10 miles of the Project, with one of those records withing 2 miles (Figures 3-6 and 3-7). Although no bumble bees were observed during the site visit, small mammal burrows and annual grassland are present, and these features may provide nesting and overwintering opportunities for CBB. None of the genera typical of floral resources frequented by CBB were observed during the survey visits. No bumble bees were opportunistically observed during these surveys either. Nevertheless, due to the presence of low-quality foraging and nesting habitat, CBB could occur on the Project site.

3.4.1.b Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) (FT) The vernal pool fairy shrimp (VPFS) is a small crustacean that is federally listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (FESA). Critical habitat designation was finalized for the species pursuant to FESA in 2006 (CDFW 2023; ETWP 1994; ETWP 2006). They are only known to occur in California (CA) and one location in southern Oregon (OR). Like other Anostraca, VPFS are delicate aquatic creatures with large, stalked, compound eyes and eleven pairs of swimming legs that also function as gills; and swim by beating their legs in a complex, wave-like movement from front to back. Like nearly all fairy shrimp, they probably feed on algae, bacteria, protozoa, rotifers, and bits of detritus. VPFS typically range in size from 0.4 to 1.0 inches (10.9-25 millimeters) in length and are distinguished from other Branchinecta spp. by the morphology of the male’s second antenna and the female’s third thoracic segment and brood pouch (Belk & Fugate 2000; USFWS 2005; 2007; Eng et al. 1990).

VPFS occur in 28 counties across the Central Valley and Coast Ranges of California. They occur in a wide array of vernal pool environments including: alkali pools, ephemeral drainages, seasonal wetlands, artificial pools, artificial depressions, stream oxbows, vernal swales, and rock outcrop pools. VPFS embryos can take less than two weeks to mature and less than three weeks to reproduce. Embryos can survive as cysts until water returns following complete desiccation of a body of water. Cysts probably also allow for dispersal via ingestion and/or other forms of unintentional uptake largely done by birds and mammals.

Fairy shrimp species found in any given body of water seems to be largely determined by the water’s thermal and chemical properties. VPFS appear to require water temperatures of 50°F (10°C) or below to hatch, and shrimp will begin to die at 75°F (~24°C). VPFS are typically found in small bodies of water (< 2,160 feet2
, or 200 m2) that are shallow, but have been found to occur in bodies of water as large as nearly 480,000 feet2 (~44,530 m2
) and slightly deeper than 4 feet (~1.2 meters). They do not seem to persist in bodies of water with fish. Co-occurrence of VPFS and other vernal pool species in the same pool seems to be uncommon. VPFS can also be found in the same habitat as multiple plant species that are threatened/endangered under the California Endangered Species act (CESA) and FESA, including San Joaquin Valley orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis) and Greene’s tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei) (Deiner et al., 2017; Helm 1998; USFWS 2005; USFWS 2007).

VPFS are primarily threatened by habitat loss, habitat alteration, and altered hydrology Nonnative predators; namely, bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), mosquitofish (Gambusia spp.), and crayfish; and water contamination may also pose significant threats to VPFS. Climate change and the effects of drought in California may also negatively affect VPFS (Ivey et al., 2017; Kneitel 2014; Kneitel et al., 2017; USFWS 2005; USFWS 2007).

Although no records of VPFS were identified within 10 miles of the Project in the CNDDB, this species was returned in the USFWS IPaC report (Appendix A). Pools generally suitable for fairy shrimp and fairy shrimp Biological Resource Evaluation 23 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Figure 3-6: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) special-status invertebrate results- 10-mile Biological Resource Evaluation 24 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Figure 3-7: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) special-status invertebrates results- 2-mile radius Biological Resource Evaluation 25 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
individuals were observed on the Project. An opportunistic sampling session (non-protocol) was conducted, but no VPFS were detected. There remains a moderate potential for Branchinecta lynchi to occur based on the presence of pools and location in the range of the species. The more common versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli; BRLI) was detected in April 2024. Observation details are discussed in Appendix G.

3.4.2 Amphibians

3.4.2.a Western Spadefoot Toad (Spea hammondii) (SSC)
Western spadefoot is a California species of special concern and federal proposed threatened species which primarily occurs in lowland habitats, generally below 3,000 feet (900 meters) within or adjacent to washes, floodplains of rivers, alluvial fans, playas, and alkali flats. They also occur in the foothills and mountains (Stebbins 1985) up to 4,500 feet (1,363 meters) (Morey 1988). Associated vegetative communities include valley-foothill grassland, open chaparral, pine-oak woodland and lower montane conifer and mixed conifer forest within open areas comprised of short grasses and sandy or gravelly soil.

Western spadefoots have two distinct habitat requirements including quiet streams (Stebbins 2003) or seasonal pools for breeding with uplands for foraging and dry-season aestivation. Western spadefoot eggs and larvae have been observed in a variety of permanent and temporary wetlands including rivers, creeks, pools in intermittent streams, vernal pools, and temporary rain pools (CDFG 2010). They have also been found in altered wetlands including vernal pools that have been disturbed by activities such as earthmoving, disking, intensive livestock use, and off-road vehicle use, and created wetlands such as artificial ponds, livestock ponds, sedimentation and flood control ponds, irrigation and roadside ditches, roadside puddles, tire ruts, and borrow pits (Fisher and Shaffer 1996). Terrestrial habitats surrounding aquatic breeding sites are crucial to the survival of many semiaquatic species like the western spadefoot that depend on mesic ecotones to complete their life cycles (Semlitsch and Bodie 2003).

No records of western spadefoot toad were found within 10 miles of the Project site during the database searches but this species was identified in the USFWS IPac report (Appendix A). Potentially suitable seasonal pools were observed during the field survey efforts (Appendix D). Some pools were of appropriate depth and size to hold water for the necessary hydroperiod (30 days) required by western spadefoot toad. During the site visits, no sign of any amphibian occupation (e.g., adults, egg masses or larvae) was observed at the pools. Given the high rainfall years experienced during 2022 to 2024, western spadefoot toad egg masses or larvae would have been expected if the species was present and breeding.

Based on lack of observation under appropriate conditions, this species is not present on the Project.

3.4.3 Reptiles

3.4.3.a California Legless Lizard (Anniella spp.) and Bakersfield Legless Lizard (Anniella grinnelli) (SSC)
The Anniella pulchra complex consists of at least five species that are all California Species of Special Concern (SSC), with the Temblor legless lizard (Anniella alexanderae) also a candidate for state listing as endangered. Populations of Anniella spp. can occur throughout portions of a range extending from Contra Costa and San Joaquin counties south to Baja California, Mexico within parts of the coast and interior.

Previously Anniella pulchra was considered one species with a highly disjunct distribution, but, in 2013, Biological Resource Evaluation 26 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
the species was split into five: Northern California legless lizard (A. pulchra), Temblor legless lizard (A. alexanderae), Southern Sierra legless lizard (A. campi), Bakersfield legless lizard (A. grinnelli), and Southern California legless lizard (A. stebbinsi). The proposed range of the Northern California legless lizard currently consists of individuals distributed throughout parts of three disjunct regions: parts of the South Coast Range and California coastline from Contra Costa and San Joaquin counties south to northern Ventura County, the southeastern slope of the Tehachapi Mountains from southern Kern County to northern Los Angeles County, and the western slope of the Sierra Nevada in Fresno and Tulare counties.

The proposed range of the Temblor legless lizard currently consists of individuals distributed within a small pocket of western Kern County and possibly as far north as western Fresno County. The proposed range of the Bakersfield legless lizard currently consists of individuals distributed throughout parts of two small, disjunct regions: a portion of the southern San Joaquin Valley, including within the Bakersfield city limits, and the eastern side of the Carrizo Plain. Individuals that lack taxonomic analysis may still survive in populations throughout portions of the southern Transverse Range and Sierra Nevada, the San Joaquin Valley, the western Mohave, the southern coastline of San Luis Obispo County and northern coastline of Ventura County, and inland Ventura and Los Angeles counties. Until further analysis of such populations is undertaken, such individuals are considered Anniella spp. in which all are considered SSC (CDFW 2023; Parham & Papenfuss 2008; Papenfuss & Parham 2013; Stebbins & McGinnis 2012). The Project lies within this area where the species, if present, has not yet been determined.

Due to its fossorial nature, relatively little is known regarding the life history and distribution of Anniella spp., especially the Temblor, Southern Sierra, and Bakersfield legless lizards which are only known to occur in very restricted ranges. Anniella spp. require sandy or loamy soils that allow for access to moisture but are not saturated. Anniella spp. are often found in soil under some type of surface cover (e.g., rocks, wood, shrubs, leaf litter, debris etc.). Any of the five species being addressed here are known to occur in one or more of the following habitat types anywhere between about sea level and 5,900 feet (1,800 meters):
inland and coastal dunes, desert scrub, sandy washes, alluvial fans, riparian woodlands, Joshua/juniper woodlands, chaparral, oak woodland, and oak-pine forests. Evidence shows that aside from a perhaps localized full depletion survey, estimating population density for Anniella spp. currently appears impossible (Kuhnz et al., 2005; Miller 1944; Papenfuss & Parham 2013; Stebbins & McGinnis 2012).

Due to their limited ability to expand their distribution, Anniella spp. appears to be most threatened by habitat loss and alteration. Such changes to habitat are largely due to agricultural expansion and urbanization and associated activities (e.g., plowing, livestock grazing, grading, etc.), but are probably also linked to other activities to varying degrees (e.g., off-road vehicle activities, introduction of exotic species, etc.). Though not well studied, Anniella spp. may also be significantly threatened by pesticide usage, increased depredation, and climate change. Because relatively little is known about the taxon, these threats and to what degree they are affecting Anniella spp. are not well understood (Jennings & Hayes 1994; Lara-Reséndiz et al., 2021; Miller 1944; Papenfuss & Parham 2013; Stebbins & McGinnis 2012).

There are multiple occurrences of Bakersfield legless lizards and unidentified legless lizards within 5 miles of the Project site (Figure 3-8 and 3-9). The closest CNDDB records for Bakersfield legless lizard are approximately 3.5 miles west of the Project site, in sandy soils associated with the historic flow of the Kern River. The Project site contains a marginal to moderate suitable soils for Anniella spp., lacking large areas of sandy soils across most of the site, although bands of sandy soils were observed. The site provides Biological Resource Evaluation 27 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Figure 3-8: CNDDB special-status reptiles and amphibians results- 10-mile radius Biological Resource Evaluation 28 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Figure 3-9: CNDDB special-status reptiles and amphibians results- 2-mile radius Biological Resource Evaluation 29 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
virtually no cover other than annual grasses and other weedy forbs. The widespread disturbance on the site reduces the potential that Anniella spp. are present as this species is susceptible to ground disturbance. Based on these considerations and the habitat conditions observed, Anniella spp. have a low potential to occur.

3.4.3.b California Glossy Snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis) (SSC) Several subspecies of glossy snake (Arizona elegans) exist throughout the species’ distribution, with three subspecies occurring within California. The California glossy snake is considered a California species of special concern (CDFW 2023). It can be found through the South Coast Ranges spilling into the foothills to the east and west starting in Contra Costa County south to the Transverse Ranges. In western Kern County and the extreme southeast and southwest of Kings County and Tulare County, respectively, it can be found throughout the floor of the San Joaquin Valley. Its distribution continues south through a portion of the Transverse Ranges and their foothills passing through the northeastern corner of Santa Barbara County, southwestern Kern County, northern Ventura County, and Los Angeles County. Starting in southern Ventura County its range extends into the southern coastline where it continues south to Mexico along the coastline and adjacent Peninsular Ranges. Intergrades with the other two subspecies of glossy snake may occur along the eastern foothills of the Transverse Ranges and within the Peninsular Ranges (CDFW 2015 and Thomson et al., 2016).

Glossy snakes are relatively slender, medium-sized colubrids with adults typically ranging between 26 to 70 inches (66 to 178 centimeters) in length. The dorsum of the snake has a brown base with neatly spaced darker brown blotching edged in black on the back and sides similar to that of gopher snakes (Pituophis catenifer) and night snakes (Hypsiglena spp.). The shades of the base brown and the darker brown blotches can vary by individual. The venter is typically a cream or white color. Glossy snakes’ scales are smooth and non-keeled. The lower jaw is inset and aids in burrowing. Glossy snakes in the west are almost always crepuscular or nocturnal and usually underground during the daytime. Glossy snakes also have two prefrontal scales, whereas gopher snakes usually have four. (Stebbins 2003; Stebbins & McGinnis 2012; Thomson et al., 2016).

Glossy snakes inhabit arid scrub, rocky washes, chaparral, open woodland, annual and perennial grassland, and desert riparian. This species appears to prefer microhabitats of open areas and areas with soil loose enough for easy burrowing. In California, glossy snakes primarily feed on lizards and small rodents, but can also feed on other snakes and even birds. Adult females typically lay five to 12 eggs in June or July (CDFW 2015; Rodríguez-Robles et al., 1999; Stebbins 2003; Stebbins & McGinnis 2012).

Declines within portions of the California glossy snake’ distribution have been reported. The greatest threat is likely habitat alteration due to agricultural development and urbanization, although this aspect of the species’ biology is not well-studied. The species is probably also at elevated risk from wildfires(CDFW 2016; CDFW 2019, Appendices A & C; Thomson et al., 2016).

The most recent CNDDB record of this species is from approximately 7.5 miles north of the Project site near Poso Creek (1981). Three additional historic records are reported within the 10-mile radius (Figure 3-8) with none within 2-miles. Suitable habitat still remains in the region, and the Project area provides moderately suitable habitat for California glossy snake. Small mammal burrows appropriate for California glossy snake occupation were found on the Project site, as well as within the adjacent buffer, suggesting suitable prey source populations. However, this species seems to be more susceptible to disturbance and Biological Resource Evaluation 30 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
less likely to reoccupy previously disturbed sites than the San Joaquin coachwhip. Given the previous disturbance to the Project site and marginally suitable habitat conditions, with persistence of more suitable habitat in adjacent areas, there is a low potential for California glossy snake to occur.

3.4.3.c Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard (Gambelia sila) (FE, SE, FP) The blunt-nosed leopard lizard (BNLL) is a relatively large lizard in the Iguanidae family. It is currently federal- and state-listed as endangered and is fully protected by the state of California. It has a long, regenerative tail, long and powerful hind limbs, and a broad, triangular head with a short, blunt snout (USFWS 1998). Adult total length including tail may reach up to 13 inches (33 centimeters) and adult weight up to 1.5 ounces. Coloration consists of a light grayish, tan, or brown background with a conspicuous pattern of dark overlaying spots and/or pale crossbars. During the spring courtship season both sexes may develop reddish markings on the sides, tail, and ventral surfaces. Juveniles usually show a similar, but more yellowish pattern (CDFW 2018; Stebbins 1985; Native fish and wildlife 1967).

BNLL were historically distributed over the San Joaquin Valley and in adjacent lower foothills, plains, and valleys. Currently, this species is found only in the San Joaquin Valley in sparsely vegetated desert scrub, lower canyon slopes, valley floors, arroyos, and washes. Associated vegetation may include a variety of grasses, saltbush, goldenbush, iodine bush, and seep weed (USFWS 2010). Population behavior and stability are sensitive to temperature and precipitation changes, and population numbers will substantially decline if there are many years of drought or too frequent above average precipitation levels.

Larger habitat patches of 350 hectares (865 acres) or more have a greater chance of BNLL occurrence (Bailey and Germano 2015). Mating season is April-May (June) and this taxon is mostly polygynous, but sometimes may maintain the same mate for several years (Ahlborn 2000).

BNLL feed primarily on insects (particularly grasshoppers, crickets and moths), other lizards, and occasionally plant material (USFWS 1998). BNLL are active during the day, primarily from April to October, and peak daily activity usually occurs when air temperatures are between 75 and 95 °F (24–35 °C). During the winter months, and to seek shade during the summer months, animals can be found in underground rodent small mammal burrows. This species is also known to dig its own burrows, which are often cryptic and difficult to identify.

The site visits for this resource evaluation were not conducted during the optimum activity period for BNLL and protocol surveys have not been conducted (CDFW 2019). Within the Project site, potential habitat use by BNLL was considered low due to low density of burrows combined with the recent ground disturbance and overall habitat fragmentation that is occurring in the vicinity of the site. However, an adequate amount (>865 acres) of adjacent suitable habitat remains that could support BNLL. 2004 and 2009 CNDDB records include BNLL observations 1 mile north of the Project and general habitat conditions are suitable for this species in the intervening areas (Figure 3-8 and 3-9). In consideration of the previous disturbance to the Project site, adjacent habitat quality, and records of BNLL in the vicinity of the Project, the overall potential for this species is considered moderate.

3.4.3.d San Joaquin coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum ruddocki) (SSC) The San Joaquin coachwhip is a large, smooth-scaled, slender snake that is 35 to 61 inches (90–155 centimeters) in length, and may be light yellow, olive brown or occasionally reddish in dorsal coloration.

Biological Resource Evaluation 31 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Neck bands are very faint or entirely absent. The ventral color is straw yellow becoming pinkish to orange beneath the tail. The scalation on the tail suggests a braided whip.

This diurnal snake emerges from rodent burrows typically during the warmest part of the day, except in the hottest period during the summer. The San Joaquin coachwhip is active from late spring (April–May) through early fall (September). It primarily feeds upon lizards, and small mammals including bats but will also feed on birds and eggs, snakes, amphibians, and carrion, and is known to climb bushes and trees for viewing prey and potential predators.

Endemic to California, the San Joaquin coachwhip is known to occur in valley grassland and saltbush scrub associations and ranges from Arbuckle in Colusa County southward to the Grapevine in the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley and westward into the inner South Coast Ranges. An isolated population occurs in the Sutter Buttes. Land-use conversion, for agriculture and urban development, combined with consecutive years of drought, has significantly contributed to population fragmentation. The species is considered a California species of special concern (CDFW 2023a; Jennings et al., 1994; Stebbins 2003).

Moderately suitable habitat for San Joaquin coachwhip was observed during the reconnaissance surveys.

Small mammal burrows appropriate for San Joaquin coachwhip occupation were found on the Project site, also suggesting suitable prey source populations. Even though the site and surrounding areas have experienced previous disturbance, San Joaquin coachwhip is relatively mobile and less disturbed habitat is present north, west, and east of the Project.

Though the closest CNDDB records for San Joaquin coachwhip are greater than 10 miles to the south, MBI has recorded this species within 4 miles northeast of the Project (MBI 2017 and 2024). The most recent observation by MBI Qualified Biologist Craig O’Neill occurred May 2, 2024, less than 4 miles northeast of the Project. Given that this species is known in the vicinity from moderately disturbed situations and the species is fairly mobile, there is a moderate potential for San Joaquin coachwhip to occur.

3.4.4 Birds

3.4.4.a Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) (SSC)
The burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern, and documented population declines have occurred in the state since at least the 1970s. This species is a small, ground-dwelling owl with a round head that lacks ear tufts. Adults are sandy brown overall with bold spotting and barring, have white eyebrows above yellow eyes, and can be distinguished from all other small owls by their long legs. Adult burrowing owls have an average weight of 6 ounces (170 grams), a full body length of 8.5 to 11 inches (22–28 centimeters), and average wingspan of 20- to 24-inches (51- to 61-centimeters) wingspan (Brown 2006).

Within California, this species is found throughout the Central Valley, in the San Francisco Bay Area, Carrizo Plain, Mojave Desert, Imperial Valley, and the northeastern part of the state. Typical habitat includes open grasslands, agricultural or range lands, and desert lands with short, sparse vegetation at elevations from 200 feet (61 meters) below sea level to 9,000 feet (2,743 meters) above sea level (Brown 2006). The Central Valley population resides in the area year-round in the annual and perennial grasslands or other vegetation communities that support little to no tree or shrub cover. The state of California is also considered an important wintering ground for migrants; thus, California’s burrowing owl population Biological Resource Evaluation 32 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
increases during the winter season (CDFG 2012; Dunn & Alderfer 2008; Shuford & Gardali 2008). Nesting season may begin as early as February, but typically begins in late March and breeding pairs exhibit biparental care in which the female incubates the eggs and the male cares for the young.

Burrowing owls are active daytime and nighttime but are mostly active around dawn and dusk. In California, the species is typically found in close association with California ground squirrels due to this species’ burrows, that are used by burrowing owls as year-round shelter and seasonal nesting habitat.

Burrowing owls may also use human-made structures such as culverts, corrugated metal pipes, debris piles, or openings beneath pavement as shelter and nesting habitat. During active periods of the year, they may be observed above ground in the vicinity of their burrows or roosting on the ground or nearby high spots such as berms, fence posts, or shrubs. They have a varied diet that includes insects, small rodents, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and carrion, and there is some evidence that population sizes of California vole (Microtus californicus) influence their survival and reproductive success in portions of their range (Poulin et al., 1998). Pellets including animal bones and exoskeletons may be found near burrow entrances, along with whitewash and foot tracks.

Numerous burrowing owl records are reported in the CNDDB within 10-miles of the Project (Figure 3-10 and Figure 3-11). In addition, MBI documented burrowing owl nesting in 2023 within 0.25 miles of the Project. Many suitably sized burrows were observed on the Project site due to the abundance of California ground squirrel burrow complexes. In the region of the Project, burrowing owls commonly use California ground squirrel burrows for both nesting and overwintering. This species is fairly tolerant of disturbance and is highly mobile. Although no burrowing owl individuals or burrows with sign of burrowing owl use were observed on the Project site during the reconnaissance surveys, the Project has high potential to be occupied by burrowing owl based on presence of the species nearby, suitable habitat presence and availability of burrows.

3.4.4.b Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) (ST)
Swainson’s hawks are state listed as a threatened species (CNDDB 2024). They are diurnal and similar in size to the red-tailed hawk but lack their pale spotting on scapulars. There are two distinct color morphs with variations in between. Light morphs have a whitish forehead and white patch on the throat below the bill, while the rest of the head, sides of the throat, patch on its chest, and all other upper body parts are dark brown. The belly is white with brown barring, and in flight their wings have dark trailing edges that contrast with the light-colored leading edges and the belly. Individuals of the dark morph are entirely dark brown, except for a patch under the tail (Brown 2006; Dunn and Alderfer 2008). The Swainson’s hawk feeds on mice, gophers, ground squirrels, rabbits, large arthropods, amphibians, reptiles, birds and sometimes fish (Brown & Amadon 1968; Dunkle 1977).

Swainson’s hawks are an uncommon resident and migrant in the Central Valley, Klamath Basin, Northeastern Plateau, Lassen County and Mojave Desert. Most of the state’s breeding sites are in two disjunct populations in the Great Basin and Central Valley. In the Central Valley, nest sites are strongly associated with riparian forest vegetation, whereas in the Great Basin nest sites are widely distributed in upland habitats (Woodbridge 1998). In the San Joaquin Valley, nests are associated with suitable trees and other structures near open foraging habitat. Typical habitat is open desert, grassland, or cropland Biological Resource Evaluation 33 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Figure 3-10: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) special-status bird results- 10-mile radius.

Biological Resource Evaluation 34 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Figure 3-11: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) special-status bird results- 2-mile radius Biological Resource Evaluation 35 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
containing scattered, large trees or small groves. High use foraging habitat in the southern San Joaquin Valley is typically newly harvested alfalfa and irrigated grain fields. Migrating individuals move south through the southern and central interior of California in September and October and move north from March through May (Grinnell and Miller 1944; Zeiner et al. 1988-1990).

A single historic (1935) Swainson’s hawk record has been reported as approximately 5.3 miles southsouthwest of the Project in the CNDDB (Figure 3-10 and Figure 3-11). It should be noted that this location is reported as the CNDDB’s best guess based on an egg collection (CNDDB 2024). No potential nest trees were present on the Project site. Power line poles, which could be used for nesting, border the north and west perimeter of the site. The nearest trees of adequate size to support a raptor nest were over a quarter mile southwest of the project site in a developed residential area. The nearest agricultural land representing high use foraging habitat is approximately 3 miles from the Project site. The nesting resources are marginal and potential for occurrence of this species is consider low.

3.4.5 Mammals

3.4.5a. American badger (Taxidea taxus) (SSC)
The American badger is a California species of special concern (CNDDB 2024). This species is a low, squat animal with conspicuous silver-tipped, dorsal fur and a short, black-tipped tail. The most striking visual feature of this species is its striped face, consisting of a median white stripe proceeding from the tip of its nose to the back of its head. This stripe is flanked by alternating white and dark stripes giving way to bright, white-outlined ears. The American badger has short but powerful legs, and the front feet are fitted with long claws that are well suited for digging out the burrows of the rodents on which it feeds (Reid 2006). In addition to rodents, their diet includes other small mammals, invertebrates, birds, snakes and carrion. Mating occurs in late summer or early autumn, and litters of two to five offspring are born in early spring (Zeiner et al. 1990).

The historic range of American badgers in California was throughout the state with the exception of the humid coastal forests in Del Norte and Humboldt Counties (Zeiner et al. 1990). Their modern distribution in the lower San Joaquin Valley is restricted to the remaining grassland and shrubland habitats. Cultivated lands have been reported to provide little usable habitat for this species. In the 1980s, badgers were believed to be declining throughout California (Williams 1986), and no evidence to contradict this status has been published in the interim.

Badgers are primarily nocturnal animals and are infrequently observed directly during daytime surveys; however, they have distinctive digging style and burrow shape, which is easily detected in the field.

Combined with tracks, it is typically the method used to determine presence on a site (Reid 2006; Zeiner et al., 1990). In addition, it is notable that badger burrow size overlaps with that of SJKF.

Three records for American badger have been reported to the CNDDB within the 10-mile radius of the Project, one of which is within approximately 1 mile south (Figure 3-12 and Figure 3-13). During the site visits, California ground squirrel burrows and potential SJKF dens were observed, but none of these burrows/dens had sign of badger presence or evidence of digging. Even though no evidence of this species was observed, there remains a low potential for presence given the quality and condition of the habitat on the Project site. Surrounding habitat adjacent to the Project is much more suitable with a moderate potential to occur adjacent to the Project.

Biological Resource Evaluation 36 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Figure 3-12: CNDDB special-status mammals results- 10-mile radius Biological Resource Evaluation 37 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Figure 3-13: CNDDB special-status mammals results- 2-mile radius Biological Resource Evaluation 38 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024

3.4.5.d San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) (FE/ST) The SJKF, federal-listed as endangered and state-listed as threatened, resembles a small, lanky dog in appearance, with disproportionately large ears containing an abundance of large white, inner guard hairs.

This species is the largest subspecies of kit fox, with adults weighing 4.5 to 5 pounds (2–2.3 kilograms).

Total length is about 32 inches (81 centimeters), including a bushy black-tipped tail up to 12 inches (30 centimeters) long, and total height is about 12 inches (30 centimeters) tall. Coloration ranges from light buff to grayish along the back and tail; gray, rust, or yellowish along the sides; and white on the belly.

SJKF occur in a variety of open grassland, oak savannah, and shrub vegetation types/habitats as well as oil-producing and urban areas in the southern San Joaquin Valley as well as other portions of its range. In the southern San Joaquin Valley portion of the range, SJKF are generally found in sparse, annual grassland and scrub communities (e.g., valley sink scrub, saltbush scrub) with low annual precipitation. Whereas the urban populations of SJKF are commonly observed utilizing undeveloped lots, storm water retention basins, canal banks, powerline corridors, school campuses, industrial and commercial areas for denning (Cypher and Van Horn Job 2012; Deatherage et al. 2021). Home ranges for the taxon have been reported by several authors to range from 1 to 12 square miles (1.6–19 square kilometers) with large overlap in home ranges among individuals, though dens are restricted to a single family. They change dens on a regular basis, likely due to prey depletion; in one study, a single kit fox was tracked to 70 dens during a 2- year period (Native fish and wildlife 1967; USFWS 1998). Dens are used for temperature regulation, shelter, reproduction, and safety from potential predators, but characteristics such as number of entrances varies across the taxon’s range. In the southern portion of its range the taxon often creates dens with two entrances, and natal dens generally have multiple entrances. Entrances are usually 8 to 10 inches (20–25 centimeters) in diameter and are normally greater in height than width, but kit foxes can utilize dens with entrances as small as 4 inches (10 centimeters) in diameter. Kit foxes do not typically excavate their own dens, but rather enlarge the burrows of other species, such as California ground squirrels and American badgers, or utilize human-made structures such as culverts and pipelines.

Predation is an appreciable cause of SJKF mortality, with urban kit foxes yielding higher survival rates due to lack of competition with large carnivores such as coyotes (USFWS 2010e). However, in the urban environment, mortality secondary to vehicle strikes, and infections caused by a serious sarcoptic mange outbreak within the urban Bakersfield population, are the leading causes of mortality in the urban population of SJKF (Cypher et. al. 2017; Kelly et al. 2022). The urban population of SJKF has been reduced by approximately 67% subsequent to sarcoptic mange (Cypher et al. 2022; Kelly et al. 2022). SJKF populations in the Project area and surrounding areas have recently been reduced due to the sarcoptic mange outbreak, with high fatality rates observed in SJKF that contracted mange (Cypher et. al. 2017).

SJKF are primarily nocturnal but can be seen during the day when activities on the surface get their attention or when pups are present and play outside of the den in late afternoon. The diet of this taxon consists largely of nocturnal kangaroo rats and other small mammals, though they may also eat groundnesting birds or insects (USFWS 2010e). SJKF within the City of Bakersfield have been found to exploit anthropogenic food sources (Newsome et al. 2010). Urban SJKF also consume rabbits, birds, beetles, grasshoppers, and cockroaches, with ground squirrels and gophers being the primary rodents consumed.

Other anthropogenic sources of food that can be widely available and can become a substantial part of the diet of urban SJKF include discarded food trash, and pet foods. SJKF have been documented routinely Biological Resource Evaluation 39 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
visit locations where foods are consistently available (e.g., dumpsters, feral cat feeding stations; Cypher, 2010). However, SJKF are not likely to depend on anthropogenic food sources. Studies have identified natural prey items are still contained in nearly all scat samples (Cypher, 2010). Similar to many desert species, kit fox does not need to drink water and can obtain hydration from their diet. Breeding season is December-March with pups typically born between February and March. Adult breeding pairs remain monogamous within the same year, but pairs may change between years (Morrell 1972; USFWS 1998).

Potential site occupation is determined based on observation of canid scat and/or tracks within a size range appropriate for this species, observation of individuals, and presence of dens that meet the criteria for classification as known or natal/pupping per the USFWS guidelines (USFWS 2011b). A total of 52 potential dens were identified and evaluated for possible use by SJKF during the reconnaissance surveys.

None of the dens showed any sign of SJKF (scat, tracks, prey remains, claw marks, ramp-like digging) and were determined to be “potential dens” per the definitions in USFWS guidelines (2011b) (Figure 3-14).

Although no sign of current SJKF den occupation was observed at any of the dens, it should be noted that SJKF are known to be in close proximity to the Project. SJKF track was observed on the Project site during the February 14, 2024 survey by Qualified Biologist Erika Noel (Appendix D, Photos D-17-18). MBI has several records of SJKF within 2 miles of the Project site, most recently observed in May 2024 by Erika Noel and numerous records are included in the CNDDB (Figure 3-12 and Figure 3-13).

Potential dens are of note because they may be occupied without showing signs of occupation. These resources are also important for a local population as denning opportunities and/or to use as escape from predators. Therefore, there is a high potential for this species to occupy the site and SJKF are considered present. SJKF are likely to forage on the Project site and may occupy potential dens identified.

3.5 Riparian Habitat, Wetlands, and Other Waters
A search of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory resulted in no wetlands mapped on the Project site (USFWS 2023c). These results are consistent with the observed conditions within the survey area.

Although puddles formed from rainfall were observed, these features were ephemeral and likely unique to the current high precipitation year. No wetlands, riparian habitat, potential waters of the U.S., or potential waters of the State were observed.

3.6 Critical Habitat
There is no USFWS-designated Critical Habitat within a 10-mile radius of the proposed Project site.

3.7 Sensitive Natural Communities
Three sensitive natural communities were identified in the literature review within a 10-mile radius of the proposed Project site. None of these natural communities occur on the Project site. The nearest record is approximately 6 miles from the Project site.

Biological Resource Evaluation 40 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Figure 3-14: Reconnaissance surveys observations results Biological Resource Evaluation 41 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Section 4- IMPACT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section provides an analysis of the potential impacts of the Project following the standards of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Appendix G thresholds have been used to evaluate potential impacts to the biological resources from the proposed Project. The Project would create a significant impact to biological resources, based on the specifications in the biological resources section in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, if the following were to occur:

1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS;

2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations; or by the CDFW or the USFWS;

3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;

4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;

5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;

6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

4.1 Impact Analysis
The following analysis discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the Project and provides recommendations where appropriate to further reduce potential impacts.

1. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW, or the USFWS? Special-status Plants Impacts
The CNDDB, USFWS, and CNPS Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory queries returned a total of 23 specialstatus plant species and 1 special-status bryophyte that have been documented as potentially occurring in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. Based on MBI’s habitat suitability analysis, one of the specialstatus plant species had the potential to occur within the proposed Project. During the surveys a total of 10 plant species were observed, 7 of which are non-native species. No listed or California Rare Plant Rank Biological Resource Evaluation 42 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
(CRPR) species were identified on the proposed Project site during the field surveys. The Project site has undergone frequent disturbance and does not represent suitable habitat for 13 of the 23 of the specialstatus plants evaluated. The site visits were conducted during the bloom period for several of the identified species and none were observed. Although San Joaquin blue curls may occur under these conditions, this watch list species is highly tolerant of disturbance and is very common throughout the region. Loss of this potential habitat would not be considered a significant impact to this species based on its widespread occurrence in highly impacted habitats, as well as intact annual grassland. Therefore, there is no potential forsignificant direct or indirect impacts to special-status plant species from the Project.

No additional measures or recommendations are necessary.

Special-status Wildlife Impacts
Wildlife is known to commonly enter open pipes, materials stockpiles and storage containers as well as get on, under, or in vehicles and equipment. In addition, terrestrial wildlife may fall into open excavations.

Closing or moving pipes with wildlife inside could lead to direct mortality of individuals. If present under pallets, wildlife could be killed or injured by equipment when moving materials. If present in, on, or under equipment or vehicles when started or moving, wildlife could be crushed by tires, injured or killed by moving parts, or threatened through harassment by workers needing to access the vehicles. If deep enough in comparison to the animal size, wildlife falling into open excavations could be injured by the fall or otherwise become entrapped thereby increasing risks to the individual. Wildlife that depend on burrows/dens can be crushed by heavy equipment during travel, grading, and general construction work.

Resident wildlife on the Project and in adjacent habitat could also be impacted by noise, vibrations, night lighting, and traffic during construction and after construction has been completed.

Species-specific impacts to special-status species from the Project are further described in the following paragraphs.

Invertebrates
No protocol surveys for bumble bees were conducted and suitable habitat for CBB is present. No bumble bees were incidentally observed during the site visits. Although the potential is low, CBB may occur on the Project. Overwintering and/or nesting CBB could be directly impacted if occupied burrows are crushed during construction activities. If present the loss of 83.96 acres of grassland habitat represents a potentially significant impact to this species.

Several ponded features potentially suitable for vernal pool fairy shrimp were observed during the site visits in 2024. Although opportunistic surveys were conducted and no vernal pool fairy shrimp were detected, ponded features observed could support this species. Individuals and cysts of this species could be crushed, injured, and killed by construction activities. If present the loss of the ponded features represents a potentially significant impact to this species.

Agency protocol surveys are recommended prior to construction to determine species presence/absence on the Project site for both species. Implementation of BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-8, and BIO-9 would reduce potential impacts to these species to less than significant.

Biological Resource Evaluation 43 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Reptiles
No protocol surveys for blunt-nosed leopard lizard were conducted and suitable habitat for this species was present. Site visits were not conducted under conditions when incidental observations of blunt-nosed leopard lizard would be expected. The potential for this species was determined to be moderate, and individuals may be present. Blunt-nosed leopard lizard individuals could be directly impacted if the Project is occupied. Occupied burrows could be crushed during construction activities. If present, the loss of 83.96 acres of grassland habitat represents a potentially significant impact to this species.

Legless lizard, California glossy snake, and San Joaquin coachwhip individuals could be directly impacted if the Project is occupied. Occupied burrows could be crushed during construction activities.

Agency protocol surveys to detect blunt-nosed leopard lizard are recommended prior to construction to determine species status on the Project site. In addition, preconstruction surveys to detect the other special-status reptile species are recommended. Implementation of BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-7, BIO-9 and BIO-10 would reduce potential impacts to these species to less than significant.

Birds
Although no burrowing owls or sign of species presence were observed during the surveys, suitable nesting and foraging habitat was present, and the species has been observed in the vicinity recently. The site is likely to support small mammals that are potential prey items in the diet of burrowing owl. If present, burrowing owls and their burrows could be crushed or destroyed by vehicles during construction activities. In addition, the loss of 83.96 acres of grassland habitat represents a potentially significant impact to this species. Agency protocol surveys are recommended prior to construction to determine species status on the Project site. Implementation of BIO-XX, XX, and XX would reduce potential impacts to these species to less than significant.

No likely nesting opportunities for Swainson’s hawk were present on the Project site and the species has not been reported within the 10-mile radius in over 80 years. Although annual grassland is generally considered suitable foraging habitat, the Project site has been disturbed frequently in the past by grading, scraping, and trespass and preferred foraging habitat for this species is alfalfa and grain fields. Although noise, dust, and general disturbance from construction activities could indirectly affect foraging raptors such as Swainson’s hawk, this species is highly mobile and able to access other foraging opportunities in the vicinity of the Project site. Given the low quality of the grassland present, the loss of this marginal foraging habitat for these species would not be significant. Nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to construction to determine species status on the Project site. Implementation of BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-7 and BIO-11 would reduce potential impacts to these species to less than significant.

Mammals
The Project provides suitable denning habitat for American badger. Several suitably sized burrows/dens were observed during the survey effort and the site represents suitable foraging habitat. Individual badgers could use any of the potential dens identified on the site. If the site is occupied or used for foraging by American badger, Project activities could result in harm or injury to individual badgers that would constitute a significant impact. The project would result in the loss of 83.96 acres of grassland that is suitable for both foraging and denning by this species.

Biological Resource Evaluation 44 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Although no agency protocols have been issued for detecting this species, burrow/den presence is a suitable method for determining occupation and methods to avoid impacts to San Joaquin kit fox would also benefit American badger. Therefore, implementation of BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-8, and BIO-11 would reduce potential impacts to these species to less than significant.

The Project provides suitable denning and foraging habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. Several suitably sized burrows/dens were observed (“potential dens”) during the survey effort and SJKF tracks were observed during the February 14, 2024, survey. Individual kit fox could use any of the potential dens identified on the site. If the site is occupied by San Joaquin kit fox, Project activities could result in injury and/or mortality that would constitute a significant impact. In addition, the loss of 83.96 acres of grassland habitat represents a potentially significant impact to this species.

Agency protocol surveys are recommended prior to construction to determine species status on the Project site. Implementation of BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-7, BIO-8, and BIO-9 would reduce potential impacts to this species to less than significant.

Nesting and Migratory Birds
The Project site contains limited grassland cover and open areas which could be used by nesting birds.

The annual grassland present is suitable for ground nesting birds and the non-vegetated surfaces were shown to support ground nesting birds that do not require vegetative cover. Electrical towers adjacent to the Project could support nesting raptors and other birds, especially those habituated to human activity. Birds nesting on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site could be disturbed if Project construction is conducted during nesting season when active nests are present. Upon completion of the development, residential areas could provide similar structures and nesting habitat for a similar suite of species. If nests are disturbed to the extent that eggs are destroyed, young are injured or killed, or adults abandon the nests, a violation of the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code could result.

Nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to construction to determine species status on the Project site. Implementation of BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-7 would reduce potential impacts to these species to less than significant.

2. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or the USFWS?
No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations; or by the CDFW or the USFWS will be disturbed by the proposed Project; therefore, no further measures are recommended.

3. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The proposed Project does not propose any disturbance to wetland vegetation. No wetland features or vegetation indicative of wetland conditions were observed during the field surveys nor were any identified during the literature review. Consequently, no impacts on federally protected wetlands will occur as a result of the development of the Project.

Biological Resource Evaluation 45 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024

4. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Wildlife corridors are defined as connections between wildlife blocks that meet specific habitat needs for species movement generally during migratory periods, but seasonally as well. Wildlife corridors generally contain habitat dissimilar to the surrounding vicinity and include examples such as riparian areas along rivers and streams, washes, canyons, or otherwise undisturbed areas within urbanization. Corridor width requirements can vary based on the needs of the species utilizing them. The Project site is an isolated and relatively small parcel of impacted annual grassland habitat. No corridors have been identified on or adjacent to the Project and no impacts are expected; consequently, no additional measures are included.

5. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No biological resources occur on the site which are separately protected by local policies. Therefore, conflicts with local policies will not occur.

6. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) and CESA Incidental Take Permit (City of Bakersfield and Kern County 1994, Incidental Take Permit No. 2081-2013-058-04) once covered the area where the Project occurs. However, the MBHCP and associated CESA ITP expired in 2022 and no longer provides guidance or take coverage. The Project is not known to conflict with any current Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

4.2 Cumulative Impacts
Habitat loss and fragmentation can have cumulatively negative effect on biodiversity and special status species (Johnson and Klemens 2005). As Bakersfield urban development continues to sprawl, and the surrounding habitat is permanently altered, species that once occurred in the area are increasingly becoming extirpated (CNDDB 2024). Knowledge of species life histories, distribution, and ecological requirements continues to be expanded on as technology and data of species develops. The cumulative effects of ongoing urbanization and habitat loss of the Bakersfield area should be immediately evaluated for potential significant long-term effects that may consequently have substantial impacts to special status species. Forthcoming Natural Communities Plans and/or Habitat Conservation Plans may require a more inclusive approach to offset significant impacts. This report does not include a cumulative impact analysis from general successive urban Bakersfield development, habitat fragmentation, or corridor disruption.

Cumulative impacts to biological resources from this Project and other projects in the vicinity would be potentially significant.

Biological Resource Evaluation 46 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024

4.3 Recommendations
The following measures are intended to reduce identified potential effects to special-status species as a result of the Project; and are intended to result in compliance with applicable state and/or federal statutes and regulations protecting biological resources.

4.2.1 General Recommendations
• BIO-1: Preconstruction Survey A qualified biologist knowledgeable in the identification of specialstatus and other protected wildlife should conduct a preconstruction survey within 14 days or less prior to disturbance (vegetation removal, grading of topsoil, leveling, laydown and materials storage areas, access routes, etc.) and after completion of protocol or other surveys recommended in Measures BIO-XX-XX. A Qualified Biologist is defined as a person with a combination of academic qualifications (minimum of 4 years of university or college education in biological sciences, zoology, wildlife biology, ecology, botany, or environmental science), professional field experience conducting biological surveys, and demonstrated knowledge and skills (i.e., field experience) related to the resources potentially present on the proposed site, including species-specific focused or protocol-level surveys to be conducted. The purpose of the preconstruction survey is to confirm the results of protocol surveys and assess the presence of any special-status species or resource considered sensitive under CEQA. o The preconstruction biological survey will consist of walking belt transects spaced at no more than 20m (65 feet) to accomplish 100% coverage of the Project site plus a 250-foot buffer, if accessible. During the survey, all direct and indirect observations of specialstatus biological resources will be noted if encountered and recorded using a handheld GPS on field forms and/or a mapping program (e.g., ArcGIS Field Maps). • BIO-2: Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) LGI Homes will develop and implement a WEAP for all personnel that may conduct work on Tract 7471. WEAP trainings will be conducted for each individual prior to their first access onto the Project, and annually thereafter. The program may include an informational video, handouts, and other materials, and should consist of a presentation with material given on-site or off-site by trained personnel (e.g., Qualified Biologist or assigned Company Environmental Specialists). WEAP trainings should cover an overview of the laws and regulations governing the protection of biological resources; a description of protected (i.e., special status) species and resources known to occur or with the potential to occur in the Kern River Field; their status and legal protections; what is considered habitat and surface disturbance; biological resource avoidance measures; and a list of designated Project contacts. The program will provide general awareness to workers and supply materials to assist workers in recognizing protected biological resources that may occur on the Project, avoidance measures to protect biological resources, and how to report biological resources if observed. Forms verifying worker attendance should be accessible to County, USFWS and CDFW staff. No untrained personnel should be allowed to work onsite during the construction phase of the Project with the exception of delivery trucks that are only onsite for 1 day or less and are under the supervision of a trained employee.
• BIO-3: Biological Monitoring. A Qualified Biologist should be present during initial surface disturbance for project locations where sensitive species have been observed or have the potential to occur based on pre-disturbance and/or focused/protocol biological survey results.

Biological Resource Evaluation 47 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
• BIO-4: Nesting Bird Season. If initial ground disturbance occurs during nesting season (February 1 to August 31) a qualified avian biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey to identify any active nests present within the proposed work area. If active nests are found, initial ground disturbance shall be postponed or halted within a buffer area, established by the qualified avian biologist, that is suitable to the particular bird species and location of the nest, until juveniles have fledged or the nest has been abandoned, as determined by the biologist. The construction avoidance area shall be clearly demarcated in the field with highly visible construction fencing or flagging, and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. • BIO-5: California legless lizard, California glossy snake, and San Joaquin coachwhip. If any of these species are identified during initial ground disturbance monitored by the qualified biologist, they should be allowed to leave of their own accord. If they do not leave, they may be moved by a qualified biologist to nearby suitable habitat, out of harm’s way. • BIO-6: Unidentified Special Status Species If any previously unidentified protected species that is not addressed in this document or any previously unreported protected species are found to be present, occupied areas shall be avoided by a buffer determined by a Qualified Biologist the City of Bakersfield shall be notified. Any take of protected wildlife shall be reported immediately to USFWS and CDFW.
• BIO-7: Best Management Practices The following best management practices (BMP) should be implemented on the Tract 7471 Project to minimize impacts to resident wildlife in areas adjacent to the Project:

1. During construction, all vehicles will observe a 15 mile-per-hour speed limit unless otherwise posted. Off-road traffic outside designated access routes should be prohibited. Speed limit signs will be posted at visible locations at regular intervals on all access roads.

2. Construction activitiesshould occur during daylight hoursto the extent feasible. Initial ground disturbance should be strictly limited to daylight hours. Nighttime activity should use shielding or directed lighting to minimize light impacts on adjacent habitat.

3. All food-related trash items and microtrash, such as wrappers, cans, bottles, bottle tops, and food scraps should be disposed of in closed containers and routinely removed from Project, at intervals of no less than once per week.

4. Herbicide application should be in accordance with existing laws and manufacturers’ instructions (i.e., pesticide/herbicide labels). All herbicide chemicals used must be registered for use in the U.S. and California and must have a label certifying that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) have approved the herbicide for use. Herbicides will not be sprayed within 50 feet of any known California- listed plant occurrence or federal land. No rodenticides should be used on any project.

5. All open trenches, excavations, and/or holes more than 2 feet deep should be backfilled or covered at the end of each workday to prevent wildlife entrapment. If an excavation or hole is too large to cover, escape ramps should be installed at an incline ratio of no greater than 1:1 for every 500 feet. All trenches and excavations should be inspected for the presence of wildlife each day prior to the start of work. Before such holes or trenches are filled, workers should thoroughly inspect excavations and trenches for trapped animals.

6. All exposed pipes, culverts, and other similar structures with a diameter 3 inches or greater shall be properly capped in order to prevent entry by San Joaquin kit fox or other wildlife. Any of these materials or structures that are left overnight and are not capped shall be inspected prior to being moved, buried, or closed in order to ensure that San Joaquin kit fox or other Biological Resource Evaluation 48 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
wildlife are not present. If a listed species is found within pipe, culverts or similar structures, the animal will be allowed to escape that section of its own accord prior to moving or utilizing that segment. All bent pipe with a diameter of 3-inches or greater that cannot be visually inspected for wildlife with 100 percent certainty should be left in place and monitored by a Qualified Biologist using wildlife cameras and/or tracking material prior to being capped, moved, or buried. If any wildlife is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe should not be moved until the animal vacates the pipe on its own accord.

7. All vertical tubes used in project construction and chain link fencing poles should be capped to avoid entrapment and death of special-status wildlife and birds.

8. Discovery of State or federally listed species that are injured or dead should be reported immediately via telephone and within 24 hours in writing to CDFW and/or USFWS Office as applicable.

9. All construction equipment and construction personnel vehicles should be checked underneath prior to moving, to ensure that no wildlife is under equipment/vehicles. If any individuals are detected beneath equipment or vehicles, the equipment or vehicles will be left in place until the wildlife moves out of harm’s way on its own accord.

10. All washing of trucks, paint, equipment, or similar activities including concrete washout should occur in designated areas/facilities where runoff is fully contained for collection prior to off-site disposal. Wash water may not be discharged from the Project, must be stored in a manner that excludes special-status wildlife species, and be located at least 100 feet from any water of the State.

11. To prevent harassment of special-status species, construction personnel should not be allowed to have firearms or pets on the Project.

12. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles and food scraps generated by Project activities should be disposed of in closed containers and removed at least once each week from the site. Deliberate feeding of wildlife should be prohibited.

13. All liquids should be in closed, covered containers. Any spills of hazardous liquids should be promptly addressed and not be left unattended until clean-up has been completed.

14. Any employee who inadvertently kills or injures a listed species, or who finds any such wildlife dead, injured, or entrapped, should be required to report the incident immediately to a designated site representative (e.g., foreman, project manager, environmental inspector, etc.), except animals killed on state and county roads when such mortality is not associated with Project traffic.

15. In the case of entrapped wildlife that are listed species, contact of a Qualified Biologist and escape ramps or structures should be installed immediately, if possible, to allow the subject wildlife to escape unimpeded.

16. In the case of injured special-status wildlife, the CDFW should be notified immediately. During business hours Monday through Friday, the phone number is (559) 243-4017. For nonbusiness hours, report to (800) 952-5400. Notification should include the date, time, location, and circumstances of the incident. Instructions provided by the CDFW for the care of the injured animal should be followed by the contractor onsite.

17. In the case of dead wildlife that are listed as threatened or endangered, the USFWS and the CDFW should be immediately (within 24 hours) notified by phone or in person and should document the initial notification in writing within 2 working days of the findings of any such wildlife. Notification should include the date, time, location, and circumstances of the incident.

Biological Resource Evaluation 49 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024

18. Prior to commencement of construction on any phase of work, work areas should be clearly marked with fencing, stakes with rope or cord, or other means of delineating the work area boundaries.

4.2.2 Special-status Wildlife Recommendations
The special-status species recommendations below have been targeted at species with statutory protections, such as federal and state listing, fully protected status, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act protections. Species of special concern are additionally included and have been recommended based on standard Agency recommended practices.
o BIO-8: Prior to surface disturbance or site alteration (vegetation removal, grading of topsoil, leveling, materials storage on site, etc.) on the Tract 7471 Project, the following focused surveys with accompanying survey buffers should be conducted. If any of these resources are observed, recommended avoidance buffers are shown in Table 4-1. If 100% avoidance is not likely, CDFW and USFWS should be contacted for appropriate notification, permitting, and guidance. If federal and/or state authorizations are required to complete species specific surveys, Qualified Biologists will be required to have appropriate USFWS/CDFW authorizations prior to conducting those surveys.

State and Federal Listed and Candidate Species
• Crotch’s Bumble Bee (agency protocol): Unless otherwise approved by CDFW, a survey of bumble bees following the methods contained in California Department of Fish and Wildlife Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (June 6, 2023) should be conducted during the bumble bee colony active period (April-August) prior to surface disturbance. If bumble bees are captured for identification, that activity will be conducted by a person holding a California Scientific Collecting Permit and Memorandum of Understanding to handle any candidate or listed species that could be captured. Survey buffer: 250 feet. • Vernal pool fairy shrimp (agency protocol): Unless otherwise approved by USFWS, a survey following USFWS 2017 Revised Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods should be conducted in the season prior to construction.
• Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (agency protocol): The CDFW Approved Survey Methodology for the Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard (October 2019) or updated protocol(s) should be implemented to determine whether this species is present. Surveys are valid for 1 year from the date of completion. Recommended survey buffer: 250 feet.
• San Joaquin kit fox* (agency protocol): Prior to surface disturbance, a survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify burrows/dens/structures potentially occupied by San Joaquin kit fox following the definitions and timing recommended in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011). Recommended survey buffer during natal season (January 1-August 31): 500 feet; recommended survey buffer outside of natal season (September 1-December 31); 250 feet.
*A specific note on SJKF: SJKF have shown survival success and persistence is some urban areas of Bakersfield where features suitable for SJKF denning and foraging are found. Implementation of SJKF Biological Resource Evaluation 50 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
compatible featuresin Project design, such as artificial dens, or travel/escape access holes into fenced areas that could be used as denning or foraging areas applied to applicable areas of the Project such as retention basins, fenced utilities stations, or community parks, is highly encouraged. Voluntary proactive coexistence measures and features for supporting SJKF recovery, implemented with the help of a Qualified Biologist and Agency input, is strongly encouraged to reduce cumulative impacts to SJKF.

BIO-9: If any state or federal listed species other than blunt-nosed leopard lizard are found to occupy the Project during any of the recommended surveys above or take of any of these species may occur (e.g., San Joaquin kit fox known or natal den is present), CDFW and/or USFWS (depending on listing status) should be contacted regarding whether incidental take authorization is required from each agency. Incidental take authorization should include additional minimization measures, such as passive relocation, avoiding natal periods, and habitat compensation for the temporary or permanent loss of the subject habitat.

BIO-10: If blunt-nosed leopard lizard is found to occupy the Project, in addition to contacting the USFWS regarding federal status per BIO-9, a qualified biologist should prepare a blunt-nosed leopard lizard avoidance plan for submittal to CDFW that identifies measures to be implemented to avoid take as required under this species’ fully protected status, unless incidental take authorization is subsequently issued prior to construction.

BIO-11: Burrowing Owl and American Badger
• Burrowing owl (agency protocol): Given that burrowing owl may be present in the Project area, a qualified biologist should conduct a survey to identify occupied or potentially occupied burrows no more than 14 days prior to surface disturbance. Recommended survey buffer: 250 feet. o If burrowing owl burrows are present and the recommended buffers in Table 4.1 cannot be implemented, burrow exclusion methods described in Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) should be implemented with coordination with CDFW. o If required by CDFW, LGI homes should set aside permanent mitigation habitat to mitigate for occupied burrowing owl burrows present on the Project. • American badger (no agency protocol): During the preconstruction survey, a qualified biologist should determine whether American badger dens are present. American badger burrows should be monitored following methods for San Joaquin kit fox dens. American badger natal dens should be avoided by a buffer of 500 feet unless otherwise specified by CDFW until the young are no longer dependent on the adults. If American badger dens remain active after the recommended monitoring period, den use may be discouraged by partially blocking the entrance to the den or using passive relocation techniques specified by CDFW. Recommended survey buffer: 250 feet.

Table 4.1. Protected Biological Resources - Recommended Avoidance Buffers Special-status Resource Avoidance Buffer
Crotch’s bumble bee nest 50 feet or implement CDFW
recommended buffer
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard observation 300 feet
Swainson’s hawk active nest (March 15-September 15)
Swainson’s hawk documented nest tree (outside of nesting season)
¼-mile
50 feet
Biological Resource Evaluation 51 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Special-status Resource Avoidance Buffer
San Joaquin kit fox potential den or suitable pipe
San Joaquin kit fox known den
San Joaquin kit fox atypical den
San Joaquin kit fox natal den
San Joaquin kit fox natal den (unoccupied/outside of natal season) 50 feet
100 feet
50 feet
500 feet
100 feet
Burrowing owl occupied burrow (high impact level) April 1-August 15: 1,640 feet August 16-October 15: 1,640 feet
October 16-March 31: 1,640 feet
Nesting birds (non-raptors) As determined by qualified avian biologist Non-listed raptors As determined by qualified avian biologist Listed/protected raptors ½-mile
American badger occupied natal den
American badger occupied den
200 feet
50 feet
Biological Resource Evaluation 52 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Section 5- LIST OF PREPARERS
Report Preparation
Erika Noel, McCormick Biological Inc. (MBI), Senior Biologist Co-Author Randi McCormick, MBI, Principal Biologist Co-Author
Ashleigh Pryor, MBI, Senior Biologist Contributing Author Amy Fetters, MBI, Staff Biologist Contributing Author
Marc Schiffhauer, MBI, GIS Specialist GIS Author
Field Surveyors
Erika Noel, MBI Senior Biologist
Waleed Alnatour, MBI Staff Biologist I
Maria Ortega, MBI Staff Biologist I
Trevor Williams, MBI Field Technician
Section 6- REFERENCES
Ahlborn, G. (1999). Giant kangaroo rat Dipodomys ingens [Life history account]. In CWHR Program (Ed.), California wildlife habitat relationships system. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 2 pp. Retrieved from http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2481 Ahlborn, G. (2000). Blunt-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia sila [Life history account]. In CWHR Program (Ed.), California wildlife habitat relationships system. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 3 pp. Retrieved from http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2685 Bailey, C. V. & Germano, A. J. (2015). Probability of occupancy of blunt-nosed leopard lizards on habitat patches of various sizes in the San Joaquin Desert of California. Western Wildlife, 2, 23–28.

Baldwin, B. G., Goldman, D. H., Keil, D. J., Patterson, R., Rosatti, T. J., & Wilken, D. H. (Eds.). (2012). The Jepson manual: Vascular plants of California (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press. 1568 pp.

Beedy, T. (Accessed April 10, 2023). Biological profile. In Tricolored blackbird portal. Davis, CA: University of California, Davis. Retrieved from https://tricolor.ice.ucdavis.edu/about-tricolored-blackbirds Biological Resource Evaluation 53 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Belk, D. & Fugate, M. (2000). Two new Branchinecta (Crustacea: Anostraca) from the Southwestern United States. The Southwestern Naturalist, 45(2), 111-117 Bloom, P. H. (1980). The status of the Swainson’s hawk in California, 1979. (Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Project W-54-R-12, Nongame Wildlife Investigations, Final Report 11-8.0).

Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 24 pp.

Brown, L., & Amadon, D. (1968). Eagles, hawks and falcons of the world, (Vol. 1–2). London: McGraw Hill. 945 pp.

Brown, N. L. (2006). Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). [Species Profile]. Turlock, CA:

California State University, Stanislaus. Retrieved from http://esrp.csustan.edu/speciesprofiles/profile.php?sp=busw Brown, N. L., Johnson, C. D., & Williams, D. F. (2006). Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) [Species Profile]. Turlock, CA: California State University, Stanislaus. Retrieved from http://esrp.csustan.edu/speciesprofiles/profile.php?sp=soor Brown, N. L., & Williams, D. F. (2006). San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsoni).

Retrieved from California State University, Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program Website: http://esrp.csustan.edu/speciesprofiles/profile.php?sp=amne Brown, N. L., & Williams, D. F. (2006). Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides). Retrieved from California State University, Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program Website:
http://esrp.csustan.edu/speciesprofiles/profile.php?sp=dinin California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). (2005). California rare & endangered mammals species accounts – mammals. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=84012 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). (2015). State wildlife action plan: A conservation legacy for Californians [Volume II: Appendices].

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). (2024a). Special animals (929 taxa) (April). 136 pp.

Retrieved from https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline CDFW. (2024b). Special vascular plants, bryophytes, and lichens list (April). Sacramento, CA: Author. 175 pp.

California Endangered Species Act of 1970 (CESA), C.F.G.C § 2050 et seq. (2024).

California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), 13 P.R.C. § 21000 et seq. (2024).

California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines), 14 C.C.R. § 15000 et seq. (2024).

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). (2024). Occurrence for U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5-minute quadrangles (Knob Hill, Oil Center, Lamont, Pine Mountain, Edison, North of Oildale, Rio Bravo Ranch, Oildale, Gosford) Sacramento, CA: CDFW
Biological Resource Evaluation 54 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977, C.F.G.C § 1904 et seq. (2024).

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). (2024a). Inventory of rare and endangered plants (Online edition, v8-01a) (Famoso, Gosford, Lamont, North of Oildale, Oil Center, Oildale, Knob Hill, Rosedale, Stevens) 7.5-minute quadrangles and corresponding plant species accounts. Sacramento, CA:

Author.

CNPS. (2024b). A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/; searched on [13 August 2024]. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2010. Report to the Fish and Game Commission: A Status Review of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). January 11, 2010.

Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (2024).

Cooper, L. D. and Randall, J. A. (2007). Seasonal changes in home ranges of the giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens): A study of flexible social structure. Journal of Mammalogy, 88(4), 1000– 1008.

Cypher, B. L., S.E. Phillips, T.L. Westall, E.N. Tennant, L.R. Saslaw, E.C. Kelly, and C.L. Van Horn Job. (2016). Conservation of endangered Tipton kangaroo rats (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides):

Status surveys, habitat suitability, and conservation strategies (Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Grant Agreement Number P1540030). Turlock, CA: California State University, Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program. 36 pp.

Cypher, B., E. Tennant, J. Maldonado, L. Saslaw, T. Westall, J. Mohay, E. Kelly, C.L. Van Horn Job. (2017).

Conservation of endangered Buena Vista Lake shrews (Sorex ornatus relictus) through investigation of taxonomic status, distribution, and use of non-invasive survey methods. Turlock, CA: California State University, Stanislaus. Retrieved from http://esrp.csustan.edu/publications/ Cypher, B. L., and C.L. Van Horn Job. (2012). Management and conservation of San Joaquin kit foxes in urban environments. In ‘Proceedings of the vertebrate pest conference’. pp. 347–352. (University of California: Davis, CA, USA).

Cypher, B. L., N. A. Deatherage, T. L. Westall, E. C. Kelly, and S. E. Phillips. (2022). Potential habitat and carrying capacity of endangered San Joaquin kit foxes in an urban environment: implications for conservation and recovery. Urban Ecosystems https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11252-022-01287-8 Deatherage, N.A., B.L. Cypher, J. Murdoch, T.L. Westall, E.C. Kelly, and D.J. Germano. (2021). Urban landscape attributes affect occupancy patterns of the San Joaquin kit fox during a epizootic.

Pacific Conservation Biology. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1071/PC20059 Deiner, K., Hull, J. M., & May B. (2017). Range-wide phylogeographic structure of the vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). PLoS ONE 12(5): e0176266.

Dunkle, S. W. (1977). Swainson’s hawks on the Laramie Plains, Wyoming. The Auk 94, 65–71.

Dunn, J. L., & Alderfer, J., (Eds.). (2008). Field guide to the birds of western North America. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society. 447 pp.

Biological Resource Evaluation 55 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (ETWP); (1994). Determination of Endangered Status for the Conservancy Fairy Shrimp, Longhorn Fairy Shrimp, and the Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp; and Threatened Status for the Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, 59 Fed. Reg. 48136–48153 (September 1994).

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (ETWP); (1987). Determination of Endangered Status for the Giant Kangaroo Rat, 52 Fed. Reg. 283–288 (Jan. 5, 1987). Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr1208.pdf
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (ETWP); (1988). Determination of Endangered Status for the Tipton Kangaroo Rat, 53 Fed. Reg. 25608–25611 (July 8, 1988). Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr1436.pdf
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (ETWP); (2002). Endangered Status for the Buena Vista Lake Shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus), 67 Fed. Reg. 10101–10113 (Mar. 6, 2002). Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr3844.pdf
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (ETWP); (2006). Final Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants, 71 Fed. Reg. 7118-7316 (February 2006).

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (ETWP); (2013). Designation of Critical Habitat for the Buena Vista Lake Shrew; Final Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 39836–39867 (July 2, 2013). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-02/pdf/2013-15586.pdf Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (ETWP); (2015). Notice of petition findings and initiation of status reviews, 80 Fed. Reg. 56423–56432 (September 18, 2015). Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23315.pdf Eng, L. L., Belk, D., & Eriksen, C. H. (1990). California Anostraca: Distribution, habitat, and status. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 10(2), 247–277
Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (FESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. (2024).

Fisher, R.N., and H.B. Shaffer. (1996). The decline of amphibians in California’s Great Central Valley.

Conservation Biology 10(5):1387-1397.

Gans, C., Morgan, W. K., & Allen E. S. (1992). Surface locomotion of the elongate and limbless lizard Anniella pulchra (Anguidae). Herpetologica 48(2), 246-262.

Garrett, K., & Dunn, J. (1981). Birds of southern California: Status and distribution. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Audubon Society. 408 pp.

Germano, D. J. (2012). Ecology and biology of the giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens) [PowerPoint Slides]. Presented at the San Joaquin Valley Sensitive Species Workshop of The San Joaquin Valley Chapter of The Western Section of The Wildlife Society. Bakersfield, CA.

Goldberg, S. R. & Miller, C. M. (1985). Reproduction of the silvery legless lizard, Anniella pulchra pulchra (Anniellidae), in Southern California. The Southwestern Naturalist 30(4), 617-619.

Biological Resource Evaluation 56 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786 (32-bit). (January 2024).

Graeter, G.J., K.A. Buhlmann, L.R. Wilkinson, and J.W. Gibbons (Eds.) (2013). Inventory and Monitoring:

Recommended Techniques for Reptiles and Amphibians. Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Technical Publication IM-1. Birmingham, AL. 321 pp.

Granholm, S. (2008). Tricolored blackbird [Life history account]. In CWHR Program (Ed.), California wildlife habitat relationships system. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 3 pp. Retrieved from http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2181 Grinnell, J., & Miller, A. H. (1944). The distribution of the birds of California. (Pacific Coast Avifauna Number 27). Berkeley, CA: Cooper Ornithological Club.

Harris, J. H., & Stearns, D. M. (1991). Population density, census methods, habitat relationships, and home range of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel, 1988–89 (Nongame bird and mammal section report 91-02). Oakland, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 37 pp. Retrieved from http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2953
Helm, B. (1998). Biogeography of eight large branchiopods endemic to California. In Witham, C. W., Bauder, E. T., Belk, D., Ferren Jr., W. R., & Ornduff, R. (Ed.), Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems – Proceedings from a 1996 Conference.

California Native Plant Society.

Ivey, C. D., Besser, J. M., Ingersoll, C. G., Wang, N., Rodgers, D. C., Raimondo, S., Bauer, C. R., & Hammer, E. J. (2017). Acute sensitivity of the vernal pool fairy shrimp, Branchinecta lynchi, (Anostraca; Branchinectidae), and surrogate species to 10 chemicals. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(3), 797-806.

Jennings, M. R., Hayes, M. P., & Metro Washington Park Zoo. (1994). Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California (Final report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Contract No. 8023). Rancho Cordova, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 255 pp.

Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2024. Jepson eFlora, https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ [Accessed March 2024]
Jepson Flora project (Eds.). (2024). Jepson eFlora. Retrieved from http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html Johnson, E. A., and M.W. Klemens. The Impacts of Sprawl on Biodiversity". Nature in Fragments: The Legacy of Sprawl, edited by Elizabeth A. Johnson and Michael W. Klemens, New York Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press, 2005, pp. 18-54. https://doi.org/10.7312/john12778- 004
Kakiba-Russel, K., Hubert, E., & Spiegel, L. K. (1991). Carrizo Plain Natural Area biological resources inventory: Sensitive species accounts. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission and The Nature Conservancy. 247 pp.

Biological Resource Evaluation 57 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Kaufman, K. (2000). Kaufman field guide to birds of North America. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Kelly, E.C., B.L. Cypher, T.L. Westall, and N.A. Deatherage. (2022). Sarcoptic mange in urban kit foxes:

Potential for cross-species transmission. In ‘Proceedings of the vertebrate pest conference’ (University of California: Davis, CA, USA). Retrieved from:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5b11303n
Kneitel, J. M. (2014). Inundation timing, more than duration, affects the community structure of California vernal pool mesocosms. Hydrobiologia, 732, 71-83.

Kneitel, J. M., Samiylenko, N., Rosas-Saenz, L., & Nerida, A. (2017). California vernal pool endemic responses to hydroperiod, plant thatch and nutrients. Hydrobiologia, 801, 129-140.

Kuhnz, L. A., Burton, R. K., Slattery, P. N., & Oakden, J. M. (2005). Microhabitats and population densities of California legless lizards, with comments on effectiveness of various Techniques for estimating numbers of fossorial reptiles. Journal of Herpetology 39(3), 359-402.

Lara-Reséndiz, R. A., Galina-Tessaro, P., Sinervo, B., Miles, D. B., Valdez-Villavicencio, J. H., Valle-Jiménez, F. I., Méndez-de la Cruz, F. R. (2021). How will climate change impact fossorial lizard species? Two examples in the Baja California Peninsula. Journal of Thermal Biology 95.

Levine, J.M., McEachern, A.K. & C. Cowan (2008). Rainfall effects on rare annual plants. Journal of Ecology, 96, 795-806.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. (2024).

Miller, C. M. (1944). Ecologic relations and adaptations of the limbless lizards of the genus Anniella.

Ecological Monographs 14(3), 271-289.

Morrell, S. (1972). Life history of the San Joaquin kit fox. California Fish and Game, 58(3), 162–174.

Native Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species, 32 Fed. Reg. 4001 (Mar. 11, 1967). Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr18.pdf
Newsome, S.D., K. Ralls, C. Van Horn Job, M.L. Fogel, and B. Cypher (2010). Stable isotopes evaluate exploitation of anthropogenic foods by the endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Journal of Mammalogy 91: 1313-1321.

Papenfuss, T. J., Parham, J. F. (2008). High genetic diversity among fossorial lizard populations (Anniella pulchra) in a rapidly developing landscape (Central California). Conserv Genet 2009(10), 169-176.

Papenfuss, T. J., Parham, J. F. (2013). Four new species of California legless lizards (Anniella). Breviora (536).

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, C.W.A. § Section 13000 et seq. (2023).

Reid, F. A. (2006). Mammals of North America (Peterson field guide), (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 579 pp.

Biological Resource Evaluation 58 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
Rodríguez-Robles, J. A., Bell, C. J., & Greene, H. W. (1999). Food habits of the glossy snake, Arizona elegans, with comparisons to the diet of sympatric long-nosed snakes, Rhinocheilus lecontei.

Journal of Herpetology 33(1), 87-92.

Semlitsch, R.D. and J.R. Bodie. (2003). Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology 17(5):1219-1228.

Stebbins, R. C. (2003). A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians (Peterson field guide), (3rd ed.).

Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 533 pp.

Stebbins, R. C. & McGinnis, S. M. (2012). Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California: Revised Edition. University of California Press.

Thomson, R. C., Wright, A. N., & Shaffer, H. B. (2016). California amphibian and reptile species of special concern. University of California Press & CDFW. 353 pp
Twisselmann, E. C. (1967). A flora of Kern County, California. The Wasmann Journal of Biology, 25, 1– 395.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (1998). Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Portland, OR: Author. Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/980930a.pdf
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2005). Recovery plan for vernal pool ecosystems of California and southern Oregon. Portland, OR: Author.

USFWS. (2007). Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) 5-year review: summary and evaluation.

Sacramento, CA: Author.

USFWS. (2010a). Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila) 5-year review: Summary and evaluation.

Sacramento, CA: Author. 78 pp. Retrieved from
http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/five_year_review/doc3209.pdf USFWS. (2010b). Giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens) 5-year review: Summary and evaluation.

Sacramento, CA: Author. 50 pp.

USFWS. (2010c). San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) 5-year review: Summary and evaluation.

Sacramento, CA: Author. 123 pp.

USFWS. (2010d). Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides) 5-year review: Summary and evaluation. Sacramento, CA: Author. 102 pp. Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3228.pdf
USFWS. (2010e). San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) 5-year review: Summary and evaluation.

Sacramento, CA: Author. 123 pp.

USFWS. (2011a). Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) 5-year review: Summary and evaluation. Sacramento, CA: Author. 29 pp.

Biological Resource Evaluation 59 LGI Homes Tract 7471
August 2024
USFWS. (2011b). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service standardized recommendations for protection of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance. Sacramento, CA: Author. 9 pp. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-ProtocolsGuidelines/Documents/kitfox_standard_rec_2011.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (Last updated August 13, 2009). Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) [Species profile]. Retrieved from https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1610 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (Last updated July 14, 2014). Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides). [Species Profile for Tipton Kangaroo Rat]. Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A08S USFWS. (2024a). IPaC Trust Resources Report (Kern County). Author. Retrieved from https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
USFWS. (2024b). National Wetlands Inventory Website (Last updated May 3, 2021). Washington, D.C.:

Author. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
Western Bat Working Group (2024). Species Matrix. Retrieved from http://wbwg.org/matrices/speciesmatrix/ Williams, D. F. (1980). Distribution and population status of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel and giant kangaroo rat. (Nongame Wildlife Investigation Final Report E-W-4). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 48 pp.

Williams, D. F. (1985). A review of the population status of the Tipton kangaroo rat, Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides: Final report. Sacramento, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 44 pp.

Woodbridge, B. (1998). Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni. In The riparian bird conservation plan: A strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight.

Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer, W. F., Jr., Mayer, K. E., & White, M., (Eds.). (1990). California’s wildlife volume II birds (California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System). Sacramento, CA:

California Department of Fish and Game.

Appendix A
Database Search Results: USFWS IPaC, CNPS, and CNDDB
IPaC Report (USFWS 2024a)
IPaC Report
IPaC Report
IPaC Report
IPaC Report
IPaC Report
IPaC Report
IPaC Report
IPaC Report
IPaC Report
IPaC Report
IPaC Report
IPaC Report
IPaC Report
IPaC Report
IPaC Report
IPaC Report
IPaC Report
IPaC Report
CNPS Inventory (CNPS 2024)
CNPS Inventory
CNDDB Rarefind (2024)
CNDDB Rarefind
CNDDB Rarefind (2024)
CNDDB Rarefind (2024)
CNDDB Rarefind (2024)
Appendix B
Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Evaluation Table
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/ State)
Habitat Potential to Occur
Invertebrates
Bombus crotchii Crotch
bumblebee None/SC
Open grassland and scrub communities
supporting suitable floral resources. Occur
from Coastal California east to the SierraCascade crest and south into Mexico.

Associated food plant species Asclepias,
Chaenactis, Lupinus, Medicago, Phacelia, and
Salvia (Williams et al. 2014). CNDDB records
reported from within the City of Bakersfield.

Annual grassland and potentially
suitable small mammal burrows are
present on the Project site. Suitable
flowering resources are marginal.

Low Potential
Branchinecta lynchi Vernal pool
fairy shrimp FT/None
Endemic to the grasslands of the Central
Valley, Central Coast mountains, and South
Coast mountains, in astatic rain-filled pools.

Inhabit small, clear-water sandstone
depression pools and grassed swale, earth
slump, or basalt depression pools.

Several water features with
branchiopods were observed. The
surrounding habitat consisted of nonnative grasses and annual forbs Suitable habitat within the range of
Branchinecta lynchi was observed.

Moderate Potential
Danaus plexippus Monarch
butterfly FC/None
Winter roost sites extend along the coast from
northern Mendocino to Baja California,
Mexico. Roosts located in wind-protected tree
groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine, cypress),
with nectar and water resources nearby.

No milkweed detected on site during
reconnaissance survey and no suitable
trees for overwintering.

No Potential
Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus
Valley
elderberry
longhorn
beetle
FT/None
Are endemic to California’s Central Valley and
have only been found in association with their
host plant, the elderberry (Sambucus spp.).

Populations may be found in riparian settings
or higher elevations in foothill oak woodland
(i.e., 60-2,060 feet [18.3-689 meters] in
elevation.

No suitable habitat for this species was
present on the project site. Species
range was adjusted by USFWS (2006)
to exclude Kern County.

No Potential
Table B-1: Special status Wildlife Potential to Occur Evaluation.

Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/ State)
Habitat Potential to Occur
Gonidea angulata Western ridge
mussel None/None
Primarily creeks and rivers and less often lakes.

Originally in most of the state, now extirpated
from Central and Southern California.

No suitable habitat for this species
exists on the Project site.

No potential
Helminthoglypta
callistoderma
Kern
shoulderband None/None
In aquatic habitats in Sacramento and San
Joaquin flowing waters. Known only from
Tulare and Kern counites, along the lower Kern
River Canyon.

No suitable habitat for this species
exists on the Project site.

No Potential
Lytta moesta Moestan
blister beetle None/None
Occurs in Central California in valley and
foothill grassland. One CNDDB record
approximately 12 miles southeast of the
Project; however, no detail (collection date,
habitat) provided.

Not enough data, resources, or
knowledge exists for this species. Given
the lack of status and lack of natural
lands on the Project, potential to occur
is not expected.

No Potential
Lytta morrisoni Morrison’s
blister beetle None/None
Inhabitant of the southern Central Valley of
California in valley and foothill grassland.

There is no information available on the life
history or behavior of this species. Lytta
morrisoni has been recorded feeding on Gilia
tricolor and Linanthus liniflorus. One CNDDB
record approximately 12 miles southeast of
the Project; however, no detail (collection
date, habitat) provided.

Not enough data, resources, or
knowledge exists for this species. Given
the lack of status and lack of natural
lands on the Project, potential to occur
is not expected.

No Potential
Fishes
Hypomesus
transpacificus
Delta smelt FT/SE Endemic to the upper Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Seasonally in Suisun Bay, Carquinez
Strait and San Pablo Bay. Habitats include
aquatic and estuaries and are seldomly found
at salinities > 10 ppt. Most often at salinities <
2 ppt.

No suitable habitat for this species
exists on the Project site. No impacts
are expected.

No Potential
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/ State)
Habitat Potential to Occur
Amphibians
Spea hammondii
Western
spadefoot
toad
PT/SSC
Central valley and adjacent foothills, Coast
Ranges from Point Conception south to the
Mexico border; valley-foothill grasslands and
valley-foothill hardwood, shallow temporary
pools used for breeding, below 4,472 feet
(1,363 meters).

Small seasonal pools were observed
during the field survey efforts. Most
pools were shallow and may not
annually hold the necessary capacity to
ensure Western spadefoot breeding
viability. The seasonal pools for
breeding to support Western
spadefoot are marginal on the Project
site and no tadpoles were observed
during several site visits conducted
throughout the spring.

Not Present
Reptiles
Anniella grinnelli Bakersfield
legless lizard None/SSC
Southern San Joaquin Valley. Known from two
disjunct areas: the east side of the Carrizo
Plain and portions of the city limits of
Bakersfield. Often found underneath leaf litter,
rocks, and logs. Anniiella sp. are known to
occur in sandy (or loose) and moist soil types.

Although the Project site lacks large
amounts of sandy and moist soils, and
preferred cover of what is currently
known as typical of legless lizard
habitat, little is known about the
distribution in the vicinity of the
Project. There are multiple occurrences
of Bakersfield legless lizards and
unidentified legless lizards within 8
miles of the project site. Ongoing
research suggests this species may be
more widespread than currently
published works indicate.

Low Potential
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/ State)
Habitat Potential to Occur
Anniella spp.

California
legless lizard None/SSC
Anniiella sp. are known to occur in sandy (or
loose) and moist soil types. Occurring in Contra
Costa County south to San Diego, within a
variety of open habitats.

Moderate Potential
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California
glossy snake None/SSC
Commonly occurs in Costa County south to San
Diego. Inhabits arid scrub, rocky washes,
grasslands, chaparral. Appears to prefer
microhabitats of open areas and areas with
soil loose enough for easy burrowing.

The Project site lacks large amounts of
loose soil preferred by Arizona elegans
occidentalis. No contemporary records
appear within 10 miles of the project
site. The nearest record is 5.5 miles
southwest project edge, from 1958.

Low Potential
Emys marmorata Western pond
turtle None/SCC
Found in riparian habitats such as ponds, lakes,
marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches
with abundance vegetation below 6000 ft
elevation. Also occurs in woodland, open
forest, grassland and may enter brackish to
full-strength seawater. In Klamath/North coast
flowing and standing waters.

No suitable habitat for this species
exists on the Project site. No impacts
expected.

No Potential
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/ State)
Habitat Potential to Occur
Gambelia sila Blunt-nosed
leopard lizard FE/SE
Found only in the San Joaquin Valley, adjacent
Carrizo Plain, Elkhorn Plain, Cuyama Valley,
and Panoche Valley; inhabits sparsely
vegetated plains, lower canyon slopes, on
valley floors, and washes; open grassland,
saltbush scrub, and alkali sink are more
common habitat types.

Habitat on site has suitable topography
but previous disturbances to the
Project location may decrease the
likelihood for this species to occur
contemporarily. Site has a low density
of small mammal burrows which can
provide rare coverage. There are 2
records of BNLL within 3 miles of the
project site from 2009 and 1989.

Moderate Potential
Masticophis
flagellum ruddocki
San Joaquin
coachwhip None/SCC
Found in the San Joaquin Valley in open, dry
habitats. Associated with valley grassland and
saltbush scrub habitats containing small
mammal burrows which are used for refugia
and oviposition sites.

Suitable grassland habitat is present,
and the site has a low density of small
mammal burrows which this species
uses for cover. While no CNDDB
records are identified within 10 miles,
several individuals have been observed
by MBI within 2 miles northeast of the
project site.

Moderate Potential
Phrynosoma
blainvillii
Coast horned
lizard None/SCC
Occurs along the coast, north of San Francisco
Bay to Los Angeles, and inland into the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. Prefers
open areas in natural lands containing sandy
soil with low, sparse vegetation.

No records of this species occur within
10 miles of the project site. Project site
is covered in dense forbs and grasses
not ideal for species. This species is not
expected.

No Potential
Xantusia vigilis
sierrae
Sierra night
lizard None/SSC
Inhabits rocky outcrops around Granite Station
in open grassland with scattered oak
woodland and low shrubs.

No suitable habitat for this species
exists on the Project site and it is not
expected.

No potential
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/ State)
Habitat Potential to Occur
Birds
Agelaius tricolor Tricolored
blackbird None/ST
Species is a year-long resident of California
with range extending from Shasta County
south to Kern County and along the coast from
Sonoma County to the Mexican border.

Habitats including freshwater marsh, swamp,
and wetland. Requires open water, protected
nesting substrate and foraging area with insect
prey within a few km of the colony.

No suitable nesting habitat was
present on the project for this species.

The site represents suitable foraging
habitat, but no individuals were
observed during the site visit.

No Potential (Nesting)
Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle None/SFP
Uncommon permanent resident and migrant
throughout California except center of the
Central Valley; forages in rolling foothills,
mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, and desert
areas, below 12,575 feet (3,833 meters), nests
on cliffs and in large trees in open areas, very
susceptible to human disturbance
No suitable nesting habitat was
present on the project or within ½-mile
for this species. The site represents
potential foraging habitat.

No Potential (Nesting)
Athene cunicularia
(burrow sites &
some wintering
sites)
Burrowing owl None/SSC
Inhabit dry, open grasslands, rolling hills,
desert floors, prairies, savannas, agricultural
land, and other areas of open, bare ground.

These owls will also inhabit open areas near
human habitation, such as airports, golf
courses, shoulders of roads, railroad
embankments, and the banks of irrigation
ditches and reservoirs.

Suitable burrows for nesting occur on
site with ample foraging habitat. MBI
staff have recorded active burrowing
owl burrows 0.3-mile directly east of
the Project in 2023.

High Potential
Baeolophus
inornatus Oak titmouse None/None
iMostly live in warm, open, dry oak or oak-pine
woodlands. Will use scrub oaks or other brush
as long as woodlands are nearby. Nests are
built in tree cavities and are made of grass,
moss, hair, and feathers. Occasionally nest in
stumps, fenceposts, pipes, eaves, or holes in
riverbanks. They will also use nest boxes.

No suitable nesting or foraging habitat
for this species exists on the Project
site.

No Potential
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/ State)
Habitat Potential to Occur
Buteo swainsoni
(nesting)
Swainson's
hawk None/ST
Riparian and sometimes large, isolated trees
used for nesting; grasslands and agricultural
lands used for foraging; in California, breeds
primarily in the Sacramento Valley, with
occasional nesting to the south through Kern
County; migrate through the Central and San
Joaquin Valleys to their wintering grounds in
South America.

Marginal foraging habitat on the
project site. No likely nest trees are
located on the Project and marginal
nesting opportunities are present
within a ½-mile radius of the Project
site.

Low Potential (Nesting on powerlines
along western edge of Project)
Carpodacus cassinii Cassin’s finch None/None
Occupies a variety of coniferous forest types
over a broad elevational range. Often found in
mature forests of lodgepole and ponderosa
pine. Winter range is similar to breeding
habitat but with the bulk of populations at
somewhat lower elevations. Nests have a
foundation of fine twigs, rootlets, coarse weed
stems, and often are lined with lichens.

No suitable nesting or foraging habitat
for this species exists on the Project
site.

No Potential
Chamaea fasciata Wrentit None/None
Resident of California chaparral habitat,
coastal scrub, and other dense stands of
shrubs provide cover. Also frequents shrub
understory of coniferous habitats from the
coast to lower regions of mountains
throughout cismontane California Absent east
of the Cascade-Sierra Nevada crest in Great
Basin and southeastern deserts, except
extends east in small numbers into
southwestern Modoc Co. and into eastern
Plumas Co.

No suitable nesting or foraging habitat
for this species exists on the Project
site.

No Potential
Contopus cooperi Olive-sided
flycatcher None/None
Nesting habitats are mixed conifer, montane
hardwood-conifer, Douglas-fir, redwood, red
fir and lodgepole pine.

No suitable nesting or foraging habitat
for this species exists on the Project
site.

No Potential
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/ State)
Habitat Potential to Occur
Elanus leucurus White-tailed
kite None/SFP
A year-round resident of San Joaquin Valley,
inhabiting rolling foothills and valley margins
with scattered oaks and river bottomlands or
marshes next to deciduous woodland. Along
with open grasslands, meadows, or marshes
for foraging close to isolated, dense-topped
trees for nesting and perching.

Marginal foraging habitat on the
project site. No suitable nesting habitat
is located on the Project or within a
quarter mile of the Project site.

No Potential (nesting)
Empidonax traillii
extimus
Southwestern
willow
flycatcher
FE/SE
Riparian woodlands in Southern California.

Historic range includes southern California,
Arizona, New Mexico, southern portions of
Nevada and Utah, southwestern Colorado, and
western Texas.

No suitable nesting or foraging habitat
for this species exists on the Project
site.

No Potential
Eremophila
alpestris actia
California
horned lark None/None
Coastal regions, chiefly from Sonoma County
to San Diego County, along with the main part
of San Joaquin Valley and east to foothills.

Preferrable habitat includes grasslands,
meadows, prairie, deserts, and tundra.

The Project site is well east and south
of the published Kern County portion
of the range for the subspecies
California horned lark, and therefore it
is not expected.

No Potential (nesting)
Geothlypis trichas
sinuosa
Common
yellowthroat None/None
Resident of the San Francisco Bay region, in
fresh and saltwater marshes. Require thick,
continuous cover down to water surface for
foraging; tall grasses, tule patches, willows for
nesting.

No suitable habitat for this species
exists on the Project site.

No Potential
Gymnogyps
californianus
California
condor FE/SE
A permanent resident of the semi-arid, rugged
mountain ranges surrounding the southern
San Joaquin Valley, including the Coast Ranges
from Santa Clara County, south to Los Angeles
County, the Transverse Ranges, Tehachapi
Mountains, and southern Sierra Nevada
Mountains. Require vast expanses of open
savannah, grasslands, and foothill chapparal in
mountain ranges of moderate altitude.

Although grassland is present on the
Project, lack of carrion required by this
species eliminates the potential for
foraging and no nesting habitat is
present on or near the Project site.

No Potential
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/ State)
Habitat Potential to Occur
Gymnorhinus
cyanocephalus Pinyon jay None/None
Found in pinyon-juniper woodland, sagebrush,
scrub oak, and chaparral communities, and
sometimes in pine forests.

No suitable habitat for this species
exists on the Project site.

No Potential
Icterus bullockii Bullock’s
oriole None/None
Found in generally arid West, riparian (or
streamside) woodlands. Occasionally found in
landscaped areas with suitable trees.

No suitable habitat for this species
exists on the Project site.

No Potential
Haliaeetus
leucophalus Bald eagle Delisted/SE, SFP
Permanent resident, and uncommon winter
migrant, now restricted to breeding mostly in
Butte, Lake, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta,
Siskiyou, and Trinity counties. About half of the
wintering population is in the Klamath Basin.

More common at lower elevations; not found
in the high Sierra Nevada. Fairly common as a
local winter migrant at a few favored inland
waters in southern California. Largest numbers
occur at Big Bear Lake, Cachuma Lake, Lake
Mathews, Nacimiento Reservoir, San Antonio
Reservoir, and along the Colorado River.

Requires large bodies of water, or free flowing
rivers with abundant fish, and adjacent snags
or other perches.

The site represents unlikely foraging
habitat with no aquatic features. No
suitable nest trees within a quarter
mile of the project site; although an
active nest has been recorded by MBI
Staff in 2023 on the Kern River
approximately 3 miles northeast of the
Project.

No potential
Larus californicus California gull None/None
Littoral waters, sandy beaches, waters and
shorelines of bays, tidal mudflats, marshes,
and lakes. Colonial nester on islets in large
interior lakes, either fresh or strongly alkaline.

No suitable habitat for this species
exists on the Project site.

No Potential
Passerculus
sandwichensis
Belding’s
savannah
sparrow
None/SE
Inhabits coastal salt marshes, from Santa
Barbara south through San Diego County.

No suitable habitat for this species
exists on the Project site and the site is
outside of the known range.

No Potential
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/ State)
Habitat Potential to Occur
Picoides nuttalli Nuttall’s
woodpecker None/None
Wooded canyons and foothills, river woods. In
much of the range mostly around oaks,
especially where oaks meet other trees along
rivers, also in pine-oak woods in foothills. In
southern California also in riverside
cottonwoods, sycamores, willows, even if no
oaks are present. May venture into mesquite
or other dry woods.

No suitable habitat for this species
exists on the Project site.

No Potential
Spinus lawrencei Lawrence’s
goldfinch None/None
Nests in open oak or other arid woodland
chapparal, near water. Habitats include
Broadleaved upland forest, pinon and juniper
woodlands, and riparian woodland.

No suitable habitat for this species
exists on the Project site.

No Potential
Toxostoma
redivivum
California
thrasher None/None
Nests and forages in chapparal of coastal and
foothill areas, as well as in nearby areas with
junipers, pines, and oaks with plenty of
underbrush, including sagebrush.

No suitable habitat for this species
exists on the Project site.

No Potential
Mammals
Ammospermophilus
nelsoni
Nelson’s (=San
Joaquin)
antelope
squirrel
None/ST
Range includes Western San Joaquin Valley
from 200-1200 ft elevation on dry, sparsely
vegetated loam soils. Characterized as parts of
grassland (native or non-native) or shrubland
communities. The northern limits of its range
may extend to a portion of southwest Merced
County.

Species is presumed extirpated from
the vicinity of the project northeast of
Bakersfield. Only 1 CNDDB record
exists within 3 miles of the project site,
recorded in 1911. Despite decades of
surveys in the vicinity, MBI has not
recorded this species in the vicinity,
nor have any records been submitted
to the CNDDB.

No Potential
Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat None/SSC
Throughout Californian except high Sierra
Nevada. Often found in grasslands, shrub
lands, woodlands, and forest habitats; roosts
in caves, crevices, mines and hollow trees, as
well as man-made structures such as barns
and bridges.

No suitable roosting habitat was
present on the project for this species.

Low potential for foraging on the
Project site and in the vicinity.

No Potential (roosting)
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/ State)
Habitat Potential to Occur
Dipodomys
nitratoides
nitratoides
Tipton
kangaroo rat FE/SE
Found in arid communities on the valley floor
portions of Kern, Tulare, and Kings counties in
scrub and grassland communities in level to
near-level terrain with alluvial fan-floodplain
soil (fine sands and sandy loams) with sparse
grasses and woody vegetation such as iodine
bush, saltbush, seep weed, and mesquite.

No kangaroo rat burrows or sign of
kangaroo rats were observed during
the reconnaissance surveys. The
closest record of D. nitratoides
nitratoides is a historic 1911 record 7.6
miles east of the Project. No
contemporary sightings occur within 10
miles.

No Potential
Eumops perotis
californicus
Western
mastiff bat None/None
Open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including
conifer and deciduous woodlands, annual and
perennial grasslands, chaparral, desert scrub,
and urban areas; roosts in cliff faces, as well as
high buildings, trees, bridges, and tunnels. MBI
has recorded Eumops perotis californicus
echolocation calls within 10 miles of the
Project location.

No suitable roosting habitat is present
on the Project site. Low potential for
foraging on the Project site and in the
vicinity.

No Potential (roosting)
Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat None/None
Include Broadleaved upland forest,
cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest and north coast coniferous
forest. Prefers open habitats or habitat
mosaics with access to trees for covers and
open areas or habitat edges for feeding. MBI
has recorded Lasiurus cinereus echolocation
calls within 10 miles of the Project location in
both urban areas and areas of open habitat.

No suitable roosting habitat is present
on the Project site. Moderate potential
for foraging on the Project site and in
the vicinity.

No Potential (roosting)
Onychomys
torridus tularensis
Tulare
grasshopper
mouse
None/SSC
Occurs along the western margin of the Tulare
Basin including western Kern County, Carrizo
Plain Natural Area, along the Cuyama Valley
side of the Caliente Mountains in San Luis
Obispo County and the Ciervo-Panoche Region
of Fresno and San Benito counties.

Species is presumed extirpated from
the area of the project. No
contemporary records exist within 10
miles of the project site.

No Potential
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/ State)
Habitat Potential to Occur
Taxidea taxus American
badger None/SSC
Uncommon resident found through California;
in less disturbed grassland and shrubland
habitats in San Joaquin Valley, however, can
utilize a variety of habitats including
agriculture lands.

Not observed during reconnaissance
survey. The CNDDB search shows a
2008 badger record approximately 1
mile south of the Project location.

There is a low potential for presence of
this species given the quality and
condition of the habitat on site;
however, could have a moderate
potential to occur in the surrounding
habitat.

Low Potential
Vulpes macrotis
mutica
San Joaquin kit
fox FE/ST
Found in valley saltbush scrub, valley sink
scrub, Interior Coast Range saltbush scrub,
upper Sonoran sub-shrub scrub, non-native
grassland, and valley sacaton grassland in the
Central Valley and adjacent foothills and
valleys, infrequently to the outer Coast
Ranges; generally not found in densely
wooded areas, wetland areas, or areas subject
to frequent periodic flooding. In Bakersfield,
an urban population utilizes
Several CNDDB records occur within
the Project location and in the
immediate area of the Project location.

MBI also has several observational
records of SJKF within 0.5 miles of the
Project location. No known dens were
observed during the reconnaissance
surveys, however good denning and
foraging habitat is present on the
Project location. Habitat is suitable for
the urban population of SJKF known to
occur in the area. SJKF track was
observed within the Project site during
the reconnaissance surveys.

Present
1STATUS: Federal and State Listing Code
FE Federally Endangered SE State-listed Endangered
FT Federally Threatened ST State-listed Threatened
PT Federally Proposed as Threatened SFP State Fully Protected FC Federal candidate for listing SSC California Species of Special concern Scientific Name
Common Name
1 Status
Fed/State/CNPS Brief Description Presence
Astragalus hornii var. hornii
Horn’s milk-vetch
-/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Fabaceae found in meadows and seeps and on playas and lake margins on alkaline soils between 197 and 2,789 feet (60–850 meters) in elevation. Known
from occurrences in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, the Tehachapi Mountains and the Western Transverse Ranges
in Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino Counties.

Blooming period: May - October
Project site is xeric upland, without typical mesic
hydrology and soil characters associated with Horn’s
milk-vetch occurrences. The nearest extant records for
this species are reported from approximately 8 miles
southwest of the Project along the Kern River. No
annual Astragalus were found on site during surveys
conducted at the appropriate time for identification of this species; however, disturbance to the site removed
potential plant species prior to the surveys.

No Potential
Atriplex tularensis
Bakersfield smallscale
-/E/1A Herbaceous annual in the Chenopodiaceae found in chenopod scrub, between 295 and 656 feet (90–200
meters) in elevation. Known to occur in the Southern San Joaquin Valley in Kern County. Blooming period: June -
October
Due to the level of disturbance, and lack of alkaline or saline soils with mesic hydrology, no occurrence of
annual Atriplex species is expected. With the exception of a 1921 CNDDB record just over 10-miles south of the
Project, there are no records of this species within 10 miles of the Project. No annual Atriplex were observed
during the fieldwork, which was conducted at an
appropriate time for observation of this species.

No Potential
Caulanthus californicus
California jewelflower
E/E/1B.1 Herbaceous annual in the Brassicaceae that occurs between 200 and 3,281 feet (61–1,000 meters) in
elevation on sandy soils in chenopod scrub, pinyon and
juniper woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands.

Although many populations are thought to have been
extirpated from the San Joaquin Valley, occurrences are known from Kern, Kings, Tulare, San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, and Fresno Counties. Blooming period: February – May.

Project site supports annual grassland within
elevational, hydrological, and soil requirements of
California jewelflower. While project site soils are of the appropriate texture, the disturbance level is outside of the expected tolerance of the species. This site has
been disturbed frequently over the last 5-10 years,
including within the year before this survey. In addition, the field work was conducted at an appropriate time
and during a more than adequate rainfall year, but no
California jewelflower was observed.

Not Present
Table A-2: Special status Plants Potential to Occur Evaluation.

Scientific Name
Common Name
1 Status
Fed/State/CNPS Brief Description Presence
Chloropyron molle ssp. hispidum
Hispid salty bird’s-beak
-/-/1B.1 Hemiparasitic annual herb in the Orobanchaceae found on alkaline soils in meadows and seeps, playas, and valley and foothill grasslands below 509 feet (155 meters) in
elevation. Blooming period: June – September.

Due to the level of disturbance and lack of alkaline or saline soils with mesic hydrology, no habitat features
typical of known occurrences are present. No suitable
habitat is present, and this species is not expected.

No Potential
Delphinium purpusii
Rose-flowered larkspur
-/-/1B.3 Perennial herb Perennial herb in the Ranunculaceae family. Found in Chaparral, cismontane woodland
limestone, and pinion and juniper woodlands from 300-
1340 meters. Known to occur in Kern and Tulare Counties.

Blooming period: April – May.

Due to the level of disturbance and lack of carbonate or rocky soils with mesic hydrology, no habitat features
typical of known occurrences are present. No suitable
habitat is present, and this species is not expected.

No Potential
Delphinium recurvatum
Recurved larkspur
-/-/4.2 Perennial herb in the Ranunculaceae occurring between 10 and 2,461 feet (3–750 meters) in elevation in
chenopod scrub, valley grasslands, and foothill grasslands.

This species often occurs on mesic soils and is an
occasional member of alkaline communities. Known to
occur in the Mojave Desert and southern San Joaquin
Valley in Kern County north to Solano County; the South Inner Coastal Ranges from San Luis Obispo County north
to Stanislaus County, and the Sacramento Valley from San Joaquin County north to Butte County. Blooming period:

March – June.

Project site is xeric upland, without typical mesic
hydrology, associated plant species and soil characters typically associated with recurved larkspur occurrences.

Other than a 1935 CNDDB record reported from the
western part of Bakersfield, there are no records for
this species within 10 miles of the Project. No larkspur were observed during appropriately timed surveys in a
year of more than adequate rainfall.

Not Present
Diplacus pictus
Calico monkeyflower
-/-/1B.2 Annual herb in the Phrymaceae found in broadleafed upland forest and cismontane woodlands between 328
and 4,691 feet (100–1430 meters) in elevation in Kern and Tulare counties. Blooming period: March - May
Project site is disturbed flat grassland, without rocks, topographic relief, granitic soils, or commonly cooccurring shrub species typically associated with calico monkeyflower occurrences. The surveys were
conducted during the flowering period for this species, and it was not observed.

Not Present
Scientific Name
Common Name
1 Status
Fed/State/CNPS Brief Description Presence
Eremalche parryi ssp. kernensis
Kern mallow
E/-/1B.2 Annual herb in the Malvaceae that occurs between 230 and 4,232 feet (70–1,290 meters) in elevation in
chenopod scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands.

Distribution includes Kern and Tulare Counties and the
Inner South Coast Ranges in San Luis Obispo and Santa
Barbara Counties. Blooming period: January (February)
March - May
Project site is suitable valley grassland within
elevational, hydrological, and soil requirements of Kern mallow. The site is within the known range of the
species, but project site soils have experienced high
levels of disturbance, which reduces the likelihood of
Kern mallow presence. The nearest documented
observation for this species is within 3.5 linear miles.

The survey was conducted during the blooming period
for this species and no mallows other than Malva
parviflora were observed.

Not Present
Eriastrum hooveri
Hoover’s eriastrum
D/-/1B.2 Annual herb in the Polemoniaceae family found in grassy open habitats, alkaline flats, and occasionally gravelly soils, below 3000 feet (915 meters) in elevation. Blooming period- May – July. Known to occur Kings, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Fresno and Kern counties.

This species is somewhat tolerant of disturbance,
occurring in openings in annual grassland on gravelly to fine sandy soils of the region. The nearest documented
observation for this species is within 6 linear miles west of the Project. Although potentially suitable habitat
was observed, this species was not found during
appropriately timed surveys in a year of more than
adequate rainfall.

Not Present
Eriastrum tracyi
Tracy’s eriastrum
-/R/3.2 Annual herb in the Polemoniaceae found in chaparral and cismontane woodland between 1,033 and 3,199 feet
(315–975 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in the
Southern Sierra Nevada Foothills from Fresno County
south to Kern County, the Santa Clara County in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Inner North Coast Ranges
from Colusa County north to Trinity County. Blooming
period: June - July
Project site is suitable valley grassland within
elevational, hydrological, and soil requirements of
Tracy’s eriastrum. The site is within the known range of the species, and this species is known to be tolerant of some disturbance. The nearest documented
observation for this species is within 9 linear miles east of the Project. No Eriastrum sp. were observed on site, but surveys were conducted too early for accurate
detection.

Low Potential
Scientific Name
Common Name
1 Status
Fed/State/CNPS Brief Description Presence
Eryngium spinosepalum
Spiny-sepaled button celery
-/-/1B.2 Annual/perennial herb in the Apiaceae found in valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools between 262 and 837 feet (80–255 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in the Eastern San Joaquin Valley and Sierra Nevada Foothills
from Tulare County north to Calaveras County. Blooming
period: April - May
Project site is xeric upland, without typical mesic or
hydric soils associated with spiny-sepaled button celery occurrences. No button celery were observed during
the fieldwork conducted. No suitable habitat is present, and this species is not expected.

No Potential
Eschscholzia lemmonii ssp. kernensis
Tejon poppy
-/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Papaveraceae that occurs between 525 and 3,281 feet (160–1000 meters) in elevation in
chenopod scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. Known from occurrences in the southern Sierra Nevada Foothills and the southern San Joaquin Valley in Kern County.

Blooming period: (February) March - May
Project site is suitable valley grassland within Project site is suitable valley grassland within elevational,
hydrological, and soil requirements of Tejon poppy. This species is typically found on slopes rather than flats.

The nearest documented observation for this species is
within 2.2 linear miles; however, this location is
mapped as a 1937 “best guess” by the CNDDB. No
poppies were observed on site and the survey was
conducted in a year of more than adequate rainfall.

Not present
Fritillaria striata
Striped Adobe-lily
-/T/1B.1 Perennial bulbiferous herb in the Liliaceae found in cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands between 443 and 4,774 feet (135–1,455 meters) in
elevation. Known to occur in the Southern Sierra Nevada Foothills from Kern and Tulare Counties. Blooming period:

February - April
Project site does not contain the typical adobe clay
slopes, hills, or knolls associated with striped adobe-lily occurrences. The topography and sandy loam soils of
the project site are outside of the documented
suitability for this species. No suitable habitat is
present, and this species is not expected.

Not Present
Heterotheca shevockii
Shevock’s golden-aster
-/-/1B.3 Perennial herb in the Asteraceae found in chenopod scrub and cismontane woodland between 755 and 2,953 feet
(230–900 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in the
Southeastern San Joaquin Valley and Sierra Nevada
Foothills. Blooming period: August - November
Project site is valley grassland outside of the
documented elevational, hydrological, and soil
requirements of Shevock’s golden-aster. This species is not known to occur from distances greater than 0.5
miles from the Kern River or CA-178. No suitable
habitat is present, and this species is not expected.

No potential
Scientific Name
Common Name
1 Status
Fed/State/CNPS Brief Description Presence
Imperata brevifolia
California satintail
-/-/2B.1 Perennial rhizomatous herb in the Poaceae found in chaparral, Coastal scrub, Mojavean desert scrub,
meadows and seeps on alkaline soils, and riparian scrub usually found on mesic soils below 3,986 feet (1,215
meters) in elevation. Known from occurrences in the
Eastern San Joaquin Valley from Kern County to Fresno
County. It is more widespread in the southwestern
portion of the state. Blooming period: September - May
Project site is xeric upland, without typical mesic or
hydric soils associated with California satintail
occurrences. This species has not been documented in
Kern County since 1896 and is not thought to be extant
here. No perennial grasses were observed during the
fieldwork conducted. No suitable habitat is present, and this species is not expected.

Not Present
Layia leucopappa
Comanche Point layia
-/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae found in chenopod scrub, and valley and foothill grassland between 328 and 1,148 feet (100–350 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in
Kern County. Blooming period: March - April
Project site does not contain the typical clay slopes,
hills, or knolls associated with Comanche Point layia
occurrences. The topography and sandy loam soils of
the project site are outside of the documented
suitability for this species. Project site soils have
experienced disturbance levels outside of known
species tolerance. No layia were observed during the
fieldwork conducted during the blooming period for the
species.

Not Present
Monardella linoides ssp.
anemonoides
Southern Sierra monardella
-/-/1B.3 Perennial rhizomatous herb found in chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest, cismontane woodland
between 2,460 and 6560 feet (750–2,000 meters) in
elevation. Known to occur in Southern Sierra Nevada in
Kern and Tulare Counties. Blooming period: June to
August
Project site is valley grassland below 800ft. and is
outside of the documented elevational, hydrological,
and soil requirements of southern Sierra monardella.

Project site soils have experienced disturbance levels
outside of known species tolerance. This species is
perennial and no monardella were observed during the
fieldwork conducted. No suitable habitat is present, and this species is not expected.

Not Present
Scientific Name
Common Name
1 Status
Fed/State/CNPS Brief Description Presence
Monolopia congdonii
San Joaquin woolly-threads
E/-/1B.2 Annual herb in the Asteraceae found between 197 and 2,625 feet (60–800 meters) in elevation in chenopod
scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands, on sandy soils.

Known to occur in the San Joaquin Valley from Kern
County north to San Benito County, and the Carrizo Plain in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. Blooming period: February - May
Project site is suitable annual grassland within
elevational, hydrological, and soil requirements of San Joaquin woolly-threads. This site has been disturbed
frequently over the last 5-10 years, including apparent grading/scrapping of the entire parcel a couple times in that period. In addition, the field work was conducted
at an appropriate time and during a more than
adequate rainfall year, but no San Joaquin woollythreads was observed during the fieldwork conducted during the blooming period for this species.

Not Present
Navarretia setiloba
Piute Mountains navarretia
-/-/1B.1 Herbaceous annual in the Polemoniaceae found on clay or gravelly loam soils in cismontane woodland, pinyon and
juniper woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands from 1,001 and 6,890 feet (305–2,100 meters) in elevation.

Known from occurrences in the Southern Sierra Nevada in Kern and Tulare Counties. Blooming period: April - June Project site is valley grassland and site has some
qualities similar to documented Piute Mountains
navarretia occurrences. This species is found in similar elevations, on similar soils, but the flat topography of the project site is not typical of occupied habitat, which is typically slopes and drainages. No navarretia was
observed during the fieldwork conducted.

Not Present
Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei
Bakersfield cactus
E/E/1B.1 Perennial stem succulent in the Cactaceae found in chenopod scrub, cismontane woodland, and valley and
foothill grasslands between 394 and 1,804 feet (120–550 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in the Southeast San Joaquin Valley and Southern Sierra Nevada Foothills in
Kern County. Blooming period: April – May (identifiable year-round)
Several Bakersfield cactus records occur within 10 miles of the Project. The project has been heavily disturbed
prior to the surveys. No Bakersfield cactus was
observed during the fieldwork conducted. This species
is a perennial succulent and is identifiable year-round.

Not Present
Scientific Name
Common Name
1 Status
Fed/State/CNPS Brief Description Presence
Pseudobahia peirsonii
San Joaquin adobe sunburst
T/E/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae found in cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands on adobe
clay soils between 295 and 2,625 feet (90–800 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in the Southern Sierra Nevada Foothills from Kern County north to Fresno County.

Blooming period: March to April
Project site is suitable valley grassland within
elevational and hydrological requirements of San
Joaquin adobe sunburst. Project site soils are sandy
loam and are unlike the clays typical of San Joaquin
adobe sunburst occurrences. Additionally, site soils
have experienced disturbance levels outside of known
species tolerance. No San Joaquin adobe sunburst was
observed during the fieldwork conducted during the
blooming period for this species and it is not expected.

Not Present
Stylocline citroleum
Oil neststraw
-/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae found in chenopod scrub, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands on clay soils between 164 and 1,312 feet (50–400 meters) in
elevation. Known from locations in Kern and San Diego
Counties. Blooming period: March - April
Project site is suitable valley grassland within
elevational and hydrological requirements of Oil
neststraw. Project site soils include more loam than is typical of Oil neststraw occurrences, but site soils are still generally suitable. The nearest record for this
species is a 1935 record, within 1 linear mile of the
Project. No neststraw were observed on site during the
flowering period for this species.

Not Present
Tortula californica
California screw-moss
-/-/1B.2 Moss in the Pottiaceae found in chenopod scrub and valley and foothill grasslands on arid soil and rock below 4,790 feet (1,460 meters) in elevation. Additional
locations from southern and coastal California may be
found in other habitat types. This moss is widely
distributed but only known from 15 USGS quadrangles in
California. Known to occur in Kern, Los Angeles,
Monterey, Modoc, Riverside, Santa Barbara, San Diego,
and Ventura Counties, and Santa Rosa Island. Blooming
period: N/A
Limited information is available on the microhabitat
preferences and characteristics of this species. The
project site is xeric upland annual grassland within the elevational range documented for California screwmoss. However, the site has been repeatedly disturbed over many years and there is no likely substrate
present. No suspected California screw-moss was
observed during the fieldwork conducted, but this
species can be difficult to detect outside of ideal
growing conditions. This species is highly unlikely
considering the history of disturbance on the site and
lack of suitable habitat conditions. It is not expected.

No Potential
1STATUS: Federal and State Listing Code
D Delisted
E Federally or State-listed Endangered
T Federally or State-listed Threatened
R State-listed Rare
- No listing status
CNPS
1A Plants presumed extirpated in California, and either rare or extinct elsewhere 1B.1 Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously threatened in California 1B.2 Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly threatened in California 1B.3 Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; not very endangered in California 2B.1 Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; seriously threatened in California 3 Plants about which more information is needed
Sources: Jepson Flora Project (2024), CNPS (2024), Calflora (2024), CNDDB (2024b) unless otherwise noted Appendix C
National Wetlands Inventory

Appendix D
Site Photos
Photo C-1
Photo C-2
Photo C-3: Representative image of small ephemeral pool adjacent to the Project where fairy shrimp were observed.

Photo C-4: Fairy shrimp species observed during 02.14.2024 reconnaissance survey.

Photo C-5: Survey buffer area NW pf Project and representative photo of adjacent vegetative coverage.

Photo C-6
Photo C-7
Photo C-8
Photo C-10: Stick nest in tower.

Photo C-9
Photo C-11: Representative SJKF potential den observed within project area. Den/burrow is also suitable for burrowing owl occupation.

Photo C-12
Photo C-13
Photo C-14
Photo C-15
Photo C-16
Photo C-17: SJKF track observed in Project area during the 02.14.2024 reconnaissance survey.

Photo C-18: Front and hind paw track of SJKF observed within the Project location during the

02.14.2024 survey.

Photo C-19: Representative image showing evidence of recent heavy disturbance within the Project site observed during the 02.14.2024 survey.

Photo C-20
Photo C-21: Representative image of small mammal burrows observed on site. Burrows are suitable for burrowing owl occupation and represent potential SJKF dens.

Photo C-22
Photo C-23
Photo C-24
Photo C-25
Photo C-26: Well abandonment operations at time of 02.14.2024 survey.

Photo C-27: Pool with disturbance where fairy shrimp were observed Photo C-28
Photo C-29
Photo C-30
Photo C-31
Photo C-32
Photo C-33
Photo C-34: Pools found within the Project site with fairy shrimp species observations. Numerous individuals were observed.

Photo C-35: Larger pools found within the Project site with fairy shrimp species observations.

Numerous individuals were observed. Pools suitable for some amphibian species.

Photo C-36: Larger pool found within the Project site with fairy shrimp species observations.

Numerous individuals were observed. Pools suitable for some amphibian species.

Photo C-37
Photo C-38
Photo C-39: Stick nest identified in transmission tower in February active with raven in March 2024 Photo C-40
Photo C-41
Photo C-42: Killdeer nest observed during the March 20, 2024 survey.

Photo C-43
Photo C-44
Photo C-45: Ducks observed in remnants of ponded water in April 2024 Photo C-46: Remnants of ponded water, April 2024.

Appendix E
Aerial Photo Comparisons (April 2023 and February 2024) April 2023
February 2024
Appendix F
List of Species Observed During Surveys
February and March 2024
Table F-1. Plant Species Observed During the Reconnaissance Surveys Family Scientific Name Common Name
Boraginaceae Amsinckia sp. Fiddleneck
Boraginaceae Plagiobothrys canescens. Valley popcorn
Brassicaceae Hirschfeldia incana Summer mustard*
Chenopodiaceae Salsola sp. Russian thistle*
Crassulaceae Crassula connata Pigmy weed
Geraniaceae Erodium cicutarium Red-stemmed filaree*
Malvaceae Malva parviflora Cheeseweed*
Poaceae Avena barbata Slender oat*
Poaceae Bromus madritensis subsp. rubens Red brome*
Solanaceae Solanum elaeagnifolium Silverleaf nightshade* *Introduced
Table B-2: Animal Species Observed during the Reconnaissance Surveys Conducted February and March 2024
Scientific Name Common Name
Birds
Aphelocoma californica California scrubjay
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk
Cathartes aura Turkey vulture
Charadrius vociferus Killdeer
Chondestes grammacus Lark sparrow
Columba livia Rock pigeon
Corvus corax Common raven
Eremophila alpestris Horned lark
Haemorhous mexicanus House finch
Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird
Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe
Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark
Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned sparrow
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove
Mammals
Canis latrans Coyote
Spermophilus (Otospermophilus) beecheyi California ground squirrel Reptiles
Uta stanburiana Common side-blotched lizard
Appendix G
Non-protocol Fairy Shrimp Sampling
Survey Results Report

e
A

PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 6191,

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:

Porter Robertson Engineering
1 200 21 st Street
Bakersfield, California 93301
Keywords:

Oil Center 7. 5' Quadrangle, Tentative Tract 6191,
City of Bakersfield, California Environmental Quality Act Submitted by:
76u1hm & ltaml ~ 4Ia'a ~dad0k4
631 2 Castlepoint Street
Bakersfield, California 9331 3
Author:

Scott M. Hudlow
MAY 2003 .
e e
Management Summary
At the request of Porter Robertson Engineering, a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was conducted at approximately 84-acre site for a proposed residential development, Tentative Tract 6191, located at the southwest corner of Paladino Drive and Morning Drive in the City of Bakersfield, California. The Phase I Cultural Resource Survey consisted of a pedestrian survey of the site and a cultural resource record search. No archaeological resources were identified. No further work is required. If archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, a qualified archaeologist should be consulted for further evaluation. 2 e e
Table of Contents
Management Summary.... ........ ..................... .................................. .... 2 Table of Contents................................ .............................................. 3 List of Figures ................................................................................... 3

1. 0 Introduction.................... .......................................................... 4

2. 0 Survey Location.................................. ...................................... 4

3. 0 Record Search....... .............. ....... ....................................... ....... 4

4.0 Environmental Background ......................................................... 4

5. 0 Prehistoric Archaeological Context............................................... 6

6. 0 Ethnographic Background ........................................................... 7

7. 0 Field Procedures and
Methods................................................... 10 8. 0 Report of Findings. .................................................................. 10

9. 0 Management Recommendations................................................ 10

10. 0 References............................................................................. 10 Appendix I ...................................................................................... 13 Appendix II ..................................................................................... 1 7 List of Figures
1 Project Area Location
Map.............. ............................................ 5 3
e e

5. 0 Prehistoric Archaeological Context
limited archaeological research has been conducted in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Thus, consensus on a generally agreed upon regional cultural chronology has yet to be developed. Most cultural sequences can be summarized into several distinct time periods: Early, Middle, and Late.

Sequences differ in their inclusion of various " horizons," " technologies, n
or
stages." A prehistoric archaeological summary of the southern San Joaquin Valley is available in Moratto ( Moratto 1984).

Despite the preoccupation with chronological issues in most of the previous research, most suggested chronological sequences are borrowed from other regions with minor modifications based on sparse local data.

The following chronology is based on Parr and Osborne' s PaleoIndian, Proto- Archaic, Archaic, post-Archaic periods ( Parr and Osborne 1992: 44-47). Most existing chronologies focus on stylistic changes of time- sensitive artifacts such as projectile points and beads rather than addressing the socioeconomic factors, which produced the myriad variations. In doing so, these attempts have encountered similar difficulties.

These cultural changes are implied as environmentally determined, rather than economically driven.

Paleo- Indians, whom roamed the region approximately 12, 000 years ago, were highly mobile individuals. Their subsistence is assumed to have been primarily big game, which was more plentiful 12, 000 years ago than in the late twentieth century. However, in the Great Basin and California, Paleo people were also foragers who exploited a wide range of resources.

Berries, seeds, and small game were also consumed. Their technology was portable, including manos ( Parr and Osborne 1992: 44). The paleo period is characterized by fluted Clovis and Folsom points, which have been identified throughout North America. The Tulare Lake region in Kings County has yielded several Paleo-Indian sites, which have included fluted points, scrapers, chipped crescents, and Lake Mojave- type points ( Morratto 1984: 81- 2).

The Proto- Archaic period, which dates from approximately 11, 000 to 8, 000 years ago, was characterized by a reduction in mobility and conversely an increase in sedentism. This period is classified as the Western Pluvial Lake Tradition or the Proto- Archaic, of which the San Dieguito complex is a major aspect (Moratto 1984: 90-99; Warren 1967).

An archaeological site along Buena Vista Lake in southwestern Kern County displays a similar assemblage to the San Dieguito type site. Claude Warren proposes that a' majority of Proto- Archaic southern California could be culturally classified as the San Dieguito Complex ( Warren 1967). The Buena 6 I
e
Vista Lake site yielded manos, millingstones, large stemmed and foliate points, a mortar, and red ochre. During this period, subsistence patterns began to change. Hunting focused on smaller game and plant collecting became more integral. Large stemmed, lancelote ( foliate) projectile points represent lithic technology. Millingstones become more prevalent. The increased sedentism possibly began to create regional stylistic and cultural differences not evident in the paleo period.

The Archaic period persisted in California for the next 4000 years. In 1959, Warren and McKusiak proposed a three-phase chronological sequence based on a small sample of burial data for the Archaic period ( Moratto 1984: 189; Parr and Osborne 1992:47). It is distinguished by increased sedentism and extensive seed and plant exploitation. Millingstones, shaped through use, were abundant. Bedrock manos and metates were the most prevalent types of millingstones ( Parr and Osborne 1992: 45). The central valley began to develop distinct cultural variations, which can be distinguished by different regions throughout the valley, including Kern County.

In the Post-Archaic period enormous cultural variations began manifesting themselves throughout the entire San Joaquin Valley. This period extends into the contact period in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Sedentary village life was emblematic of the PostArchaic period, although hunting and gathering continued as the primary subsistence strategy. Agriculture was absent in California, partially due to the dense, predictable, and easily exploitable natural resources. The ancestral Yokuts have possibly been in the valley for the last three thousand years, and by the eighteenth century were the largest pre- contact population, approximately 40, 000 individuals, in California ( Moratto 1984).

6. 0 Ethnographic Background
The Yokuts are a Penutian-speaking, non- political cultural group.

Penutian speakers inhabit the San Joaquin Valley, the Bay Area, and the Central Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Yokuts are split into three major groups, the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothill Yokuts.

The southern San Joaquin Valley in the Bakersfield and associated Kern County area was home to the Yokuts tribelet, Yawelmani. The tribelets averaged 350 people in size, had a special name for themselves, and spoke a unique dialect of Yokuts. Land was owned collectively and every group member enjoyed the right to utilize food resources. The Yawelmani inhabited a strip of the southeastern San Joaquin Valley, north of the Kern River to the Tehachapi Mountains on the south, and 7 e
from the mountains on the east, to approximately the old south fork of the Kern River on the west ( Wallace 1978: 449; Parr and Osborne 1992: 19). The Yawelmani were the widest ranging of the Yokuts tribelets. A half dozen villages were located along the Kern River, including Woilo (" planting place" or " sowing place"), which was located in downtown Bakersfield, where the Amtrak station is located. A second village was located across the Kern River from Woilo, on the west bank.

The Southern Valley Yokuts established a mixed domestic economy emphasizing fishing, hunting, fowling, and collecting shellfish, roots, and seeds. Fish were the most prevalent natural resource; fishing was a productive activity throughout the entire year. Fish were caught in many different manners, including nets, conical basket traps, catching with bare hands, shooting with bows and arrows, and stunning fish with mild floral toxins. Geese, ducks, mud hens and other waterfowl were caught in snares, long- handled nets, stuffed decoys, and brushing brush to trick the birds to fly low into waiting hunters. Mussels were gathered and steamed on beds of tule. Turtles and dogs were consumed. The dogs might have been raised for consumption ( Wallace 1978: 449-450).

Wild seeds and roots provided a large portion of the Yokuts' diet.

Tule seeds, grass seeds, fiddleneck, alfilaria were also consumed. Acorns, the staple crop for many California native cultures, were not common in the San Joaquin Valley. Acorns were traded into the area, particularly from the foothills. Land mammals, such as rabbits, ground squirrels, antelope and tule elk, were not hunted often ( Wallace 1978: 450).

The Yokuts occupied permanent structures in permanent villages for most of the year. During the late and early summer, families left for several months to gather seeds and plant foods, shifting camp locations when changing crops. Several different types of fiber- covered structures were common in Yokuts settlements. The largest was a communal tule matcovered, wedge- shaped structure, which could house upward of ten individuals. These structures were established in a row, with the village chief' s house in the middle and his messenger' s houses were located at the ends of the house row. Dance houses and assembly buildings were located outside the village living area ( Nabokov and Easton 1989: 301).

The Yokuts also built smaller, oval, single-family tule dwellings.

These houses were covered with tall mohya stalks or with sewn tule mats.

Bent- pole ribs frame these small houses. The Yokuts also built a coneshaped dwelling, which was framed with poles tied together with a hoop and then covered with tule or grass. These cone- shaped dwellings were large enough to contain multiple fireplaces ( Nabokov and Easton 1989: 301). 8 It
Other structures included mat- covered granaries for storing food supplies, and a dirt- covered, communally- owned sweathouse.

Clothing was minimal, men wore a breechclout or were naked.

Women wore a narrow fringed apron. Rabbitskin or mud hen blankets were worn during the cold season. Moccasins were worn in certain places; however, most people went barefoot. Men wore no head coverings, but women wore basketry caps when they carried burden baskets on their heads. Hair was worn long. Women wore tattoos from the corners of the mouth to the chin; both men and women had ear and nose piercings. Bone, wood or shell ornaments were inserted into the ears and noses ( Wallace 1978: 450- 451 ).

Tule dominated the Yokut' s material culture. It was used for many purposes, including sleeping mats, wall coverings, cradles, and basketry.

Ceramics are uncommon to Yokuts culture as is true throughout most California native cultures. Basketry was common to Yokuts culture. Yokuts made cooking containers, conical burden baskets, flat winnowing trays, seed beaters, and necked water bottles. Yokuts also manufactured wooden digging sticks, fire drills, mush stirrers, and sinew- backed bows. Knives, projectile points, and scraping tools were chipped from imported lithic materials including obsidian, chert, and chalcedony. Stone mortars and pestles were secured in trade. Cordage was manufactured from milkweed fibers, animal skins were tanned, and awls were made from bone. Marine shells, particularly olivella shells, were used in the manufacture of money and articles of personal adornment. Shells were acquired from the Chumash along the coast (Wallace 1978: 451- 453).

The basic social and economic unit was the nuclear family. Lineages were organized along patrilineal lines. Fathers transmitted totems, particular to each paternal lineage, to each of his children. The totem was a bird or animal that no lineage member would kill or eat; the totems were dreamed of and prayers were given to the totems. The mother' s totem was not passed to her offspring, but was treated with respect. Families sharing the same totem formed an exogamous lineage. The lineage had no formal leader nor did it own land. The lineage was a mechanism for transmitting offices and performing ceremonial functions. The lineages formed two moieties, East and West, which consisted of several different lineages.

Moieties were customarily exogamous. Children followed the paternal moiety. Certain official positions within the villages were associated with certain totems. The most important was the Eagle lineage from which the village chief was appointed. A member of the Dove lineage acted as the chief' s assistant. He supervised food distribution and gave commands during ceremonies. Another hereditary position was common to the Magpie lineage, was that of spokesman or crier.
9 7. 0 Field Procedures and Methods
On May 19- 21, 2003, Scott M. Hudlow ( Appendix I for qualifications) conducted a pedestrian survey of the entire proposed project area. Hudlow surveyed in north/ south transects at 1 5- meter ( 49 feet) intervals across the entire parcel. All archaeological material more than fifty years of age or earlier encountered during the inventory would have been recorded. The field is covered in modern debris, including construction dumps, along the southern edge of the field. Several dirt paths have been established across the parcel. Two major KV lines run across the field in a north/ south direction, and a natural gas pipeline runs across the parcel in an east/ west direction.

8. 0 Report of Findings
No archaeological resources were identified.

9. 0 Management Recommendations
At the request of Porter Robertson Engineering, a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was conducted at approximately 84-acre site for a proposed residential development, Tentative Tract 6191, located at the southwest corner of Paladino Drive and Morning Drive in the City of Bakersfield, California. The Phase I Cultural Resource Survey consisted of a pedestrian survey of the site and a cultural resource record search. No archaeological resources were identified. No further work is required. If archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, a qualified archaeologist should be consulted for further evaluation.

10. 0 References
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Orlando, Florida, Academic Press.

Nabokov, Peter and Robert Easton
1989 Native American Architecture. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.

Parr, Robert E. and Richard Osborne
1992 Route Adoption Study for Highway 58, Kern County, California.

Report on file, Southern San Joaquin Archaeological
Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield, Bakersfield, California.
10 e e
Wallace, William J.
1978 " Southern Valley Yokuts" in Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8, California, Robert F. Heizer, ed. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 437- 445.

Warren, Claude N. and M. B. McKusiak
1959 A Burial Complex from the southern San Joaquin Valley. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1959: 17- 26.

Warren, Claude N.
1967 " The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis" American Antiquity 32( 2): 168- 185.
11 e
Appendix I
13 e
It
Scott M. Hudlow
631 2 Castlepoint Street
Bakersfield, California 93313
661) 834- 9183 ( w)
Education
The George Washington University
M. A. American Studies, 1993
Specialization in Architectural History,
American Material Culture, and Folklife
University of California, Berkeley
B. A. History, 1987
B. A. Anthropology, 1987
Specialization in Colonial History
and Historical Archaeology
Public Service
3/ 94- Historic Preservation Commission. City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield, California 93305.
7/ 97- Newsletter Editor. California History Action, newsletter for the California Council for the Promotion of History.

Relevant Work Experience
8/ 96- Adjutant Faculty. Bakersfield College, 1801 Panorama Drive, Bakersfield, California, 93305. Teach History 17A, Introduction to American History and Anthropology 5, Introduction to North American Indians.
11/ 95- Owner, Sole Proprietorship. Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates. 6312 Castlepoint Street, Bakersfield California 9331 3. Operate small cultural resource management business. Manage contracts, respond to RFP' s, bill clients, manage temporary employees. Conduct Phase I architectural and archaeological surveys for private and public clients; including the survey, documentary photography, measured drawings, mapping of structures, filing of survey forms, historic research, assessing impact and writing reports. Evaluated properties in lieu of ' their eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places in association with Section 106 and 110 requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and CEQA ( California Environmental Quality Act).

Full resume available upon request.
15 e
Appendix II
17 e
e e
18 Apr 19 03 11: 15p SS.lVIC
e
661664241~ p. e
rfi'~.~
t~-!
r-.'. W ,~.

V~
1;..
i-o' ....._
v:.:... l.; ...........
r,.,
FORNIA

HISTORICAL

RESOURCES

INFORMATION
YSTEM
FRESNO
KERN
KINGS
MADERA
TUlARE
Soadlem San JoaqaiD Valley lofonnatioa CeAter
eardomia State University, Bakersfield
9001 Stoclcdale Highway
Bakersfield, California 93311- 1099
661/664-2289 FAX 661/664-2415
Email: abaldwin@csub. edu
TO:

DATE:

RE:

County:

Map(s):

Harold Robertson, Project Planner
Porter - Robertson
1200 21st Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
RS# 03- 119)

PRIORITY
April 19 , 2003
Job # 03-1763: 80- Acres South of Paladino Drive and west of Morning Drive, Bakersfieldl CA
Kern
Oil Center 7.5'
The Archaeological Information Center is under contract to the State Office of Historic Presuvation and is responsible for the local management 'of the California Historical Resources Inventories. The Center is funded by research fees and a grant from the State Office of Historic Preservation. The Information Center does not conduct fieldwork and is not affiliated with any archaeological consultants who conduct fieldwork. A referral list of individuals who meet. the Secretary of the Interior' s standards for their profession is available upon request.
cutTVRAl RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH
The following are the results of a search of the cultural resources files at the Sou1=hern San Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center. These files include known and recorded archaeological and historic sites, inventory and excavation reports filed with this office; and properties listed on the National Register of Historic Place51 the Historic Property Data File, ( 1/06/ 03), the California Register, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Inventory of Historic Resource51 and the California Points of Historical Interest .

PRIOR . CVlTURAl RESOURCE INVENTORIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND A

ONE- MILE RADIUS
According to the current information in our files, there have been ( 2) two previous cultural resource surveys conducted within a very small portion of the project area, KE- 253 387. There have been ( 5) five surveys conducted immediately adjacent, KE- 626, 6411 21481 2266, & 2315, and ( 10) ten surveys conducted within a one- mile radius.

PRIORITY
Api'" 19 03 11: 15p SSJVIC
e
bbJ. bO~ C~"'~
PRIORITY RS # 03- 119)
KNOWN AND/ OR RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCes ON THE SUBJECT PR.OPERTY AND A ONE- MIlE RADIUS
There are no recorded cultural resources within the project area, and it is not known if resources exist there. There are ( 2) two recorded cultural resources approximately t mile from the project area, P- 15- 004736 & 4737, both historic era earthen irrigation ditches.

There are no cultural resources within the project area or a one- mile radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register, California Inv~ tory of Historic Resources, California Points of Historic Interest, or the California State Historic Landmarks.

COMMENTSIRECOMMENDATIONS
Given the proximity of known cultural resources, we recommend that prior to project activities, a qualified professional archaeologist conduct a field survey of the entire 80-acre property in order to determine if cultural resources exist there.

As you know, cultural resource locations are confidential. Site records and other pertinent documentation can be provided to the professional of your choice. If you have any questions, comments, or need any additional information, please don' t hesitate to contact me at (661) 664-2289.

By
Adele Baldwin
Assistant Coordinator
Date: April 19 , 2003
Fee: $ 180.00/ hr. (Priority Service)
Invoice # A2187
PR\ORHY

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
Tentative Tract Map No. 7471
Residential Development
Bakersfield, CA
Prepared For:

LGI Homes – California, LLC
2251 Douglas Blvd., Suite 110
Roseville, CA 95661
Prepared By:

TRINITY CONSULTANTS
4900 California Avenue, Suite 420A
Bakersfield, CA 93309
661-282-2200
April 2024
Project 240505.0022
Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1

2. INTRODUCTION 2-1

2.1 Purpose..................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 General Project Description ...................................................................................... 2-1

3. SETTING 3-1

3.1 Air Quality Standards ................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Existing Air Quality ................................................................................................... 3-5

3.2.1 Ozone (O3) ............................................................................................................. 3-6

3.2.2 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) .......................................................... 3-6

3.2.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) ............................................................................................ 3-6

3.2.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Hydrocarbons ................................................................. 3-7

3.2.5 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) ................................................................................................ 3-7

3.2.6 Lead (Pb) and Suspended Sulfate ............................................................................. 3-8

3.3 Climate...................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.4 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases .................................................................... 3-9

3.4.1 Global Climate Change............................................................................................. 3-9

3.4.2 Effects of Global Climate Change ............................................................................ 3-11

3.4.3 Global Climate Change Regulatory Issues ................................................................ 3-12

4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4-1

4.1 Significance Criteria.................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.1 Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Air Quality Impacts under CEQA.................... 4-1

4.1.2 Thresholds for Ambient Air Quality Impacts ............................................................... 4-2

4.1.3 Thresholds for Hazardous Air Pollutants .................................................................... 4-2

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Threshold of Significance............................................................ 4-2

4.1.5 Global Climate Change Thresholds of Significance ...................................................... 4-3

4.2 Project Related Emissions......................................................................................... 4-3

4.2.1 Short-Term Emissions.............................................................................................. 4-4

4.2.2 Long-Term Operations Emissions.............................................................................. 4-4

4.3 Potential Impact on Sensitive Receptors .................................................................. 4-6

4.4 Potential Impacts to Visibility to Nearby Areas......................................................... 4-6

4.5 Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide................................................................. 4-6

4.6 Predicted Health Risk Impacts.................................................................................. 4-7

4.7 Potential Impacts from Valley Fever ......................................................................... 4-9

4.8 Potential Impacts from Asbestos .............................................................................. 4-9

4.9 Odor Impacts and Mitigation .................................................................................... 4-9

4.10 Impacts to Ambient Air Quality............................................................................... 4-10

4.11 Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change ................................................ 4-10

4.11.1 Feasible and Reasonable Mitigation Relative to Global Warming................................. 4-11

5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5-1

5.1 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts.................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Cumulative Local Air Quality Impacts ....................................................................... 5-3

5.3 Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants ........................................................................ 5-3

5.4 Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (CO) – Mobile Sources................................................ 5-3 Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants ii

6. CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN 6-1

6.1 Required Evaluation Guidelines ................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 Consistency with the Kern County Council of Government’s Regional Conformity Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 6-2

7. MITIGATION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED MEASURES 7-1

7.1 SJVAPCD Required PM10 Reduction Measures ........................................................... 7-1

7.2 Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust .......................................... 7-1

7.3 Other Measures to Reduce Project Impacts .............................................................. 7-2

8. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 8-1

9. REFERENCES 9-1
APPENDIX A. EXISTING AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA A-1
APPENDIX B. PROJECT EMISSION CALCULATIONS B-1
APPENDIX C. CARB 2020 AND 2025 ESTIMATED EMISSION INVENTORIES C-1 APPENDIX D. HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT MODELING FILES D-1
Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Regional Location 2-1
Figure 2-2. Project Location 2-2
Figure 2-3. Project Master Plan 2-3
Figure 2-4. Project Site Topography 2-4
Figure 3-1. SJVAPCD Monitoring Network 3-4
Figure 6-1. City of Bakersfield Zoning 6-2
Figure 6-2. TAZ Analysis Map 6-3
Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Federal & California Air Quality Standards 3-2 Table 3-2. SJVAB Attainment Status 3-3
Table 3-3. Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area 3-5 Table 3-4. Bakersfield, California Weather Data 3-8
Table 4-1. SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance 4-1
Table 4-2. Measures of Significance - Toxic Air Contaminants 4-2 Table 4-3. Short-Term Project Emissions 4-4
Table 4-4. Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions 4-5 Table 4-5. Sensitive Receptors Located < 2 Miles from Project 4-6 Table 4-6. Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP 4-8 Table 4-7. Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year) 4-11 Table 4-8. Select CARB GHG Emission Reduction Strategies 4-12 Table 5-1. Comparative Analysis Based on SJV Air Basin 2020 Inventory - Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5-2. Emission Inventory SJVAB 2025 Projection - Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5-3. Emission Inventory SJVAB - Kern County Portion 2025 Projection - Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5-4. 2025 Emissions Projections - Proposed Project, Kern County, and SJVAB 5-3 Table 6-1. TAZ Analysis Area Projected Growth Analysis 6-4 Table 6-2. Percent Increase/Decrease on TAZ Analysis Area 6-4 Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 1-1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Trinity Consultants has completed an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) for the Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 (Project). The Project would be located at the southwest corner of Paladino Drive and Morning Drive in Bakersfield, California.

The proposed Project’s construction would include the following criteria pollutant emissions: reactive organic gases (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Project operations would generate air pollutant emissions from mobile sources (vehicle activity from residents), energy sources, and area sources (incidental activities related to architectural coating and landscape maintenance). Project construction and operational activities would also generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Criteria and GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1 (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2022), which is the most current version of the model approved for use by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

Table 4-3 presents the Project’s construction emissions and provides substantial evidence to support a less than significant air quality impact on the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Table 4-4 presents the Project’s operations emissions and provides substantial evidence to support a less than significant air quality impact on the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. As discussed in Section 4.11, the Project’s GHG emissions will be in compliance with all local and statewide air quality and climate plans, therefore the Project would have less than significant GHG impacts.

SJVAPCD uses a single threshold for determination of significance for both project specific and cumulative impacts. As such, a qualitative evaluation of the cumulative projects supports a finding that the Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because the proposed Project’s incremental emissions would be less than significant.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 2-1

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Purpose
This AQIA was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD 2015), the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department’s (KCPD) Air Quality Preparation Guidelines (KCPD 2006), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines (CEQA 2023).

2.2 General Project Description
The Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 (Project) includes the construction of 365 single-family Residential homes.

The Project would be located at the southwest corner of Paladino Drive and Morning Drive in Bakersfield, California.

The exact development start date is still unknown; however, construction for Phase 1 is tentatively expected to start in June of 2025 and will include site preparation and grading of the entire site. Phase 2 is expected to start in January of 2027 followed by Phase 3 in March of 2028. Figure 2-1 depicts the regional location, and Figure 2-2 depicts an aerial view of the Project location.

Figure 2-1. Regional Location
Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 2-2
Figure 2-2. Project Location
Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 2-3
Figure 2-3 depicts the Project’s Master Plan for providing detailed location of the proposed residential development.

Figure 2-3. Project Master Plan
Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 2-4
Figure 2-5 depicts the Project site’s topography based on Kern County Web Map Service (Kern County GIS 2024). The Project site is located at an elevation of approximately 800 feet above mean sea level and is surrounded by residential and agricultural land uses.

Figure 2-4. Project Site Topography
Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-1

3. SETTING
Protection of the public health is maintained through the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards for various atmospheric compounds and the enforcement of emissions limits for individual stationary sources. The Federal Clean Air Act requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

NAAQS have been established for ozone (O3), CO, NO2, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5, and lead (Pb). California has also adopted ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for these "criteria" air pollutants. CAAQS are more stringent than the corresponding NAAQS and include standards for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride (chloroethene), and visibility reducing particles. The U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required each state to identify areas that were in non-attainment of the NAAQS and to develop State Implementation Plans (SIP's) containing strategies to bring these non-attainment areas into compliance. NAAQS and CAAQS designation/classification for Kern County are presented in Section 3.1 below.

Responsibility for regulation of air quality in California lies with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the 35 local air districts with oversight responsibility held by the EPA. CARB is responsible for regulating mobile source emissions, establishing CAAQS, conducting research, managing regulation development, and providing oversight and coordination of the activities of the 35 air districts. The air districts are primarily responsible for regulating stationary source emissions and monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations. CARB also determines whether air basins, or portions thereof, are “unclassified,” in “attainment” or in “non-attainment” for the NAAQS and CAAQS relying on statewide air quality monitoring data.

3.1 Air Quality Standards
The Project area is located within Kern County’s portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB or Basin).

Kern County is included among the eight counties that comprise the SJVAPCD. The SJVAPCD acts as the regulatory agency for air pollution control in the Basin and is the local agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions for the Project area. Table 3-1 provides the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-2
Table 3-1. Federal & California Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time NAAQS CAAQS
Concentration
O3
8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)a 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3)
CO
8-hour 9 ppm (10 µg/m3) 9 ppm (10 µg/m3)
1-hour 35 ppm (40 µg/m3) 20 ppm (23 µg/m3)
NO2
Annual Average 53 ppb (100 µg/m3) 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3)
1-Hour 100 ppb (188.68 µg/m3) 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3)
SO2
3-Hour 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3) 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3)
1-Hour 75 ppb (196 µg/m3) 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3)
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 20 µg/m3
24-Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
24-Hour 35 µg/m3
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 µg/m3
Pbd
Rolling Three-Month
Average 0.15 µg/m3
30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3
H2S 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3)
Vinyl Chloride
(chloroethene) 24-Hour 0.010 ppm (26 µg/m3)
Visibility Reducing
particles
8 Hour (1000 to 1800
PST)
b
ppm = parts per million
ppb = parts per billion
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic
meter
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic
meter
Source: CARB 2016
a. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm
b. In 1989, CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standards and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-3
Under the provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act, the Kern County portion of the SJVAB has been classified as nonattainment/extreme, nonattainment/severe, nonattainment, attainment/unclassified, attainment, or unclassified under the established NAAQS and CAAQS for various criteria pollutants. Table 3-2 provides the SJVAB’s designation and classification based on the various criteria pollutants under both NAAQS and CAAQS.

Table 3-2. SJVAB Attainment Status
Pollutant NAAQSa CAAQSb
O3, 1-hour No Federal Standardf Nonattainment/Severe
O3, 8-hour Nonattainment/Extremee Nonattainment
PM10 Attainmentc Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainmentd Nonattainment
CO Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified
NO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
SO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Pb (Particulate) No Designation/Classification Attainment H2S No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particulates No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
Source: SJVAPCD 2022a
Note:
a. See 40 CFR Part 81
b. See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
c. On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan. d. The Valley is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009). e. Though the Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour O3 standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010). f. Effective June 15, 2005, the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour O3 standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010). Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour O3 nonattainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-4
The SJVAPCD, along with CARB, operates an air quality monitoring network that provides information on average concentrations of those pollutants for which Federal or State agencies have established NAAQS and CAAQS, respectively. The monitoring stations in the San Joaquin Valley are depicted in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1. SJVAPCD Monitoring Network
Source: SJVAPCD 2022b
Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-5

3.2 Existing Air Quality
For the purposes of background data and this air quality analysis, this analysis relied on data collected in the last three years for the CARB monitoring stations that are located in the closest proximity to the project site.

Table 3-3 provides the background concentrations for O3, particulate matter of 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), CO, NO2, SO2, and Pb. Information is provided for Bakersfield – 5558 California Avenue, Oildale – 3311 Manor Street, Edison, and Bakersfield – Municipal Airport monitoring stations for 2020 to 2022. No data is available for H2S, vinyl chloride or other toxic air contaminants in Kern County.

Table 3-3. Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area Maximum Concentration Days Exceeding Standard
Pollutant and
Monitoring Station Location 2020 2021 2022 2020 2021 2022 O3 – 1-hour CAAQS (0.09 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.110 0.090 0.093 3 0 0 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.118 0.100 0.108 8 6 6 Edison 0.131 0.116 0.126 35 23 19
O3 – 8-hour CAAQS (0.070 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.098 0.081 0.076 25 11 7 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.102 0.090 0.087 40 30 45 Edison 0.111 0.099 0.096 82 70 63
O3 – 8-hour NAAQS (0.070 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.098 0.080 0.076 25 11 4 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.101 0.090 0.086 38 29 45 Edison 0.110 0.098 0.096 79 66 61
PM10 – 24-hour CAAQS (50 µg/m3)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 196.8 439.3 133.0 18 124 135 Oildale – 3311 Manor Street 277.3 423.0 146.3 123 129 127 PM10 – 24-hour NAAQS (150 µg/m3)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 193.8 437.5 134.7 1 3 0 Oildale – 3311 Manor Street 517.2 421.4 149.4 15 2 0
PM2.5 - 24-hour NAAQS (35 µg/m3)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 150.7 72.3 58.1 44 40 34 Bakersfield – Golden State Highway 150.2 78.5 58.6 10 43 33 CO - 8-Hour CAAQS & NAAQS (9.0 ppm)
No data collected * * * * * *
NO2 - 1-Hour CAAQS (0.18 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.050 0.057 0.053 0 0 0 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.065 0.068 0.058 0 0 0 NO2 - 1-Hour NAAQS (0.10 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.050 0.057 0.054 0 0 0 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.066 0.068 0.059 0 0 0 SO2 – 24-hour Concentration - CAAQS (0.04 ppm) & NAAQS (0.14 ppm) No data collected * * * * * *
Pb - Maximum 30-Day Concentration CAAQS (1500 ng/m3)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 5.7 9.9 10.8 * * *
Source: CARB 2024a
Notes: ppm= parts per million
* There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-6
The following is a description of criteria air pollutants, typical sources and health effects and the recently documented pollutant levels in the project vicinity.

3.2.1 Ozone (O3)
The most severe air quality problem in the San Joaquin Valley is high concentrations of O3. High levels of O3 cause eye irritation and can impair respiratory functions. High levels of O3 can also affect plants and materials.

Grapes, lettuce, spinach and many types of garden flowers and shrubs are particularly vulnerable to O3 damage. O3 is not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is a secondary pollutant produced through photochemical reactions involving hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Significant O3 generation requires about one to three hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. For this reason, the months of April through October comprise the "ozone season." O3 is a regional pollutant because O3 precursors are transported and diffused by wind concurrently with the reaction process. The data contained in Table 3-3 shows that the Bakersfield and Edison area exceeded the 1-hour average ambient O3 CAAQS and the 8-hour average ambient O3 NAAQS and CAAQS during the 2020 through 2022 period.

3.2.2 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
Both State and Federal particulate standards now apply to particulates under 10 microns (PM10) rather than to total suspended particulate (TSP), which includes particulates up to 30 microns in diameter. Continuing studies have shown that the smaller-diameter fraction of TSP represents the greatest health hazard posed by the pollutant; therefore, EPA has recently established NAAQS for PM2.5. The project area is classified as attainment for PM10 and non-attainment for particulates under 2.5 microns (PM2.5) for NAAQS.

Particulate matter consists of particles in the atmosphere resulting from many kinds of dust and fumeproducing industrial and agricultural operations, from combustion, and from atmospheric photochemical reactions. Natural activities also increase the level of particulates in the atmosphere; wind-raised dust and ocean spray are two sources of naturally occurring particulates. The largest sources of PM10 and PM2.5 in Kern County are vehicle movement over paved and unpaved roads, demolition and construction activities, farming operations, and unplanned fires. PM10 and PM2.5 are considered regional pollutants with elevated levels typically occurring over a wide geographic area. Concentrations tend to be highest in the winter, during periods of high atmospheric stability and low wind speed. In the respiratory tract, very small particles of certain substances may produce injury by themselves or may contain absorbed gases that are injurious. Particulates of aerosol size suspended in the air can both scatter and absorb sunlight, producing haze and reducing visibility. They can also cause a wide range of damage to materials.

Table 3-3 shows that PM10 levels regularly exceeded the CAAQS but not the NAAQS at the two monitoring stations over the three-year period of 2020 through 2022. Table 3-3 shows that PM2.5 NAAQS were exceeded during the 2020 through 2022 period. Similar levels can be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site.

3.2.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. Wind speed and atmospheric mixing also influence CO concentrations; however, under inversion conditions prevalent in the San Joaquin Valley, CO concentrations may be more uniformly distributed over a broad area.

Internal combustion engines, principally in vehicles, produce CO due to incomplete fuel combustion. Various industrial processes also produce CO emissions through incomplete combustion. Gasoline-powered motor Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-7
vehicles are typically the major source of this contaminant. CO does not irritate the respiratory tract but passes through the lungs directly into the blood stream, and by interfering with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood, deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen, thereby aggravate cardiovascular disease, causing fatigue, headaches, and dizziness. CO is not known to have adverse effects on vegetation, visibility, or materials.

Table 3-3 reports no CO data is available for the three-year period from 2020 through 2022; historically Bakersfield area data for CO has been below the CAAQS and NAAQS.

3.2.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Hydrocarbons
Kern County has been designated as an attainment area for the NAAQS for NO2. NO2 is the "whiskey brown" colored gas readily visible during periods of heavy air pollution. Mobile sources and oil and gas production account for nearly all of the County's NOx emissions, most of which is emitted as NO2. Combustion in motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries and other industrial operations are the primary sources in the region.

Railroads and aircraft are other potentially significant sources of combustion air contaminants. Oxides of nitrogen are direct participants in photochemical smog reactions. The emitted compound, nitric oxide, combines with oxygen in the atmosphere in the presence of hydrocarbons and sunlight to form NO2 and O3.

NO2, the most significant of these pollutants, can color the atmosphere at concentrations as low as 0.5 ppm on days of 10-mile visibility. NOx is an important air pollutant in the region because it is a primary receptor of ultraviolet light, which initiates the reactions producing photochemical smog. It also reacts in the air to form nitrate particulates.

Motor vehicles are the major source of reactive hydrocarbons in the basin. Other sources include evaporation of organic solvents and petroleum production and refining operations. Certain hydrocarbons can damage plants by inhibiting growth and by causing flowers and leaves to fall. Levels of hydrocarbons currently measured in urban areas are not known to cause adverse effects in humans. However, certain members of this contaminant group are important components in the reactions, which produce photochemical oxidants.

Table 3-3 shows that the Bakersfield area did not exceed the 1-hour average ambient NO2 NAAQS and CAAQS during the 2020 through 2022 period. Hydrocarbons are not currently monitored.

3.2.5 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Kern County has been designated as an attainment area for the NAAQS for SO2. SO2 is the primary combustion product of sulfur, or sulfur containing fuels. Fuel combustion is the major source of this pollutant, while chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing facilities are minor contributors. Gaseous fuels (natural gas, propane, etc.) typically have lower percentages of sulfur containing compounds than liquid fuels such as diesel or crude oil. SO2 levels are generally higher in the winter months. Decreasing levels of SO2 in the atmosphere reflect the use of natural gas in power plants and boilers.

At high concentrations, SO2 irritates the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations, when respirated in combination with particulates, SO2 can result in greater harm by injuring lung tissues. Sulfur oxides (SOx), in combination with moisture and oxygen, results in the formation of sulfuric acid, which can yellow the leaves of plants, dissolve marble, and oxidize iron and steel. SOx can also react to produce sulfates that reduce visibility and sunlight.

Table 3-3 shows no data has been reported over the three-year period in Kern County.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-8

3.2.6 Lead (Pb) and Suspended Sulfate
Ambient Pb levels have dropped dramatically due to the increase in the percentage of motor vehicles that run exclusively on unleaded fuel. Ambient Pb levels in Lost Hills are well below the ambient standard and are expected to continue to decline; the data reported in Table 3-3 only shows the highest concentration as the number of days exceeding standards are not reported. Suspended sulfate levels have stabilized to the point where no excesses of the State standard are expected in any given year.

3.3 Climate
The most significant single control on the weather pattern of the San Joaquin Valley is the semi-permanent subtropical high-pressure cell, referred to as the "Pacific High." During the summer, the Pacific High is positioned off the coast of northern California, diverting ocean-derived storms to the north. Hence, the summer months are virtually rainless. During the winter, the Pacific High moves southward allowing storms to pass through the San Joaquin Valley. Almost all of the precipitation expected during a given year occurs from December through April. During the summer, the predominant surface winds are out of the northwest.

Air enters the Valley through the Carquinez strait and flows toward the Tehachapi Mountains. This up-valley (northwesterly) wind flow is interrupted in early fall by the emergence of nocturnal, down-valley (southeasterly) winds which become progressively more predominant as winter approaches. Wind speeds are generally highest during the spring and lightest in fall and winter. The relatively cool air flowing through the Carquinez strait is warmed on its journey south through the Valley. On reaching the southern end of the Valley, the average high temperature during the summer is nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Relative humidity during the summer is quite low, causing large diurnal temperature variations. Temperatures during the summer often drop into the upper 60s. In winter, the average high temperatures reach into the mid-50s and the average low drops to the mid-30s. In addition, another high-pressure cell, known as the "Great Basin High," develops east of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range during winter. When this cell is weak, a layer of cool, damp air becomes trapped in the basin and extensive fog results. During inversions, vertical dispersion is restricted, and pollutant emissions are trapped beneath the inversion and pushed against the mountains, adversely affecting regional air quality. Surface-based inversions, while shallow and typically short-lived, are present most mornings. Elevated inversions, while less frequent than ground-based inversions, are typically longer lasting and create the more severe air stagnation problems. The winter season characteristically has the poorest conditions for vertical mixing of the entire year.

Meteorological data for various monitoring stations is maintained by the Western Regional Climate Center.

Meteorological data for the Project site is expected to be similar to the data recorded at the Bakersfield monitoring station. This data is provided in Table 3-4, which contains average precipitation data recorded at the Wasco monitoring station. Over the 79-year period from October of 1937 through June of 2016 (the most recent data available), the average annual precipitation was 6.17 inches.

Table 3-4. Bakersfield, California Weather Data
Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for the Period 10/01/1937 to 6/09/2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Avg. Maximum
Temp (F) 57.4 63.6 69.0 75.7 84.2 92.1 98.6 96.7 91.0 80.5 67.3 57.8 77.8 Avg. Minimum
Temp (F) 38.5 42.1 45.4 49.7 56.6 63.3 69.2 67.7 63.1 54.0 44.1 38.5 52.7 Average Total
Precipitation (in.) 1.04 1.16 1.12 0.67 0.21 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.10 0.30 0.59 0.85 6.17 Average Snowfall
(in.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-9
Average Snow
Depth (in.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent of possible observations for period of record:

Max. Temp.: 99.6% Min. Temp.: 99.6% Precipitation: 99.7% Snowfall: 92.4% Snow Depth: 92.2% Source: Western Regional Climate Center, 2024.

3.4 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases

3.4.1 Global Climate Change
“Global climate change” refers to change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms, lasting for decades or longer. The term “global climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but “global climate change” is preferred by some scientists and policy makers to “global warming” because it helps convey the notion that in addition to rising temperatures, other changes in global climate may occur. Climate change may result from the following influences:
► Natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun;
► Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation); and/or ► Human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, and desertification).

As determined from worldwide meteorological measurements between 1990 and 2005, the primary observed effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric temperature of 0.36 degree Fahrenheit (°F) per decade. Climate change modeling shows that further warming could occur, which could induce additional changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system, ecosystems, and the environment of California could include higher sea levels, drier or wetter weather, changes in ocean salinity, changes in wind patterns or more energetic aspects of extreme weather (e.g., droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and increased intensity of tropical cyclones).

Specific effects from climate change in California may include a decline in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, erosion of California’s coastline, and seawater intrusion in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Human activities, including fossil fuel combustion and land use changes, release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other compounds cumulatively termed greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs are effective at trapping radiation that would otherwise escape the atmosphere. This trapped radiation warms the atmosphere, the oceans, and the earth’s surface (USGCRP, 2014). Many scientists believe “most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” (IPCC, 2017). The increased amount of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere is the alleged primary result of human-induced warming.

GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources, or formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. They include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and O3. In the last 200 years, substantial quantities of GHGs have been released into the atmosphere, primarily from fossil fuel combustion. These human-induced emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, therefore enhancing the natural greenhouse effect. The GHGs resulting from human activity are believed to be causing global climate change. While human-made GHGs include CO2, CH4, and N2O, some (like chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs]) are completely new to the atmosphere. GHGs vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), the comparative ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere. The GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-10
measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).

Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources of CH4 production include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Human activity accounts for the majority of the approximately 500 million metric tons of CH4 emitted annually. These anthropogenic sources include the mining and burning of fossil fuels; digestive processes in ruminant livestock such as cattle; rice cultivation; and the decomposition of waste in landfills. The major removal process for atmospheric CH4, the chemical breakdown in the atmosphere, cannot keep pace with source emissions; therefore, CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising.

Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2008 were 30.1 billion metric tons of CO2e and have increased considerably since that time (United Nations, 2011). It is important to note that the global emissions inventory data are not all from the same year and may vary depending on the source of the data (U.S. EPA, 2019). Emissions from the top five emitting countries and the European Union accounted for approximately 70% of total global GHG emissions in 2014. The United States was the number two producer of GHG emissions behind China.

The primary GHG emitted by human activities was CO2, representing approximately 76% of total global GHG emissions (U.S. EPA, 2019).

In 2017, the United States emitted approximately 6.5 million metric tons of CO2e. Of the six major sectors nationwide (electric power industry, transportation, industry, agriculture, commercial, and residential), the electric power industry and transportation sectors combined account for approximately 57% of the GHG emissions; the majority of the electrical power industry and all of the transportation emissions are generated from direct fossil fuel combustion. Between 1990 and 2017, total United States GHG emissions rose approximately 1.3% (U.S. EPA, 2019).

Worldwide, energy-related CO2 emissions are expected to increase at an average rate of 0.6% annually between 2018 and 2050, compared with the average growth rate of 1.8% per year from 1990 to 2018. Much of the increase in these emissions is expected to occur in the developing world where emerging economies, such as China and India, fuel economic development with fossil fuel energy. Developing countries’ emissions are expected to grow above the world average at a rate of approximately 1% annually between 2018 and 2050 and surpass emissions of industrialized countries by 2025 (U.S. EIA, 2019).

CARB is responsible for developing and maintaining the California GHG emissions inventory. This inventory estimates the amount of GHGs emitted into and removed from the atmosphere by human activities within the state of California and supports the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Climate Change Program. CARB’s current GHG emission inventory covers the years 2000 through 2017 and is based on fuel use, equipment activity, industrial processes, and other relevant data (e.g., housing, landfill activity, and agricultural lands).

In 2017, emissions from statewide emitting activities were 424 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMT CO2e), which is 5 MMT CO2e lower than 2016 levels. 2017 emissions have decreased by 14% since peak levels in 2004 and are 7 MMT CO2e below the 1990 emissions level and the State’s 2020 GHG limit. Per capita GHG emissions in California have dropped from a 2001 peak of 14.1 tonnes per person to 10.7 tonnes per person in 2017, a 24% decrease (CARB 2019).

CARB estimates that transportation was the source of approximately 40% of California’s GHG emissions in 2017, followed by electricity generation at 15%. Other sources of GHG emissions were industrial sources at 21%, residential plus commercial activities at 10%, and agriculture at 8% (CARB 2019).

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-11
CARB has projected the estimated statewide GHG emissions for the year 2020, which represent the emissions that would be expected to occur with reductions anticipated from Pavley I and the Renewables Electricity Standard (30 MMT CO2e total), will be 509 MMT of CO2e (CARB, 2014). GHG emissions from the transportation and electricity sectors as a whole are expected to increase at approximately 36% and 20% of total CO2e emissions, respectively, as compared to 2009. The industrial sector consists of large stationary sources of GHG emissions and the percentage of the total 2020 emissions is projected to be 18% of total CO2e emissions.

The remaining sources of GHG emissions in 2020 are high global warming potential gases at 6%, residential and commercial activities at 10%, agriculture at 7%, and recycling and waste at 2%.

3.4.2 Effects of Global Climate Change
Changes in the global climate are assessed using historical records of temperature changes that have occurred in the past. Climate change scientists use this temperature data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from past climate changes in rate and magnitude.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. In its Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC predicted that the global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100 could range from 1.1 degree Celsius (°C) to 6.4 °C (8 to 10.4 °Fahrenheit) (IPCC, 2013). Global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios (IPCC, 2014). The IPCC concluded that global climate change was largely the result of human activity, mainly the burning of fossil fuels. However, the scientific literature is not consistent regarding many of the aspects of climate change, the actual temperature changes during the 20th century, and contributions from human versus non-human activities.

Effects from global climate change may arise from temperature increases, climate sensitive diseases, extreme weather events, and degradation of air quality. There may be direct temperature effects through increases in average temperature leading to more extreme heat waves and less extreme cold spells. Those living in warmer climates are likely to experience more stress and heat-related problems. Heat-related problems include heat rash and heat stroke, drought, etc. In addition, climate-sensitive diseases may increase, such as those spread by mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects. Such diseases include malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. Extreme events such as flooding and hurricanes can displace people and agriculture. Global warming may also contribute to air quality problems from increased frequency of smog and particulate air pollution.

According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team (CAT) Report, several climate change effects can be expected in California over the course of the next century (CalEPA, 2006). These are based on trends established by the IPCC and are summarized below.
► A diminishing Sierra snowpack declining by 70% to 90%, threatening the state’s water supply. ► A rise in sea levels, resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences. During the past century, sea levels along California’s coast have risen about seven inches. If emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher anticipated warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. Sea level rises of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. (Note: This condition would not affect the Proposed Project area, as it is a significant distance away from coastal areas.) ► An increase in temperature and extreme weather events. Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events and heat waves in California.

More heat waves can exacerbate chronic disease or heat-related illness.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-12
► Increased risk of large wildfires if rain increases as temperatures rise. Wildfires in the grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of southern California are estimated to increase by approximately 30% toward the end of the 21st century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant fuel available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter, drier climate could promote up to 90% more northern California fires by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation. ► Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4 °F under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25% to 35% increase in the number of days that ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas (see below).
► Increased vulnerability of forests due to forest fires, pest infestation, and increased temperatures. ► Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk. ► Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85% more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today’s conditions. This is more than twice the increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range. This increase in air quality problems could result in an increase in asthma and other health-related problems.
► A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests. Climate change can cause an increase in wildfires, an enhanced insect population, and establishment of non-native species. ► Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. ► Increased ground-level ozone formation due to higher reaction rates of ozone precursors.

3.4.3 Global Climate Change Regulatory Issues
In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the impacts of global warming and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established an agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions, including methane. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of GHGs in the United States. The plan consists of more than 50 voluntary programs. Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. The Montreal Protocol stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete O3 in the stratosphere (chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs], halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) were phased out by 2000 (methyl chloroform was phased out by 2005).

On September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (the Act) was enacted by the State of California. The legislature stated, “Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California.” The Act caps California’s GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. The Act defines GHG emissions as all of the following gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. This agreement represents the first enforceable statewide program in the U.S. to cap all GHG emissions from major industries that includes penalties for non-compliance. While acknowledging that national and international actions will be necessary to fully address the issue of global warming, AB32 lays out a program to inventory and reduce GHG emissions in California and from power generation facilities located outside the state that serve California residents and businesses.

AB32 charges CARB with responsibility to monitor and regulate sources of GHG emissions in order to reduce those emissions. CARB has adopted a list of discrete early action measures that can be implemented to reduce GHG emissions. CARB has defined the 1990 baseline emissions for California and has adopted that baseline as the 2020 statewide emissions cap. CARB is conducting rulemaking for reducing GHG emissions to achieve the emissions cap by 2020. In designing emission reduction measures, CARB must aim to minimize costs, maximize benefits, improve, and modernize California’s energy infrastructure, maintain electric system Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-13
reliability, maximize additional environmental and economic co-benefits for California, and complement the state’s efforts to improve air quality.

Subsequent legislation by the California legislature has included Senate Bill (SB) 32, which expanded upon AB32 to reduce GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 levels by 2030; AB197 which increased the legislative oversight of the CARB by adding two legislatively appointed non-voting members to the CARB Board and provided additional protection to disadvantaged communities; SB350, which increased California’s renewable energy electricity procurement goal and SB100, which established a landmark policy requiring renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 100 percent of electrical retail sales to end use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve state agencies by 2045.

Global warming and climate change have received substantial public attention for more than 20 years. For example, the United States Global Change Research Program was established by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to enhance the understanding of natural and human-induced changes in the Earth’s global environmental system, to monitor, understand, and predict global change, and to provide a sound scientific basis for national and international decision-making. Even so, the analytical tools have not been developed to determine the effect on worldwide global warming from a particular increase in GHG emissions, or the resulting effects on climate change in a particular locale. The scientific tools needed to evaluate the impacts that a specific project may have on the environment are even farther in the future.

The California Supreme Court’s most recent CEQA decision on the Newhall Ranch development case, Center for Biological v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (November 30, 2015, Case No. 217763), determined that the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not substantiate the conclusion that the GHG cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The EIR determined that the Newhall Ranch development project would reduce GHG emissions by 31 percent from business as usual (BAU). This reduction was compared to the California’s target of reducing GHG emissions statewide by 29 percent from business as usual. The Court determined that “the EIR’s deficiency stems from taking a quantitative comparison method developed by the Scoping Plan as a measure of the greenhouse gas reduction effort required by the state as a whole, and attempting to use that method, without adjustments, for a purpose very different from its original design.” In the Court’s final ruling it offered suggestions that were deemed appropriate use of the BAU methodology:

1. Lead agencies can use the comparison to BAU methodology if they determine what reduction a particular project must achieve in order to comply with statewide goals,

2. Project design features that comply with regulations to reduce emissions may demonstrate that those components of emissions are less that significant, and

3. Lead agencies could also demonstrate compliance with locally adopted climate plans or could apply specific numerical thresholds developed by some local agencies.

Kern County, the Lead CEQA agency for this Project, has not developed specific thresholds for GHGs. As discussed in Section 4.1, the SJVAPCD, a CEQA Trustee Agency for this Project, has developed thresholds to determine significance of a proposed project – either implement Best Performance Standards or achieve a 29% reduction from BAU (a specific numerical threshold). However, the SJVAPCD has established their BAU and baseline emissions based on the years 2002-2004 and 2020, respectively. The 2020 projected baseline has passed, and at this time, no new guidance has been approved for determining BAU and projected baseline for the next target year. Therefore, the 29% reduction from BAU cannot be applied to the subject Project in order to determine significance. Additionally, a Best Performance Standards threshold has not been established. For this Project, compliance with locally adopted climate plans will be used to determine level of significance for GHG. Therefore, the GHG analysis for this Project follows the suggestions from the Court’s Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-14
ruling on the Newhall Ranch development project in order to determine significance using the project design features.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-1

4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.1 Significance Criteria
To determine whether a proposed Project could create a potential CEQA impact, local, State, and Federal agencies have developed various means by which a project’s impacts may be measured and evaluated. Such means can generally be categorized as follows:
► Thresholds of significance adopted by air quality agencies to guide lead agencies in their evaluation of air quality impacts under the CEQA.
► Regulations established by air districts, CARB and EPA for the evaluation of stationary sources when applying for Authorities to Construct, Permits to Operate and other permit program requirements (e.g., New Source Review).
► Thresholds utilized to determine if a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the ambient air quality standards or other concentration-based limits. ► Regulations applied in areas where severe air quality problems exist.

Summary tables of these emission-based and concentration-based thresholds of significance for each pollutant are provided below along with a discussion of their applicability.

4.1.1 Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Air Quality Impacts under CEQA In order to maintain consistency with CEQA, the SJVAPCD (2015) adopted guidelines to assist applicants in complying with the various requirements. According to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, a project would have potentially significant air quality impacts when the project:
► Creates a conflict with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan; ► Causes a violation of any air quality standard or generates substantial contribution towards exceeding an existing or projected air quality standard;
► Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is designated non-attainment under a NAAQS and CAAQS (including emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for O3 precursors);
► Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or ► Creates objectionable odors that affect a substantial number of people.

The SJVAPCD GAMAQI thresholds are designed to implement the general criteria for air quality emissions as required in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Paragraph III (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations §15064.7) and CEQA (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. al). SJVAPCD’s specific CEQA air quality thresholds are presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Criteria Pollutant Significance Level
Construction Operational
CO 100 tons/yr 100 tons/yr
NOx 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
ROG 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
SOx 27 tons/yr 27 tons/yr
PM10 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
PM2.5 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
Source: SJVAPCD 2015
Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-2

4.1.2 Thresholds for Ambient Air Quality Impacts
CEQA Guidelines – Appendix G (Environmental Checklist) states that a project that would “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation” would be considered to create significant impacts on air quality. Therefore, an AQIA should determine whether the emissions from a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the NAAQS or CAAQS (presented above in Table 3-1) when added to existing ambient concentrations.

The EPA has established the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to determine what comprises “significant impact levels” (SIL) to NAAQS attainment areas. A project’s impacts are considered less than significant if emissions are below PSD SIL for a particular pollutant. When a SIL is exceeded, an additional “increment analysis” is required. As the Project would not include modification to the stationary source under NSR, it would not be subject to either PSD or NSR review. The PSD SIL thresholds are used with ambient air quality modeling for a CEQA project to address whether the Project would “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.” Ambient air quality emissions estimates below the PSD SIL thresholds would result in less than significant ambient air quality impacts for both a project and cumulative CEQA impact analysis. The SJVAB is classified as non-attainment for the O3 NAAQS and, as such, is subject to “non-attainment new source review” (NSR). PSD SILs and increments are more stringent than the CAAQS or NAAQS and represent the most stringent thresholds of significance.

4.1.3 Thresholds for Hazardous Air Pollutants
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states, “From a health risk perspective there are basically two types of land use projects that have the potential to cause long-term public health risk impacts:
► Type A Projects: Land use projects that will place new toxic sources in the vicinity of existing receptors, and
► Type B Projects: Land use projects that will place new receptors in the vicinity of existing toxics sources” (SJVAPCD 2015).

Table 4-2 presents the thresholds of significance used with toxic air contaminants when evaluating hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

Table 4-2. Measures of Significance - Toxic Air Contaminants Agency Level Description
Significance Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Impacts Under CEQA

SJVAPCD
Carcinogens Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or exceeds 20 in one million.

NonCarcinogens
Acute: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the
Maximally Exposed Individual.

Chronic: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the
Maximally Exposed Individual.

Source: SJVAPCD 2015

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Threshold of Significance
Attachment A of Kern County’s Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports states “the following threshold are defined for purposes of determining cumulative effects as the baseline for “considerable”. “Projects in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District…will be subject to the following significance thresholds”. The thresholds outlined in the guidelines mirror the individual project Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-3
significance thresholds of 15 tons per year for PM10 and 10 tons per year for NOX and ROG. Therefore, owing to the inherently cumulative nature of air quality impacts, the threshold for whether a project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact is simply whether the project would exceed project-level thresholds.

4.1.5 Global Climate Change Thresholds of Significance
On December 17, 2009, SJVAPCD adopted Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD 2009); which outlined the SJVAPCD’s methodology for assessing a project’s significance for GHGs under CEQA. The following criteria was outlined in the document to determine whether a project could have a significant impact:
► Projects determined to be exempt from the requirements of CEQA would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions and would not require further environmental review, including analysis of project specific GHG emissions. Projects exempt under CEQA would be evaluated consistent with established rules and regulations governing project approval and would not be required to implement BPS.
► Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.

Such plans or programs must be specified in law or approved by the lead agency with jurisdiction over the affected resource and supported by a CEQA compliant environmental review document adopted by the lead agency. Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program would not be required to implement BPS.
► Projects implementing Best Performance Standards would not require quantification of project specific GHG emissions. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. ► Projects not implementing Best Performance Standards would require quantification of project specific GHG emissions and demonstration that project specific GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29%, compared to Business-as-Usual (BAU), including GHG emission reductions achieved since the 2002-2004 baseline period. Projects achieving at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG. ► Notwithstanding any of the above provisions, projects requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for any other reason would require quantification of project specific GHG emissions. Projects implementing BPS or achieving at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.

4.2 Project Related Emissions
This document was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. The GAMAQI identifies separate thresholds for a project’s short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) emissions.

Project emissions were estimated for the following project development stages:
► Short-term (Construction and Demolition) – Construction emissions of the proposed Project were estimated in CalEEMod using the proposed construction schedules and defaults for construction equipment starting with site preparation for the staggered 3 phase development of 365 dwelling units. ► Long-term (Operations) – Long term emissions were also estimated in CalEEMod using model defaults for operations of 365 single family homes.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-4

4.2.1 Short-Term Emissions
The Project applicant did not provide a list of specific construction equipment; the construction emissions were therefore based on the default CalEEMod equipment list accordingly for the proposed Project’s land use type and development intensity. Applying model defaults as well as a conservative analysis approach, construction emissions were estimated with Phase 1 construction starting in June of 2025 and Phase 3 construction ending by 2029. The dates entered into the CalEEMod program may not represent the actual dates the equipment will operate; however, the total construction time is accurate, and therefore, all estimated emission totals are conservative and reflect a reasonable and legally sufficient estimate of potential impacts.

All construction equipment activity levels were assumed based on the specified CalEEMod default values for type and number of equipment and horsepower.

SJVAPCD’s required measures for all projects were also applied:
► Water exposed areas 3 times per day; and
► Reduce vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour.

Table 4-3 presents the Project’s short-term emissions based on the anticipated construction period.

4.2.2 Long-Term Operations Emissions
Long-term emissions are caused by operational mobile, area, and energy sources. Long-term emissions would consist of the following components:

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-5

4.2.2.1 Fugitive Dust Emissions
Operation of the Project site at full build-out is not expected to present a substantial source of fugitive dust (PM10) emissions. The main source of PM10 emissions would be from vehicular traffic associated with the Project site.

PM10, on its own as well as in combination with other pollutants, creates a health hazard. The SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII establishes required controls to reduce and minimize fugitive dust emissions. The following SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations apply to the proposed Project (and all projects):
► Rule 4102 - Nuisance
► Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions
• Rule 8011 - General Requirements
• Rule 8021 - Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities • Rule 8041 - Carryout and Trackout
• Rule 8051 - Open Areas
The Project would comply with applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations, the local zoning codes, and additional emissions reduction measures recommended later in this analysis, in Section 7, Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures.

4.2.2.2 Exhaust Emissions
Project-related transportation activities from residents would generate mobile source ROG, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 exhaust emissions. Exhaust emissions would vary substantially from day to day but would average out over the course of an operational year. The variables factored into estimating total Project emissions include: level of activity, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of residents and visitors.

4.2.2.3 Projected Emissions
The proposed Project is expected to have long-term air quality impacts as shown in Table 4-4. The outputs from the CalEEMod runs are available in Appendix B. Mitigation measures implemented within CalEEMod include:
► E-15. Require All-Electric Development1
Table 4-4. Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 1.62 1.47 12.99 0.03 3.23 0.83
Area 0.40 0.02 1.87 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Operational Emissions 2.02 1.49 14.86 0.03 3.24 0.83
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
1 This measure requires that developments use all-electric appliances and end uses.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-6
Source: Trinity Consultants 2024
Note: 0.00 could represent < 0.00
As shown in Table 4-4, operation-related emissions, as calculated by CalEEMod (see Appendix B), would be less than the SJVAPCD significant threshold levels. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact during Project operations.

4.3 Potential Impact on Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside, such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers. There are 14 known non-residential sensitive receptors within 2 miles of the Project site shown below in Table 4-5.

Table 4-5. Sensitive Receptors Located < 2 Miles from Project Receptor Type of Facility Distance from
Project in Miles
Direction from
Project
Juliet Thorner Elementary School K-6 Public 0.10 S
Wonder Window Children's Center PK Private 0.23 S
Kern Transition Home-Meadow Oaks Assisted Living Facility 0.46 W Canyon Hills Preschool and Daycare PK Private 0.57 SW
Bakersfield Rehabilitation Hospital Hospital 0.75 S
Sillect Urgent Care and Primary Care Hospital 0.85 S
Highland High School 9-12 Public 0.81 SW
Summit Hills I Assisted Living Facility 0.89 SW
Paul L Cato Middle School 6-8 Public 1.42 SE
Summit Hills II Assisted Living Facility 1.10 SW
Chipman Junior High School 7-8 Public 1.10 SW
Henry Eissler Elementary K-6 Public 1.11 SW
Aimes Coronado Assisted Living Facility 1.27 W
Walter Stiern Middle K-6 Public 1.59 S

4.4 Potential Impacts to Visibility to Nearby Areas
Visibility impact analyses are intended for stationary sources of emissions which are subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements in 40 CFR Part 60; they are not usually conducted for area sources. Because the Project’s PM10 emissions increase is predicted to be less than the PSD threshold levels, an impact at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation within 100 kilometers of the Project (including San Rafael Wilderness, Domeland Wilderness, Edwards Air Force Base, China Lake Naval Weapons Station, and the entire R-2508 Airspace Complex) is extremely unlikely. Therefore, based on the Project’s predicted less-than significant PM10 emissions, the Project would be expected to have a less than significant impact to visibility at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation.

4.5 Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide
Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. CO concentrations are also influenced by wind speed and atmospheric mixing. CO concentrations may be more uniformly distributed when inversion conditions are prevalent in the valley. Under Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-7
certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations along a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels for sensitive receptors, e.g. children, the elderly, hospital patients, etc. This localized impact can result in elevated levels of CO, or “hotspots” even though concentrations at the closest air quality monitoring station may be below NAAQS and CAAQS.

The localized Project impacts depend on whether ambient CO levels in the Project vicinity would be above or below NAAQS. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if a project’s emissions would exceed of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a state standard, a project’s emissions are considered significant if they would increase one-hour CO concentrations by 10 ppm or more or eight-hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. There are two criteria established by the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI by which CO “Hot Spot” modeling is required:

1. A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity would be reduced to LOS E or F; or

2. A traffic study indicates that the project would substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.

According to the Project proponent, at the time of this analysis no traffic generation assessment impact study was prepared for this Project. However, due to the location and traffic increase anticipated from this Project, impacted intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at a LOS of C or better. Therefore, CO “Hotspot” Modeling was not conducted for this Project and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed.

4.6 Predicted Health Risk Impacts
GAMAQI recommends that Lead Agencies consider situations wherein a new or modified source of HAPs is proposed for a location near an existing residential area or other sensitive receptor when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs.

The proposed Project would result in emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and would be located near existing residents and workers; therefore, an assessment of the potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of hazardous air pollutants from the proposed Project is required.

To predict the potential health risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project, ambient air concentrations were predicted with dispersion modeling to arrive at a conservative estimate of increased individual carcinogenic risk that might occur as a result of continuous exposure over a

4.8-year construction timeline. Similarly, predicted concentrations were used to calculate non-cancer chronic and acute hazard indices (HIs), which are the ratio of expected exposure to acceptable exposure. The basis for evaluating potential health risk is the identification of sources with increased HAPs.

Health risk is determined using the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) software distributed by the CARB; HARP2 requires peak 1-hour emission rates and annual-averaged emission rates for all pollutants for each modeling source (CARB 2015). Assumptions used to calculate the emission rates for the proposed Project are outlined below.

The most recent version of EPA’s AMS/EPA Regulatory Model - AERMOD was used to predict the dispersion of emissions from the proposed Project. The analysis employed all of the regulatory default AERMOD model keyword parameters, including elevated terrain options.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-8
For construction health impacts, diesel combustion emissions from diesel on-site construction equipment was modeled as area sources for on-site construction activity on the property. Diesel particulate matter was calculated using CalEEMod for on-site construction equipment. A unit emission rate of 1 grams/second (g/sec) was input to AERMOD for each area source.

Discrete receptors were placed on houses and businesses within close proximity of the Project site. Receptor grids were placed over the more densely populated areas mostly to the east and south of the Project site. A total of 9,167 discrete off-site receptors were analyzed. Elevated terrain options were employed even though there is not complex terrain in the Project area.

SJVAPCD-provided, AERMET UStar processed meteorological datasets for the Bakersfield monitoring station, calendar years 2018 through 2022 was input to AERMOD (SJVAPCD 2023). This was the most recent available dataset available at the time the modeling was conducted. Rural dispersion parameters were used because the operation and the majority of the land surrounding the facility is considered "rural" under the Auer land use classification method (Auer 1978).

Plot files generated by AERMOD were uploaded to the Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Assessment Tool (ADMRT) program in the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP 2) (CARB 2015). ADMRT post-processing was used to assess the potential for excess cancer risk and chronic and acute non-cancer effects using the most recent health effects data from the California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). HARP2 site parameters were set for the mandatory minimum pathways of inhalation, soil ingestion, dermal, and mother’s milk. Risk reports were generated using the derived OEHHA analysis method for carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic chronic and acute risk. Site parameters are included in the HARP2 output files. Total cancer risk was predicted for each receptor. A hazard index was computed for chronic non-cancer health effects for each applicable endpoint and each receptor. A hazard index for acute non-cancer health effects was not computed since DPM does not have a risk exposure level for acute risk.

SJVAPCD has set the level of significance for carcinogenic risk at twenty in one million, which is understood as the possibility of causing twenty additional cancer cases in a population of one million people. The level of significance for chronic and acute non-cancer risk is a hazard index of 1.0. All receptors were modeled as residential receptors with 4.8-year exposure. This is conservative since all on-site receptors and business receptors would be exposed for less than 4.8 years.

The carcinogenic risk and the health hazard index (HI) for chronic non-cancer risk at the point of maximum impact (PMI) do not exceed the significance levels of twenty in one million (20 x 10-6) and 1.0, respectively for the proposed Project. The PMIs are identified by receptor location and risk and are provided in Table 4-6.

The electronic AERMOD and HARP2 output files are provided in Appendix D.

Table 4-6. Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP
Value UTM East UTM North
Excess Cancer Risk 9.58E-06 326246.7 3920251.7
Chronic Hazard Index 5.66E-03 326246.7 3920226.7
As shown above in Table 4-6, the maximum predicted cancer risk for the proposed Project is 9.58E-06. The maximum chronic non-cancer hazard index for the proposed Project is 5.66E-03. Since the PMI remained below the significance threshold for cancer and chronic risk, this Project would not have an adverse effect to any of the surrounding communities.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-9
The potential health risk attributable to the proposed Project is determined to be less than significant based on the following conclusions:

1. Potential carcinogenic risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of twenty in a million at each of the modeled receptors; and

2. The hazard index for the potential chronic non-cancer risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of 1.0 at each of the modeled receptors.

3. The hazard index for the potential acute non-cancer risk was not calculated since there is no acute risk associated with DPM emission; therefore, the proposed Project is considered below the significance level.

Therefore, the potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

4.7 Potential Impacts from Valley Fever
The proposed project has the potential to generate fugitive dust and suspend Valley Fever spores with the dust that could then reach nearby sensitive receptors. It is possible that onsite workers could be exposed to Valley Fever spores as fugitive dust is generated during construction. In order to mitigate potential risk, the proposed Project would provide training and personal protective respiratory equipment to construction workers and provide information to all construction personnel and visitors about Valley Fever. Therefore, the exposure to Valley Fever would be minimized. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, dust from the construction of the proposed project would not add significantly to the existing exposure level of people to this fungus, including construction workers, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

4.8 Potential Impacts from Asbestos
Naturally occurring asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading of development projects, and at mining operations.

Serpentinite and/or ultramafic rock are known to be present in 44 of California's 58 counties. These rocks are particularly abundant in the counties associated with the Sierra Nevada foothills, the Klamath Mountains, and Coast Ranges. However, according to information provided by the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, the project site is not located in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be present (CDCDMG, 2000). Therefore, impacts associated with exposure of construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors to asbestos would be less than significant.

4.9 Odor Impacts and Mitigation
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states “An analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for both of the following two situations:

1. Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and

2. Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources.” (SJVAPCD 2015).

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-10
The GAMAQI also states, “The District has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. These are presented in Table 6 (Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources), along with a reasonable distance from the source within which, the degree of odors could possibly be significant. [Table 6] can be used as a screening tool to qualitatively assess a project’s potential to adversely affect area receptors.” (SJVAPCD, 2015). Because the Project is a residential site and the anticipated activities for the Project site are not listed in Table 6 of the GAMAQI as a source that would create objectionable odors, the Project is not expected to be a source of objectionable odors.

Based on the provisions of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, the proposed Project would not exceed any screening trigger levels to be considered a source of objectionable odors or odorous compounds (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Furthermore, there does not appear to be any significant source of objectionable odors in close proximity that may adversely impact the Project site when it is in operation. Additionally, the Project emissions estimates indicate that it would not be expected to adversely impact surrounding receptors. As such, the proposed Project would not be a source of any odorous compounds nor would it likely be impacted by any odorous source.

4.10 Impacts to Ambient Air Quality
As stated in the GAMAQI (2015, p 96-97), SJVAPCD has developed screening levels for requiring an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA). The SJVAPCD recommends that an AAQA be performed for all criteria pollutants when emissions of any criteria pollutant resulting from project construction or operational activities exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level, after compliance with Rule 9510 requirements and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures.

As shown in Table 4-4, average daily emissions for construction and operational activities associated with this Project would not exceed 100 pounds per day. Therefore, an AAQA is not required for this Project.

4.11 Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
In the decade after South Coast AQMD adopted the Interim GHG Significance Threshold, several new laws and executive orders were adopted that require additional reductions in years after 2020. For instance, Senate Bill 32 (Lara, 2016) requires that GHG emissions be 40% less than 1990 levels by 2030. More drastic still, Senate Bill 100 (de Leon, 2018) which was signed by the Governor recently requires 100% zero-carbon electricity by 2045. On the day SB 100 was signed into law, the Governor also signed Executive Order B-55- 18 which commits California to total, economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. Clearly, the 2008 Guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today’s standards which propose a grand vision that, if achieved, would fundamentally change how business is conducted and citizens live in the State. Thus, as discussed in the most recent updates to the Scoping Plan, objectives of the Scoping Plan affect entire sectors of the economy and it no longer makes sense to evaluate GHG emissions on a project-level.

For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in Table 4-7 are primarily for disclosure purposes because impact analysis for the Project follows the approach certified by South Coast AQMD in the Final Negative Declaration for the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plant – Crude Oil Storage Capacity Project on December 12, 2014 (South Coast AQMD, 2014). The approach used by South Coast AQMD to assess GHG impacts from that project recognizes that consumers of electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by requiring providers and importers of electricity and fuel to participate in the GHG Cap-and-Trade Program and other Programs (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, renewable portfolio standard, etc.). Each such sector-wide program exists within the framework of AB 32 and its descendant laws the purpose of which is to achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-11
In summary, the Project would generate GHGs from electricity use and combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near the top of the supply-chain. As such, each citizen of California (including the operator of the Project) will have no choice but to purchase electricity and fuels produced in a way that is acceptable to the California market. Thus, Project GHG emissions will be consistent with the relevant plan (i.e., AB 32 Scoping Plan). The Project would meet its fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative impact of global climate change because the proposed Project will be purchasing energy from the California market.

Thus, the Project would have a less than significant impact on applicable GHG reduction plans.

Nonetheless, GHG emissions impacts from implementing the Project were calculated at the Project-specific level for construction and operations as explained in the previous paragraphs. Impact analysis for the Project follows the approach certified by South Coast AQMD in the Final Negative Declaration for the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plant – Crude Oil Storage Capacity Project on December 12, 2014 (South Coast AQMD, 2014). In summary, this approach takes into account the cumulative nature of the energy industry and recognizes that consumers of electricity and diesel fuel are in effect regulated by higher level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Table 4-7. Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year)
Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mitigated Construction Emissions
Construction Emissions 1,352.11 0.05 0.03 1,363.47
Mitigated Operational Emissions
Mobile Emissions 3,056.70 0.18 0.15 3,108.48
Area Emissions 9.09 0.00 0.00 9.15
Energy Emissions 316.75 0.05 0.01 319.89
Water Emissions 30.26 0.49 0.01 45.96
Waste Emissions 29.35 2.93 0.00 102.68
Refrigerant Emissions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84
Total Project Operational Emissions 3,442.16 3.65 0.16 3,587.01 Annualized Construction Emissions1 45.07 0.00 0.00 45.45 Project Emissions 3,487.23 3.66 0.17 3,632.46
*Note: 0.00 could represent <0.00
Per South Coast AQMD’s Methodology
The Project will not result in the emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), or sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), the other gases identified as GHG in AB32. The proposed Project will be subject to any new regulations developed by CARB to address GHG emissions.

4.11.1 Feasible and Reasonable Mitigation Relative to Global Warming CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce the impacts from construction and operations on air quality. The SJVAPCD’s “Non-Residential On-Site Mitigation Checklist” was utilized in preparing the mitigation measures and evaluating the projects features. These measures include using controls that limit the exhaust from construction equipment and using alternatives to diesel when possible. Additional reductions would be achieved through the regulatory process of the air district and CARB as required changes to diesel engines are implemented which would affect the product delivery trucks and limits on idling.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-12
While it is not possible to determine whether the Project individually would have a significant impact on global warming or climate change, the Project would potentially contribute to cumulative GHG emissions in California as well as related health effects. The Project emissions would only be a very small fraction of the statewide GHG emissions. However, without the necessary science and analytical tools, it is not possible to assess, with certainty, whether the Project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable, within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15065(a)(3) and 15130. CEQA, however, does note that the more severe environmental problems the lower the thresholds for treating a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts as significant.

Given the position of the legislature in AB32 which states that global warming poses serious detrimental effects, and the requirements of CEQA for the lead agency to determine that a project not have a cumulatively considerable contribution, the effect of the Project’s CO2 contribution may be considered cumulatively considerable. This determination is “speculative,” given the lack of clear scientific evidence or other criteria for determining the significance of the Project’s contribution of GHG to the air quality in the SJVAB.

The strategies currently being implemented by CARB may help in reducing the Project’s GHG emissions and are summarized in the table below.

Table 4-8. Select CARB GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Strategy Description of Strategy
Vehicle Climate Change Standards
AB 1493 (Pavley) required the state to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of climate change emissions emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Regulations were adopted by CARB in Sept. 2004.

Diesel Anti-Idling In July 2004, CARB adopted a measure to limit diesel-fueled retail motor vehicle idling.

Other Light-Duty Vehicle
Technology
New standards would be adopted to phase in beginning in the 2017 model year.

Alternative Fuels: Biodiesel Blends CARB would develop regulations to require the use of 1% to 4% Biodiesel displacement of California diesel fuel.

Alternative Fuels: Ethanol Increased use of ethanol fuel.

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission
Reduction Measures
Increased efficiency in the design of heavy-duty vehicles and an educational program for the heavy-duty vehicle sector.

Not all of these measures are currently appropriate or applicable to the proposed Project. While future legislation could further reduce the Project’s GHG footprint, the analysis of this is speculative and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, will not be further evaluated in this AQIA.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 notes that sometimes the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-byproject basis. Global climate change is this type of issue. The causes and effects may not be just regional or statewide, they may also be worldwide. Given the uncertainties in identifying, let alone quantifying the impact of any single project on global warming and climate change, and the efforts made to reduce emissions of GHGs from the Project through design, in accordance with CEQA Section 15130, any further feasible emissions reductions would be accomplished through CARB regulations adopted pursuant to AB32. The Project will comply with all local and statewide air quality and climate plans; therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 5-1

5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
By its very nature, air pollution has a cumulative impact. The District’s nonattainment status is a result of past and present development within the SJVAB. Furthermore, attainment of ambient air quality standards can be jeopardized by increasing emissions-generating activities in the region. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of the regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, present, and future development within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. When assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect, the Lead Agency shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects [CCR §15064(h)(1)]. Per CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3) a Lead Agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located. (SJVAPCD 2015)
Attachment A of Kern County’s Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports states “The following threshold are defined for purposes of determining cumulative effects as the baseline for “considerable”. Projects in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District…will be subject to the following significance thresholds”. The thresholds outlined in the guidelines mirror the individual project significance thresholds of 15 tons per year for PM10 and 10 tons per year for NOX and ROG. Therefore, owing to the inherently cumulative nature of air quality impacts, the threshold for whether a project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact is simply whether the project would exceed project-level thresholds. Based on the analysis conducted for this Project, it is individually less than significant. This AQIA, however, also considered impacts of the proposed Project in conjunction with the impacts of other projects previously proposed in the area. The following cumulative impacts were considered:
► Cumulative O3 Impacts (ROG and NOx) from numerous sources within the region including transport from outside the region. O3 is formed through chemical reactions of ROG and NOx in the presence of sunlight.
► Cumulative CO Impacts produced primarily by vehicular emissions. ► Cumulative PM10 Impacts from within the region and locally from the various projects. Such projects may cumulatively produce a significant amount of PM10 if several projects conduct grading or earthmoving activities at the same time; and
► Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Impacts on sensitive receptors.

5.1 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
The most recent, certified SJVAB Emission Inventory data available from the SJVAPCD is based on data gathered for the 2020 annual inventory2. This data will be used to assist the SJVAPCD in demonstrating attainment of Federal 1-hour O3 Standards (SJVAPCD 2007). Table 5-1 provides a comparative look at the impacts proposed by the proposed Project to the SJVAB Emissions Inventory. 2 SJVAPCD Emissions for Aggregated Stationary, Area-Wide, Mobile, and Natural Sources Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 5-2
Table 5-1. Comparative Analysis Based on SJV Air Basin 2020 Inventory - Tons per Year ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Kern County - 2020 22,739.5 16,315.5 39,274.0 547.5 14,636.5 4,270.5 SJVAB - 2020 114,938.5 72,014.5 241,630.0 2,336.0 99,389.5 24,966.0 Proposed Project 2.02 1.49 14.86 0.03 3.24 0.83
Proposed Project’s % of Kern 0.009% 0.009% 0.038% 0.006% 0.022% 0.019% Proposed Project’s % of SJVAB 0.002% 0.002% 0.006% 0.001% 0.003% 0.003% Note: This is the latest inventory available as of April 2024 Source: CARB 2024b
As shown in Table 5-1 the proposed Project does not pose a substantial increase to basin emissions, as such basin emissions would be essentially the same if the Project is approved.

Table 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 provide CARB Emissions Inventory projections for the year 2025 for both the SJVAB and the Kern County portion of the air basin. Looking at the SJVAB Emissions predicted by the CARB year 2025 emissions inventory, the Kern County portion of the air basin is a moderate source of the emissions. The proposed Project produces a small portion of the total emissions in both Kern County and the entire SJVAB.

Table 5-2. Emission Inventory SJVAB 2025 Projection - Tons per Year ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Total Emissions 110,996.5 55,334.0 229,658.0 2,336.0 98,112.0 24,272.5 Percent Stationary Sources 27.66% 13.13% 3.35% 76.56% 4.46% 10.83% Percent Area-Wide Sources 54.95% 7.52% 26.21% 9.38% 91.07% 77.74% Percent Mobile Sources 17.40% 79.35% 70.44% 12.50% 4.50% 11.43% Total Stationary Source Emissions 30,696.5 7,263.5 7,701.5 1,788.5 4,380.0 2,628.0 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 60,991.5 4,161.0 60,188.5 219.0 89,352.0 18,870.5 Total Mobile Source Emissions 19,308.5 43,909.5 161,768.0 292.0 4,416.5 2,774.0 Source: CARB 2024b
Note: Total may not add due to rounding
Table 5-3. Emission Inventory SJVAB - Kern County Portion 2025 Projection - Tons per Year ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Total Emissions 21,644.5 12,556.0 37,449.0 511.0 14,089.0 4,015.0 Percent Stationary Sources 47.22% 17.15% 7.89% 85.71% 9.84% 28.18% Percent Area-Wide Sources 36.59% 5.23% 14.81% 7.14% 84.46% 60.91% Percent Mobile Sources 16.02% 77.62% 77.29% 14.29% 5.70% 10.91% Total Stationary Source Emissions 10,220.0 2,153.5 2,956.5 438.0 1,387.0 1,131.5 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 7,920.5 657.0 5,548.0 36.5 11,899.0 2,445.5 Total Mobile Source Emissions 3,467.5 9,745.5 28,944.5 73.0 803.0 438.0 Source: CARB 2024b
Note: Total may not add due to rounding
Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 5-3
Table 5-4. 2025 Emissions Projections - Proposed Project, Kern County, and SJVAB ROG NOx PM10
Proposed Project 2.02 1.49 3.24
Kern County 21,645 12,556 14,089
SJVAB 110,997 55,334 98,112
Proposed Project Percent of Kern County 0.009% 0.012% 0.023% Proposed Project Percent of SJVAB 0.002% 0.003% 0.003%
Kern County Percent of SJVAB 19.50% 22.69% 14.36%
Source: CARB 2024b
As shown above, the proposed Project would pose an inconsequential impact on regional O3 and PM10 formation. The regional contribution to these cumulative impacts would be negligible and additionally, the Project would not exceed cumulatively considerable thresholds since the Project would be less than thresholds outlined in Kern County’s Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports. Therefore, this Project would not be considered cumulatively considerable in its contribution to regional O3 and PM10 impacts.

5.2 Cumulative Local Air Quality Impacts
Tentative development projects within a one-mile radius of the proposed Project area were identified; however, the details provided for these projects do not provide enough information to accurately estimate their potential emissions. The cumulative projects are typically listed only as geographical reference to demonstrate the construction activity within a one-mile radius of the proposed Project. The number and sizes of these projects are of no particular significance since the cumulative considerable thresholds established by Kern County are based on Project specific thresholds which are inherently cumulative in nature.

As details regarding the various cumulative projects were not readily available, emissions estimates were not calculated. As these projects are either currently under construction or, at a minimum, approved by the planning department for consistency with applicable regulation, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that they are in conformance with the regional AQAP.

The cumulative projects have already been approved or are pending approval; it is assumed that these projects are in conformance with the regional AQAP. Additionally, the proposed Project would generate lessthan-significant impacts to criteria air pollutants; the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3); (SJVAPCD 2015).

5.3 Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants
The GAMAQI also states that when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs, “impacts of local pollutants (CO, HAPs) are cumulatively significant when modeling shows that the combined emissions from the project and other existing and planned projects will exceed air quality standards.” Because the Project would not be a significant source of HAPs, the proposed Project would also not be expected to pose a significant cumulative CO or HAPs impact.

5.4 Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (CO) – Mobile Sources
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI has identified CO impacts from impacted traffic intersections and roadway segments as being potentially cumulatively considerable. Traffic increases and added congestion caused by a project Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 5-4
can combine to cause a violation of the SJVAPCD’s CO standard also known as a “Hotspot”. There are two criteria established by the GAMAQI by which CO “Hot Spot” modeling is required:
► A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E or F; or ► A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 6-1

6. CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN
Air quality impacts from proposed projects within Kern County are controlled through policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the Kern County General Plan (KCPD 2009). In order to demonstrate that a proposed project would not cause further air quality degradation in either the SJVAPCD’s plan to improve air quality within the air basin or the federal requirements to meet certain air quality compliance goals, each project should also demonstrate consistency with the SJVAPCD’s adopted Air Quality Attainment Plans (AQAP) for O3 and PM10. The SJVAPCD is required to submit a “Rate of Progress” document to CARB that demonstrates past and planned progress toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires air pollution control districts with severe or extreme air quality problems to provide for a 5% reduction in non-attainment emissions per year. The AQAP prepared for the San Joaquin Valley by the SJVAPCD complies with this requirement. CARB reviews, approves or amends the document and forwards the plan to the EPA for final review and approval within the SIP.

Air pollution sources associated with stationary sources are regulated through the permitting authority of the SJVAPCD under the New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule (SJVAPCD Rule 2201). Owners of any new or modified equipment that emits, reduces, or controls air contaminants, except those specifically exempted by the SJVAPCD, are required to apply for an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate (SJVAPCD Rule 2010). Additionally, best available control technology (BACT) is required on specific types of stationary equipment and are required to offset both stationary source emission increases along with increases in cargo carrier emissions if the specified threshold levels are exceeded (SJVAPCD Rule 2201, 4.7.1). Through this mechanism, the SJVAPCD would ensure that all stationary sources within the project area would be subject to the standards of the SJVAPCD to ensure that new developments do not result in net increases in stationary sources of criteria air pollutants.

6.1 Required Evaluation Guidelines
State CEQA Guidelines and the Federal Clean Air Act (Sections 176 and 316) contain specific references on the need to evaluate consistencies between the proposed project and the applicable AQAP for the project site.

To accomplish this, CARB has developed a three-step approach to determine project conformity with the applicable AQAP:

1. Determination that an AQAP is being implemented in the area where the project is being proposed.

The SJVAPCD has implemented the current, modified AQAP as approved by CARB.

2. The proposed project must be consistent with the growth assumptions of the applicable AQAP. The proposed Project land use type was not anticipated in the current growth assumptions. Therefore, growth assumptions in the Kern County General Plans will be modified with the approval of the proposed Project.

3. The project must contain in its design all reasonably available and feasible air quality control measures.

The proposed project incorporates various policy and rule-required implementation measures that will reduce related emissions.

The CCAA and AQAP identify transportation control measures as methods to further reduce emissions from mobile sources. Strategies identified to reduce vehicular emissions such as reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, and traffic congestion, in order to reduce vehicular emissions, can be implemented as control measures under the CCAA as well. Additional measures may also be implemented through the building process such as providing electrical outlets on exterior walls of structures to encourage use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment or measures such as electrical outlets for electrical systems on diesel trucks to reduce or eliminate idling time.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 6-2
As the growth represented by the proposed Project will be updated in the Kern County General Plan and incorporated into the AQAP, conclusions may be drawn from the following criteria:

1. That, by definition, the proposed emissions from the Project are below the SJVAPCD’s established emissions impact thresholds;

2. That the primary source of emissions from the Project will be motor vehicles that are licensed through the State of California and whose emissions are already incorporated into CARB’s San Joaquin Valley Emissions Inventory.

Based on these factors, the Project appears to be consistent with the AQAP.

6.2 Consistency with the Kern County Council of Government’s Regional Conformity Analysis
The Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) Regional Conformity Analysis (Kern COG 2018) Determination demonstrates that the regional transportation expenditure plans (Destination 2042 Regional Transportation Plan and Federal Transportation Improvement Program) in the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley air quality attainment areas would not hinder the efforts set out in CARB’s SIP for each area’s non-attainment pollutants (CO, O3, and PM10). The analysis uses an adopted regional growth forecast, governed by both the adopted Kern COG Policy and Procedure Manual and a Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Kern and Kern COG (representing itself and outlying municipal member agencies).

The Kern COG Regional Conformity Analysis considers General Plan Amendments (GPA) and zone changes that were enacted at the time of the analysis as projected growth within the area based on land use designations incorporated within the Kern County General Plan. Land use designations that are altered based on subsequent GPAs that were not included in the Regional Conformity Analysis were not incorporated into the Kern COG analysis. Consequently, if a proposed project is not included in the regional growth forecast using the latest planning assumptions, it may not be said to conform to the regional growth forecast. Under the current City of Bakersfield Zoning, the Project site is designated as “R-1: One Family Dwelling” (see Figure 6-1).

Figure 6-1. City of Bakersfield Zoning
Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 6-3
Item 2 under Section 3 – Model Maintenance Procedure, of the Kern COG Regional Transportation Modeling Policy and Procedure Manual states “Land Use Data – General Plan land capacity data or “Build -out capacity” is used to distribute the forecasted County totals, and may be updated as new information becomes available, and is revised in regular consultation with local planning departments.” The adopted growth forecast for the project site is distributed to Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) (see Figure 6- 2). In order to evaluate the impacts to the proposed Project area, a one-mile radius analysis was conducted that included TAZ 586, 633, 634, 1080, 1081, 1083, 1086, 1090, 1091 and 1098. This places the Project site at the center of the analysis area and provides a conservative evaluation of the TAZ data. Kern COG has predicted an increase in growth in population (18%), an increase in growth in housing (18%) and an increase in employment (34%) between 2020 and 2030. Residential forecast for the TAZ analysis area appears to be sufficient to account for 100% of the planned population growth attributed to the proposed Project. In order to be considered “consistent” and, therefore, in conformance with the AQAP, these increases would need to occur over the same time as the adopted growth forecast.

Figure 6-2. TAZ Analysis Map
Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 6-4
Table 6-1 provides the projected growth rates for the TAZ analysis area.

Table 6-1. TAZ Analysis Area Projected Growth Analysis3 Years 2017 2020 2030
Population 3,263 3,427 4,056
Households 1,374 1,441 1,696
Employment 732 812 1,088
Table 6-2 provides the percent increase/decrease for the analysis area population, households, and employment.

Table 6-2. Percent Increase/Decrease on TAZ Analysis Area Years Percent Increase / Decrease
Population Households Employment
2017* 0 0 0
2020 5% 5% 11%
2030 18% 18% 34%
*Baseline year of 2017 was valued at “0” to measure net percent increase/decrease. 3 Kern Council of Governments Regional Conformity Analysis Data, 2018 Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 7-1

7. MITIGATION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED MEASURES
As the estimated construction and operational emissions from the proposed Project would be less than significant, no specific mitigation measures would be required. However, to ensure that Project is in compliance with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations and emissions are further reduced, the applicant should implement and comply with a number of measures that are either recommended as a “good operating practice” for environmental stewardship or they are required by regulation. Some of the listed measures are regulatory requirements or construction requirements that would result in further emission reductions through their inclusion in Project construction and long-term design. The following measures either have been applied to the Project through the CalEEMod model and would be incorporated into the Project by design or would be implemented in conjunction with SJVAPCD rules as conditions of approval.

7.1 SJVAPCD Required PM10 Reduction Measures
As the Project would be completed in compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, dust control measures would be taken to ensure compliance specifically during grading and construction phases. The required Regulation VIII measures are as follows:
► Water previously exposed surfaces (soil) whenever visible dust is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity.
► Water all unpaved haul roads a minimum of three-times/day or whenever visible dust from such roads is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity. ► Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. ► Install and maintain a track out control device that meets the specifications of SJVAPCD Rule 8041 if the site exceeds 150 vehicle trips per day or more than 20 vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or more axles.
► Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for production purposes using water, chemical stabilizers or by covering with a tarp or other suitable cover. ► Control fugitive dust emissions during land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, leveling, grading, or cut and fill operations with application of water or by presoaking. ► When transporting materials offsite, maintain a freeboard limit of at least 6 inches and cover or effectively wet to limit visible dust emissions.
► Limit and remove the accumulation of mud and/or dirt from adjacent public roadways at the end of each workday. (Use of dry rotary brushes is prohibited except when preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit visible dust emissions and use of blowers is expressly forbidden). ► Stabilize the surface of storage piles following the addition or removal of materials using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants.
► Remove visible track-out from the site at the end of each workday. ► Cease grading or other activities that cause excessive (greater than 20% opacity) dust formation during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one-hour period).

7.2 Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust
In addition, the GAMAQI guidance document lists the following measures as approved and recommended for construction activities. These measures are recommended:
► Maintain all construction equipment as recommended by manufacturer manuals. ► Shut down equipment when not in use for extended periods. ► Use electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 7-2
► Curtail use of high-emitting construction equipment during periods of high or excessive ambient pollutant concentrations.
► All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce NOx emissions. ► On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.
► On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.
► All construction workers shall be encouraged to shuttle (car-pool) to retail establishments or to remain on-site during lunch breaks.
► All construction activities within the project area shall be discontinued during the first stage smog alerts. ► Construction and grading activities shall not be allowed during first stage O3 alerts. First stage O3 alerts are declared when the O3 level exceeds 0.20 ppm (1-hour average).

7.3 Other Measures to Reduce Project Impacts
The following measures are recommended to further reduce the potential for long-term emissions from the Project. These measures are required as a matter of regulatory compliance:
► The Project design shall comply with applicable standards set forth in Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code to minimize total consumption of energy.
► Applicants shall be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures in the AQAP, SJVAPCD Rules, Traffic Control Measures, Regulation VIII and Indirect Source Rules for the SJVAPCD. ► The developer shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4601 - Architectural Coatings, during the construction of all buildings and facilities. Application of architectural coatings shall be completed in a manner that poses the least emissions impacts whenever such application is deemed proficient. ► The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4641 during the construction and pavement of all roads and parking areas within the project area. Specifically, the applicant shall not allow the use of:
• Rapid cure cutback asphalt;
• Medium cure cutback asphalt;
• Slow cure cutback asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.3); or Emulsified asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.4).
• The developer shall comply with applicable provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review).

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 8-1

8. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The proposed Project would have short-term air quality impacts due to construction activities as well as vehicular emissions. Both of these impacts would be mitigated and were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation.

The proposed Project would result in long-term air quality impacts due to operational and related mobile source emissions. These impacts were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation.

The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative short-term and long-term impacts to air quality. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to these impacts would be mitigated, are below thresholds of significance, and would not be considered cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts were found to be less than significant.

The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative long-term impacts to global climate change. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to these impacts will be mitigated to the extent feasible and are considered less than significant.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 9-1

9. REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model™ (CalEEMod), version 2022.1, released April 2022.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2024a. website – Background Emissions Data. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam, accessed April 2024.
--------. 2019. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. 2019.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2017/ghg_inventory_trends_00-17.pdf --------. 2024b. Almanac Emission Projection Data.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/2017/emssumcat.php, accessed April 2024. --------. 2016. “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” May 4, 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf
--------. 2015. Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) User Guide. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//toxics/harp/docs2/harp2admrtuserguide.pdf, accessed April 2024.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2006. Climate Action Team (CAT) Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04- 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. 2023. (Public Resources Code 21000 to 21177) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 – 15387).
--------. 2018. Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form, Final Text. December 28, 2018.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf ---------. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.

Kern County GIS. 2024. Bakersfield, CA. Interactive County Map (GIS Tool) | Kern County, CA, Accessed April 2024.

Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG). August 2018. Draft Air Quality Conformity Analysis.

Kern County Planning Department (KCPD). 2009. Kern County General Plan Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2022a. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm, accessed September 2022.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 9-2
----------. 2022b. Air Monitoring Location Map. http://valleyair.org/aqinfo/air-monitoring.htm, accessed September 2022.
----------. 2017. UStar Meteorological Datasets for Bakersfield 2013-2017. https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Tox_Resources/AirQualityMonitoring.htm#met_data ----------. 2019. APR 1925 Policy for District Rule 2201 AAQA Modeling. March 10, 2019. ----------. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015. ----------. 2007. SJVAB Emissions Inventory to Demonstrating Attainment of Federal 1-hour O3 Standards, SJVAPCD. September 2007.

United Nations, 2011. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/(2011_E)%20MDG%20Report%202011_Book%20LR.pdf United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2019. International Energy Outlook 2019. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/ieo2019.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2019. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–2017. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gasemissions-and-sinks. April 11, 2019.

United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/, accessed September 2019.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2024. Bakersfield, California, Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 10/01/1937 to 6/09/2016. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca0444, accessed April 2024.

Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants A-1
APPENDIX A. EXISTING AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
California Home ARB: Home Search Site Map Contact Us
Annual Toxics Summary
Bakersfield-5558 California Avenue FAQs
Lead
nanograms per cubic meter
Read About Estimated Risk
Year
Months
Present Minimum Median Mean
90th
Percentile Maximum
Standard
Deviation
Number of
Observations
Detection
Limit
Estimated
Risk
2023 0.65 3.0 * 4.0 6.4 1.32 21 1.3 *
2022 0.65 3.5 3.62 6.0 10.8 2.20 30 1.3 0.1
2021 0.65 2.8 * 5.8 9.9 2.28 24 1.3 *
2020 1.5 * * * 5.7 1.38 9 1.3 *
2019 0.65 3.5 3.70 6.3 8.5 1.91 34 1.3 0.1
2018 0.65 3.6 3.92 7.0 11.7 2.38 37 1.3 0.1
2017 0.65 3.5 * 7.5 12.6 2.60 29 1.3 *
2016 0.65 4.3 * 6.9 19.8 3.57 33 1.3 *
2015 0.65 3.2 3.34 7.6 9.5 2.50 33 1.3 0.1
2014 0.85 3.6 * 8.8 14 3.78 16 1.7 *
2013 0.5 2.9 * 5.3 6.7 1.71 21 1.0 *
2012 1.7 3.4 4.02 8.2 14 2.74 32 1.5 0.1
2011 0.75 4.0 * 9.1 11 2.90 20 1.5 *
2010 0.75 2.5 * 5.7 8.2 2.07 18 1.5 *
2009 1.5 4.5 5.27 11.2 14 3.22 29 1.5 0.2
2008 * * * * * * 0 * *
2007 0.75 7.1 * 11.7 13 3.23 24 1.5 *
2006 * * * * * * 0 * *
2005 * * * * * * 0 * *
2004 * * * * * * 0 * *
2003 4.0 * * * 7.0 1.64 5 3.0 *
2002 1.5 7.0 6.78 10 17 3.34 36 3.0 0.2
2001 2 5.0 5.83 9.2 26 4.41 39 4.0 0.2
2000 2 5.0 5.92 14.1 22 4.76 40 4.0 0.2
1999 2 5.0 5.70 11.2 25 4.55 39 4.0 0.2
1998 2 7.0 9.43 14 78 11.8 42 4.0 0.3
1997 2 7.0 7.92 14 20 4.40 34 4.0 0.3
1996 2 7.0 7.69 14.5 35 6.10 36 4.0 0.3
1995 2 8.0 8.68 15.1 21 5.14 30 4.0 0.3
1994 2 10 * 16 39 7.11 25 4.0 *
1993 * * * * * * 0 * *
1992 * * * * * * 0 * *
1991 * * * * * * 0 * *
1990 * * * * * * 0 * *
1989 * * * * * * 0 * *
Notes: Values below the Limit of Detection (LoD) assumed to be ½ LoD.

Means and risks shown only for years with data in all 12 months. "*" means there was insufficient or no data available to determine the value.

!"#
$

$
%&%&%&%'%&%%
()*+ %,-./
01+/)2+ ()*+ %,-./01+/)2+ ()*+ %,-./
01+/)2+
3)*456)78
94/:*.42;8 0<2%%'=&>? @A*B&?%>BC)6%'=D>'
E+A56F.42;8 C<7,','>G @A*,HG>,(+A'?=,>?
I;4/F.42;8 0<2%''B&>% @A*%GHH>,(+A'H=%>G
95</*;.42;8 0<2%&D%>?351'G=G>=(+A'D=%>%
J)74K5/64)8
94/:*.42;8 0<2%%'=G>? @A*B&?%>BC)6%'=D>'
E+A56F.42;8 C<7,',B>G @A*,?&>=(+A?=H>B
I;4/F.42;8 0<2%''BH>D @A*%GHH>,(+A'?=,>?
95</*;.42;8 0<2%BDD>G351'G=G>=(+A'H=%>G
3)*456)78
L&HM:*4N)*+FO()P:Q%,-
./E*F8 ,H>,,B>%B=>&
L&HR+):</+FO()P:Q%,-
./E*F8 ,,,&B,
%&&H%,-./E*F(+:426
S)7<+8 H,H&H%
%&&H%,-./E*FGD*;
T+/A+6*47+8 ?G>%=H>G,D>=
%&&H066<)7E*F(+:426
S)7<+8 'H>,'H>''?>,
%&&H066<)701+/)2+8 'G>?'H>='=>?
%&'%066<)7E*F(+:426
S)7<+8 'H>,'H>''?>,
%&'%066<)701+/)2+8 'G>?'H>='=>?
%&%,066<)7E*F(+:426
S)7<+8 'H>,'H>''?>,
%&%,066<)701+/)2+8 'G>?'H>='=>?
J)74K5/64)8
066<)7E*F(+:426)*456
S)7<+8 %&%&%&
066<)701+/)2+8 'G>?'H>HU V+)/J51+/)2+8 G?G=G,
35*+:8
()47PTR%>=)1+/)2+:)6F/+7)*+F:*)*4:*4A:)/+)1)47)W7+)*X)Y+/:K4+7F-===DJ)74K5/64)01+6<+W+*Z++6'GGG )6F%&%%>E5N+P+)/:46*;4:/)62+N)P65*W+/+[/+:+6*+F> 077)1+/)2+:+\[/+::+F46N4A/52/)N:[+/A<W4AN+*+/>
06+\A++F)6A+5K):*)6F)/F4:65*6+A+::)/47P/+7)*+F*5)1457)*4565K*;+:*)6F)/F>
0W5<*@</]5/Y^+:5</A+:X<:46+::0::4:*)6A+^<7+N)Y4623+Z:

!"!#
$

%&%&%&%'%&%%
()*+ %,-./
01+/)2+ ()*+ %,-./01+/)2+ ()*+ %,-./
01+/)2+
3)*456)78
94/:*.42;8 0<2%%'=&>% ?@*,AB>=(+@'A=B>C
D+@56E.42;8 D+F'=B'>=(+@,CG>G(+@'C=,>A
H;4/E.42;8 ?@*GAC>I351'I=I>'(+@%'=,>&
95</*;.42;8 0<2'I=&>%351%&=I>'J)6',=G>I
K)74L5/64)8
94/:*.42;8 0<2%%'=&>% ?@*,AB>=(+@'A=B>C
D+@56E.42;8 D+F'=B'>=(+@,CG>G(+@'C=,>A
H;4/E.42;8 ?@*GAC>I351'I=I>'(+@%'=,>&
95</*;.42;8 0<2'I=&>%351%&=I>'J)6',=G>I
3)*456)78
M&CN:*4O)*+EP()Q:R%,-
./D*E8 GG>I,=>CG=>I
M&CS+):</+EP()Q:R%,-
./D*E8 '&,GGG
%&&C%,-./D*E(+:426
T)7<+8 C'=IC'
%&&C%,-./D*EIB*;
U+/@+6*47+8 AC>I=,>G='>B
%&&C066<)7D*E(+:426
T)7<+8 'C>C'C>C'B>&
%&&C066<)701+/)2+8 'I>,'A>B'C>C
%&'%066<)7D*E(+:426
T)7<+8 'C>C'C>C'B>&
%&'%066<)701+/)2+8 'I>,'A>B'C>C
%&%,066<)7D*E(+:426
T)7<+8 'C>C'C>C'B>&
%&%,066<)701+/)2+8 'I>,'A>B'C>C
K)74L5/64)8
066<)7D*E(+:426)*456
T)7<+8 'BV V 066<)701+/)2+8 VVV W+)/K51+/)2+8 I'I'I%
35*+:8
()47QUS%>=)1+/)2+:)6E/+7)*+E:*)*4:*4@:)/+)1)47)X7+)*Y)Z+/:L4+7E-[57E+6D*)*+.42;\)QX+*\++6'III )6E%&%%>D5O+Q+)/:46*;4:/)62+O)Q65*X+/+F/+:+6*+E> 077)1+/)2+:+]F/+::+E46O4@/52/)O:F+/@<X4@O+*+/>
06+]@++E)6@+5L):*)6E)/E4:65*6+@+::)/47Q/+7)*+E*5)1457)*4565L*;+:*)6E)/E>
0X5<*?</^5/Z_+:5</@+:Y<:46+::0::4:*)6@+_<7+O)Z4623+\:

!

"#"#"#"$"#""
%&'( ")*+,
-.(,&/( %&'( ")*+,-.(,&/( %&'( ")*+,
-.(,&/(
0&'123&45
61,7'+1/85 9(:;<$=>" ?@'$$)"$>) A&B"#$)C>)
9(@23D+1/85 02.E"==>; ?@')$E)>F ?@'<$$;>;
G81,D+1/85 -H/"""F#>) ?@'"<$<#>"9(:";$$<>;
62H,'8+1/85 9(:$)""<>F ?@'$$F=>E ?@'E$$F>)
I&41J2,31&5
61,7'+1/85 02.E"==>F ?@'$$)"F># A&B"#$)E>F
9(@23D+1/85 -H/""""$># ?@')$E$>$ ?@'<$$<>;
G81,D+1/85 9(:$<"$C>E ?@'"<$)C>F9(:";$$">F
62H,'8+1/85 9(:$)"$C>F ?@'$$F<>" ?@'$C$$#>C
0&'123&45
K7'1L&'(DM%&B7N")*+,
9'D5 $=>)">"#>#
A(&7H,(DM%&B7N")*+,
9'D5 $<" # F*O,-./K7'M%&B7N")*+,
9'D5 $#>#C>#E>#
PQQRSTPUVWSXVY Z[\]Z^\^__\`
]abVSWPUVWSXVY Z]ZcZc
I&41J2,31&5
K7'1L&'(DM%&B7N")*+,
9'D5 d$F<>E$";>;
A(&7H,(DM%&B7N")*+,
9'D5 $"F$"C$"=
-33H&4-.(,&/(5 d)C>))<>#
F*O(&,A&e1LHL-33H&4
-.(,&/(5 d)C)C
O(&,I2.(,&/(5 ### 02'(75
%&14BfA$#&.(,&/(7&3D,(4&'(D7'&'17'1@7&,(&.&14&g4(&'?14D&4(*FF$$A&32,9',(('g('h((3$C;;&3D "#"">92L(B(&,713'817,&3/(L&B32'g(,(:,(7(3'(D>
-44&.(,&/(7(e:,(77(D13L1@,2/,&L7:(,@Hg1@L('(,>
G8(3&'123&4&33H&4&.(,&/(fA$#7'&3D&,Dh&7,(.2i(D13%(@(Lg(,"##E&3D1732423/(,13(JJ(@'> 9'&'17'1@7,(4&'(D'2'8(,(.2i(D7'&3D&,D&,(782h313jkSTjlm2,jkSTjlm> -3(e@((D&3@(2J&7'&3D&,D1732'3(@(77&,14B,(4&'(D'2&.124&'1232J'8(7'&3D&,D> -44.&4H(7417'(D&g2.(,(:,(7(3'L1D31/8'*'2*L1D31/8'")*82H,&.(,&/(7&3DL&Bg(,(4&'(D'2&3(e@(:'123&4 (.(3'>
9'&'(&3D3&'123&47'&'17'1@7L&BD1JJ(,J2,'8(J2442h13/,(&72375 9'&'(7'&'17'1@7&,(g&7(D23I&41J2,31&&::,2.(D7&L:4(,7nh8(,(&73&'123&47'&'17'1@7&,(g&7(D237&L:4(,7H713/J(D(,&4,(J(,(3@(2,(oH1.&4(3'L('82D7>9'&'(&3D 3&'123&47'&'17'1@7L&B'8(,(J2,(g(g&7(D23D1JJ(,(3'7&L:4(,7> 9'&'(7'&'17'1@7J2,$CC;&3D4&'(,&,(g&7(D2342@&4@23D1'1237p(e@(:'J2,71'(713'8(92H'8I2&7'-1,q&713nh8(,(9'&'(7'&'17'1@7J2,"##"&3D4&'(,&,(g&7(D2342@&4 @23D1'1237r>0&'123&47'&'17'1@7&,(g&7(D237'&3D&,D@23D1'1237>
-g2H'?H,s2,it(72H,@(7qH713(77-7717'&3@(tH4(L&i13/0(h7

#""

!"""#$
%

%
&'&'&'&(&'&&
)*+, &-./0
12,0*3, )*+, &-./012,0*3, )*+, &-./0
12,0*3,
4*+567*89
:50;+/53<9 462=(>?@A BC+((-?D@= E*F&'(?-@D
G,C67H/53<9 BC+&(?(@( BC+-(A=@DG,I>(&>@&
J<50H/53<9 G,I(&((A@K),C(?(K-@D BC+(-('K@=
:6L0+</53<9 1L3?((''@A1L3&'(--@? E*F&K('-@?
M*85N6075*9
:50;+/53<9 462=(>K@A BC+((-?>@? E*F&'(??@'
G,C67H/53<9 BC+&(&A@& BC+-(A?@(G,I>(&(@A
J<50H/53<9 G,I(&((D@(),C(?(KA@' BC+(-('-@D
:6L0+</53<9 G,I(A>D@D1L3&'(-'@A BC+(=('&@-
4*+567*89
O;+5P*+,HQ)*F;R&-./0
G+H9 S S'@'
E,*;L0,HQ)*F;R&-./0
G+H9 (?' ?.T0123O;+Q)*F;R&-./0
G+H9 SSS UVVWXYUZ[\X][^ _`ab_cab_dac
efg[X\UZ[\X][^ _hi i M*85N6075*9
O;+5P*+,HQ)*F;R&-./0
G+H9 S S(?A@D
E,*;L0,HQ)*F;R&-./0
G+H9 (A(&-(?=
177L*812,0*3,9 S S-K@A
?.T,*0E*j5PLP177L*8
12,0*3,9 ?>S-D
T,*0M62,0*3,9 A>' ' 46+,;9
)*58FkE('*2,0*3,;*7H0,8*+,H;+*+5;+5C;*0,*2*58*l8,*+m*n,0;N5,8H.===AM*85N6075*12,7L,l,+o,,7(>>- *7H&'&&@G6P,F,*0;57+<5;0*73,P*F76+l,0,I0,;,7+,H@ 188*2,0*3,;,jI0,;;,H57P5C0630*P;I,0CLl5CP,+,0@
J<,7*+567*8*77L*8*2,0*3,kE(';+*7H*0Ho*;0,26n,H57),C,Pl,0&''K*7H5;768673,057,NN,C+@ G+*+5;+5C;0,8*+,H+6+<,0,26n,H;+*7H*0H*0,;<6o757pqXYprs60pqXYprs@ 17,jC,,H*7C,6N*;+*7H*0H5;76+7,C,;;*058F0,8*+,H+6*2568*+5676N+<,;+*7H*0H@ 1882*8L,;85;+,H*l62,0,I0,;,7+P5H753<+.+6.P5H753<+&-.<6L0*2,0*3,;*7HP*Fl,0,8*+,H+6*7,jC,I+567*8 ,2,7+@
G+*+,*7H7*+567*8;+*+5;+5C;P*FH5NN,0N60+<,N6886o5730,*;67;9 G+*+,;+*+5;+5C;*0,l*;,H67M*85N6075**II062,H;*PI8,0;to<,0,*;7*+567*8;+*+5;+5C;*0,l*;,H67;*PI8,0;L;573N,H,0*80,N,0,7C,60,uL52*8,7+P,+<6H;@G+*+,*7H 7*+567*8;+*+5;+5C;P*F+<,0,N60,l,l*;,H67H5NN,0,7+;*PI8,0;@ G+*+,;+*+5;+5C;N60(>>A*7H8*+,0*0,l*;,H6786C*8C67H5+567;v,jC,I+N60;5+,;57+<,G6L+<M6*;+150m*;57to<,0,G+*+,;+*+5;+5C;N60&''&*7H8*+,0*0,l*;,H6786C*8 C67H5+567;w@4*+567*8;+*+5;+5C;*0,l*;,H67;+*7H*0HC67H5+567;@
1l6L+BL0x60ny,;6L0C,;mL;57,;;1;;5;+*7C,yL8,P*n5734,o;

#""

!"
#

$%$%$%$&$%$$
'()*+,-./0*.(1*'()*+,-./0*.(1*'()*+,-./0*.(1*
2()345(6$%&78)9:%;%<%
==>?@
A3.B)-31C@ /D1$$%;&%&ED5&<%;%F%8*=$G%;%+G
8*H459-31C@ /D1$&%;%F</D1$+%;%++ IH)7%;%+7
JC3.9-31C@ 8*=7%;%F&/D1$F%;%++/D1&G%;%+K
A4D.)C-31C@ /D1&F%;%++ED5&+%;%+78*=$%;%+K
L(63M4.53(8)9:%;%<%==>?@
A3.B)-31C@ /D1$$%;&%$ED5&<%;%F%8*=$G%;%+<
8*H459-31C@ /D1$&%;%F</D1$+%;%++/D1&G%;%+7
JC3.9-31C@ 8*=7%;%F$/D1$F%;%++8*=$%;%+7
A4D.)C-31C@ /D1&F%;%+FED5&+%;%+G IH)7%;%+7
2()345(6$%&78)9:%;%<%
==>?@
N'(OB/P40*)C*8)(59(.9@ Q+$FK7
2()R68)(59(.9'*B315
S(6D*@ %;%+7%;%+Q%;%+7
2()345(6T*(.L40*.(1*@ FKF+F+
L(63M4.53(8)9:%;%<%==>?@
N'(OB/P40*)C*8)(59(.9@ K%Q%K7
L(63M4.53('*B315()345
S(6D*@ %;%F7%;%F$%;%F$
UV=*H)*9W*(X'(O
L45H*5).()345@ %;%FG%;%FQ%;%F7
L(63M4.53(T*(.L40*.(1*@ F&F<FG
24)*B@
U31C),C4D.4Y45*(0*.(1*B(59.*6()*9B)()3B)3HB(.*(0(36(P6*()Z(X*.BM3*69,[D53H3=(6/3.=4.)P*)\**5$%&$ (59$%$$;84>*O*(.B35)C3B.(51*>(O54)P*.*=.*B*5)*9; /66(0*.(1*B*V=.*BB*935=(.)B=*.>366345;
/5*VH**9(5H*4M(B)(59(.93B54)5*H*BB(.36O.*6()*9)4(0346()3454M)C*B)(59(.9; 8)()*(595()345(6B)()3B)3HB>(O93MM*.M4.)C*M4664\351.*(B45B@ 2()345(6+,C4D.(0*.(1*B(.*).D5H()*9)4)C.**9*H3>(6=6(H*B]8)()*+,C4D.(0*.(1*B(.*.4D59*9)4)C.**9*H3>(6=6(H*B; 8)()*H.3)*.3(M4.*5BD.351)C()9()((.*BDMM3H3*5)6OH4>=6*)*M4.H(6HD6()351+,C4D.(0*.(1*B(.*>4.*B).351*5))C(5)C*5()345(6H.3)*.3(; '(36O>(V3>D>+,C4D.(0*.(1*B(BB4H3()*9\3)C)C*2()345(6%;%<%==>B)(59(.9*VH6D9*)C4B*+,C4D. (0*.(1*B)C()C(0*M3.B)C4D.BP*)\**5>39531C)(59G@%%(>^W(H3M3H8)(59(.9J3>*; '(36O>(V3>D>+,C4D.(0*.(1*B(BB4H3()*9\3)C)C*2()345(6%;%<%==>B)(59(.935H6D9*456O)C4B*+,C4D. (0*.(1*BM.4>9(OB)C()C(0*BDMM3H3*5)9()(M4.)C*9(O)4P*H45B39*.*90(639; T*(.L40*.(1*3593H()*B)C**V)*5))4\C3HC(0(36(P6*>453)4.3519()(.*=.*B*5))C*)3>*4M)C*O*(.\C*5 H45H*5).()345B(.**V=*H)*9)4P*C31C*B);%>*(5B)C()9()(.*=.*B*5)545*4M)C*C31C=*.349]&%%>*(5B )C()9()(.*=.*B*5))C**5)3.*C31C=*.349;/C31CT*(.L40*.(1*94*B54)>*(5)C())C*.*\(BBDMM3H3*5) 9()(M4.(55D(6B)()3B)3HB)4P*H45B39*.*90(639;
_>*(5B)C*.*\(B35BDMM3H3*5)9()((0(36(P6*)49*)*.>35*)C*0(6D*;
/P4D)ID.`4.Xa*B4D.H*BZDB35*BB/BB3B)(5H*aD6*>(X3512*\B

!"###$ !

%&%&%&%'%&%%
()*+,-./01+/)2+()*+,-./01+/)2+()*+,-./01+/)2+
3)*456)7%&'89*:;&<&=&
>>?@A
B4/C*.42DA 0E2%'&<&F,0E2%,&<&,&9+>%G&<&=G
9+H56:.42DA 0E2%%&<&FIJE6'=&<&=F KH*8&<&=L
MD4/:.42DA 0E2'F&<&,80E2%F&<&=F0E2'G&<&=%
B5E/*D.42DA 9+>8&<&,LJE6',&<&==9+>%I&<&='
N)74O5/64)9*:;&<&=&>>?@A
B4/C*.42DA 0E2%'&<&F,0E2%,&<&,'9+>%G&<&=G
9+H56:.42DA 0E2%%&<&FI0E2%F&<&,& KH*8&<&=L
MD4/:.42DA 0E2'F&<&,GJE6'=&<&=F0E2'G&<&=%
B5E/*D.42DA 9+>8&<&,LJE6',&<&==9+>%I&<&=%
3)*456)7%&'89*:;&<&=&
>>?@A
P()QC0R51+*D+9*)6:)/:A %8''I 3)*S79*)6:)/:(+C426
T)7E+A &<&,8&<&,&&<&==
3)*456)7U+)/N51+/)2+A FF'&&'&&
N)74O5/64)9*:;&<&=&>>?@A
P()QC0R51+*D+9*)6:)/:A %8''= N)74O5/64)(+C426)*456 T)7E+A &<&FI&<&,,&<&,G
VW>+H*+:X+)Y()Q
N56H+6*/)*456A &<&F8&<&F&&<&,=
N)74O5/64)U+)/N51+/)2+A F=FFF=
35*+CA
V42D*-D5E/5Z56+)1+/)2+C)6:/+7)*+:C*)*4C*4HC)/+)1)47)R7+)*[)Y+/CO4+7:-888,N)74O5/64)01+6E+R+*\++6 'FFI)6:%&%%<95?+Q+)/C46*D4C/)62+?)Q65*R+/+>/+C+6*+:< 077)1+/)2+C+W>/+CC+:46>)/*C>+/?477456<
06+WH++:)6H+5O)C*)6:)/:4C65*6+H+CC)/47Q/+7)*+:*5)1457)*4565O*D+C*)6:)/:< 9*)*+)6:6)*456)7C*)*4C*4HC?)Q:4OO+/O5/*D+O5775\462/+)C56CA 3)*456)7,-D5E/)1+/)2+C)/+*/E6H)*+:*5*D/++:+H4?)7>7)H+C]9*)*+,-D5E/)1+/)2+C)/+/5E6:+:*5*D/++:+H4?)7>7)H+C< 9*)*+H/4*+/4)O5/+6CE/462*D)*:)*))/+CEOO4H4+6*7QH5?>7+*+O5/H)7HE7)*462,-D5E/)1+/)2+C)/+?5/+C*/462+6**D)6*D+6)*456)7H/4*+/4)< ()47Q?)W4?E?,-D5E/)1+/)2+C)CC5H4)*+:\4*D*D+3)*456)7&<&=&>>?C*)6:)/:+WH7E:+*D5C+,-D5E/ )1+/)2+C*D)*D)1+O4/C*D5E/CR+*\++6?4:642D*)6:GA&&)?^X)H4O4H9*)6:)/:M4?+< ()47Q?)W4?E?,-D5E/)1+/)2+C)CC5H4)*+:\4*D*D+3)*456)7&<&=&>>?C*)6:)/:46H7E:+567Q*D5C+,-D5E/ )1+/)2+CO/5?:)QC*D)*D)1+CEOO4H4+6*:)*)O5/*D+:)Q*5R+H56C4:+/+:1)74:< U+)/N51+/)2+46:4H)*+C*D++W*+6**5\D4HD)1)47)R7+?564*5/462:)*)/+>/+C+6**D+*4?+5O*D+Q+)/\D+6 H56H+6*/)*456C)/++W>+H*+:*5R+D42D+C*<&?+)6C*D)*:)*)/+>/+C+6*656+5O*D+D42D>+/45:]'&&?+)6C *D)*:)*)/+>/+C+6**D++6*4/+D42D>+/45:<0D42DU+)/N51+/)2+:5+C65*?+)6*D)**D+/+\)CCEOO4H4+6* :)*)O5/)66E)7C*)*4C*4HC*5R+H56C4:+/+:1)74:<
_?+)6C*D+/+\)C46CEOO4H4+6*:)*))1)47)R7+*5:+*+/?46+*D+1)7E+<
0R5E*KE/`5/Ya+C5E/H+C[EC46+CC0CC4C*)6H+aE7+?)Y4623+\C

!"!"!"!#!"!!
$%&'()*+,-'+%.'$%&'()*+,-'+%.'$%&'()*+,-'+%.'
/%&012%3!"#45&67"8"9"
::;<=
>0+?&*0.@= ,A.!!"8##"BA2#9"8"C(5':#"8"CD
5'E126*0.@= ,A.!#"8#"F,A.!C"8"CD,A.F#"8"C#
G@0+6*0.@= ,A.#C"8#"#BA3!9"8"CH5':!"8"C#
>1A+&@*0.@= 5':4"8#"#,A.!("8"CH,A.#D"8"(9
I%30J1+20%5&67"8"9"::;<=
>0+?&*0.@= ,A.!!"8###BA2#9"8"CC5':#"8"CD
5'E126*0.@= ,A.!#"8#"H,A.!C"8"CD,A.F#"8"C!
G@0+6*0.@= 5':4"8#"!BA2#("8"CH5':!"8"C#
>1A+&@*0.@= ,A.#C"8#"#BA3!9"8"CH,A.#D"8"(9
/%&012%3!"#45&67"8"9"
::;<=
K$%L?,M1-'&@'5&%26%+6= 9CDDD#
/%&N35&%26%+6$'?0.2
O%3A'= "8"CF"8"CF"8"CH
/%&012%3P'%+I1-'+%.'= C9#""#""
I%30J1+20%5&67"8"9"::;<=
K$%L?,M1-'&@'5&%26%+6= (!9"DF
I%30J1+20%$'?0.2%&012
O%3A'= "8#"H"8#"H"8#"H
QR:'E&'6S'%T$%L
I12E'2&+%&012= "8#"H"8#"H"8#"H
I%30J1+20%P'%+I1-'+%.'= C4CCC(
/1&'?=
Q0.@&)@1A+1U12'%-'+%.'?%26+'3%&'6?&%&0?&0E?%+'%-%03%M3'%&Q60?12M'&V''2#C(#%26!"!!851;'L'%+? 02&@0?+%2.';%L21&M'+':+'?'2&'68
,33%-'+%.'?'R:+'??'602:%+&?:'+;0330128
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
Y;'%2?&@'+'V%?02?AJJ0E0'2&6%&%%-%03%M3'&16'&'+;02'&@'-%3A'8
,M1A&ZA+[1+T\'?1A+E'?]A?02'??,??0?&%2E'\A3';%T02./'V?

!"!"!"!#!"!!
$%&' ('%)*+','-&$%&' ('%)*+','-&$%&' ('%)*+','-&
.%&/0-%12
3/+)&4/562 7*189:;:.0<="9>;#.0<!=:>;9
?'@0-A4/562 .0<89#;#$'@!9B;"C*5!9:B;>
D6/+A4/562 .0<=":E;=.0<!E:>;".0<!!:9;9
30*+&64/562 F@&!!:E;!7%-#:::;:.0<!9:=;9
G%1/H0+-/%2
3/+)&4/562 7*189:.0<="9>.0<!=:>
?'@0-A4/562 .0<89#$'@!9BC*5!9:B
D6/+A4/562 F@&!!:E.0<!E:>.0<!!:9
30*+&64/562 .0<=":E7%-#:::.0<!9:=
.%&/0-%12
#I40*+?&%-A%+A$')/5-
J%1*'2 :=:=:#
#I40*+?&%-A%+AE>&6
K'+@'-&/1'2 :=;=8E;E8E;9
L$%M)CN0<'&6'?&%-A%+A2 """ C--*%1?&%-A%+A$')/5-
J%1*'2 #=#!#=
G%1/H0+-/%2
#I40*+?&A$')/5-%&/0-
J%1*'2 B"B"9"
OPQ'@&'AK'%R$%M
G0-@'-&+%&/0-2 99999!
L$%M)CN0<'&6'?&%-A%+A2 """ C--*%1?&A$')/5-%&/0-
J%1*'2 #!#!#!
C--*%1C<'+%5'2 #!#!#!
S'%+G0<'+%5'2 E9>EE:
.0&')2
40*+1M-/&+05'-A/0P/A','%)*+','-&)%-A+'1%&'A)&%&/)&/@)%+'%<%/1%N1'%&T%R'+)H/'1AI(*-/@/Q%1C/+Q0+& N'&U''-!"#!%-A!"!!;?0,'M'%+)/-&6/)+%-5',%M-0&N'+'Q+')'-&'A; C11@0-@'-&+%&/0-)'PQ+'))'A/-Q%+&)Q'+N/11/0-;
C-'P@''A%-@'0H%)&%-A%+A/)-0&-'@'))%+/1M+'1%&'A&0%</01%&/0-0H&6')&%-A%+A; S'%+G0<'+%5'/-A/@%&')&6''P&'-&&0U6/@6%<%/1%N1',0-/&0+/-5A%&%+'Q+')'-&&6'&/,'0H&6'M'%+U6'- @0-@'-&+%&/0-)%+''PQ'@&'A&0N'6/56')&;",'%-)&6%&A%&%+'Q+')'-&-0-'0H&6'6/56Q'+/0AV#"",'%-) &6%&A%&%+'Q+')'-&&6''-&/+'6/56Q'+/0A;C6/56S'%+G0<'+%5'A0')-0&,'%-&6%&&6'+'U%))*HH/@/'-& A%&%H0+%--*%1)&%&/)&/@)&0N'@0-)/A'+'A<%1/A;
W,'%-)&6'+'U%)/-)*HH/@/'-&A%&%%<%/1%N1'&0A'&'+,/-'&6'<%1*';
CN0*&F*+X0+RY')0*+@')T*)/-'))C))/)&%-@'Y*1',%R/-5.'U)

!

"#
$%$%$%$&$%$$
'()* +*(,-.*/*0)'()* +*(,-.*/*0)'()* +*(,-.*/*0)
1()230(45

62.,)72895 13:;%<%=> ?@)><A=$ +(.&<;=B
C*@30D72895 13:<<%=;'*@&<B=$ ?@);&<%=%
E92.D72895 '*@&%>F=F'*@$<>=G6*H&%>F=F
63-.)972895 '*@$>A=G13:;%<>=B6*HA>F=>
I(42J3.02(5

62.,)72895 13:<<% ?@)><A +(.&<;
C*@30D72895 13:;%<%'*@&<B ?@);&<%
E92.D72895 '*@&%>F13:;%<>6*HA>F
63-.)972895 '*@$>A'*@$<>6*H&%>F
1()230(45
&K73-.C)(0D(.D'*,280
L(4-*5 <%>F>A
&K73-.C)(0D(.DFG)9
M*.@*0)24*5 >>=F>G=>>A=A
N'(O,PH3:*)9*C)(0D(.D5 %%% P00-(4C)(0D(.D'*,280
L(4-*5 &&&&&&
I(42J3.02(5
&K73-.C)D'*,280()230
L(4-*5 B%B%B%
QRS*@)*DM*(T'(O
I30@*0).()2305 B&B%<<
N'(O,PH3:*)9*C)(0D(.D5 %%% P00-(4C)D'*,280()230
L(4-*5 &$&&&&
P00-(4P:*.(8*5 &&&%&&
U*(.I3:*.(8*5 FFFGFF
13)*,5
73-.4O02).38*0D23R2D*/*(,-.*/*0),(0D.*4()*D,)()2,)2@,(.*(:(24(H4*()V(T*.,J2*4DK<<<GI(42J3.02( P:*0-*H*)W**0&FF>(0D$%$$=C3/*O*(.,20)92,.(08*/(O03)H*.*S.*,*0)*D= P44@30@*0).()230,*RS.*,,*D20S(.),S*.H244230=
P0*R@**D(0@*3J(,)(0D(.D2,03)0*@*,,(.24O.*4()*D)3(:234()2303J)9*,)(0D(.D= U*(.I3:*.(8*20D2@()*,)9**R)*0))3W92@9(:(24(H4*/302)3.208D()(.*S.*,*0))9*)2/*3J)9*O*(.W9*0 @30@*0).()230,(.**RS*@)*D)3H*9289*,)=%/*(0,)9()D()(.*S.*,*0)030*3J)9*9289S*.23DX&%%/*(0, )9()D()(.*S.*,*0))9**0)2.*9289S*.23D=P9289U*(.I3:*.(8*D3*,03)/*(0)9())9*.*W(,,-JJ2@2*0) D()(J3.(00-(4,)()2,)2@,)3H*@30,2D*.*D:(42D=
Y/*(0,)9*.*W(,20,-JJ2@2*0)D()((:(24(H4*)3D*)*./20*)9*:(4-*=
PH3-)?-.Z3.T[*,3-.@*,V-,20*,,P,,2,)(0@*[-4*/(T2081*W,

!

"#"#"#"$"#""
%&'( )(&*+,(-(.'%&'( )(&*+,(-(.'%&'( )(&*+,(-(.'
/0,*'10234 5+2""#6$$78(9:#6$##8(9"#6$#7
8(;<.=10234 5+2$>#6$$?@+.$7#6#>A B;'?#6$#"
C30,=10234 5+2"$#6$$D@+E":#6#>A8(9"A#6$#$
/<+,'310234 8(9?#6$##5+2">#6#>A B;'A#6#>:

F&E0G<,.0&4
H%&I*5J<K('3(8'&.=&,=4 7AA F&E0G<,.0&%(*02.&'0<.

L&E+(4 #6$##6$##6$$
MN9(;'(=O(&P%&I
F<.;(.',&'0<.4 #6$#D#6$#"#6$#A
Q&'0<.&E4
RSTUVWXYZ[\][^\T_`Ta`b ccc def[TagV\hiT\[`gjk[l\[` mniX[aYogjl[[`T_l[
STUVb
cpccpccpc
qef[TagV\hiT\[`gjk[l\[`
mniX[aYogjl[[`T_l[
STUVb
cpccpccpc
mT\rs^\T_`Ta`S[Vht_
uTsn[b cpqqqcpqcccpqcv
w(&,F<K(,&2(4 >">:>A
Q<'(*4
1<+,EI<x<.(-(&*+,(-(.'*&.=,(E&'(=*'&'0*'0;*&,(&K&0E&JE(&'y&P(,*G0(E=z)+.0;09&E50,9<,'J('{((."#$" &.="#""68<-(I(&,*0.'30*,&.2(-&I.<'J(,(9,(*(.'(=6 5EE;<.;(.',&'0<.*(N9,(**(=0.9&,'*9(,-0EE0<.6
C3(.&'0<.&E$z3<+,<x<.(*'&.=&,={&*,(K<P(=0.@+.("##?68'&'0*'0;*,(E&'(='<'3(.&'0<.&E$z3<+,<x<.( *'&.=&,=&,(*3<{.0.<,6

5.(N;((=&.;(<G&*'&.=&,=0*.<'.(;(**&,0EI,(E&'(='<&K0<E&'0<.<G'3(*'&.=&,=6 w(&,F<K(,&2(0.=0;&'(*'3((N'(.''<{30;3&K&0E&JE(-<.0'<,0.2=&'&,(9,(*(.''3('0-(<G'3(I(&,{3(. ;<.;(.',&'0<.*&,((N9(;'(='<J(3023(*'6#-(&.*'3&'=&'&,(9,(*(.'.<.(<G'3(30239(,0<=|$##-(&.* '3&'=&'&,(9,(*(.''3((.'0,(30239(,0<=653023w(&,F<K(,&2(=<(*.<'-(&.'3&''3(,({&**+GG0;0(.' =&'&G<,&..+&E*'&'0*'0;*'<J(;<.*0=(,(=K&E0=6
}-(&.*'3(,({&*0.*+GG0;0(.'=&'&&K&0E&JE('<=('(,-0.('3(K&E+(6
5J<+'B+,~<,P(*<+,;(*y+*0.(**5**0*'&.;(+E(-&P0.2Q({*

!"

#$
%&%&%&%'%&%%
()*+ ,+)-./+0+1*()*+ ,+)-./+0+1*()*+ ,+)-./+0+1*
23/-*43567 8.5%'&9''&:.1%;&9&;&<+=%>&9&;?
<+@A1B43567 8.5';&9'&C8.5%D&9&DC E@*F&9&D?
G63/B43567 8.5%%&9'&C:.H%C&9&D?<+=%&9&D%
2A./*643567 8.5%I&9&;'<+=C&9&D?<+=>&9&D'
J)H3KA/13)7
L()M-8NAO+*6+<*)1B)/B7 ?&& J)H3KA/13)(+-351)*3A1
P)H.+7 &9'&&9'&&9&;
QR=+@*+BS+)T()M
JA1@+1*/)*3A17 &9'&'&9&;F&9&;?
U)*3A1)H7
VWXYZ[\]^_`a_b`XcdXedf ggg hij_XekZ`lmX`_dkno_p`_d qrm\_e]sknp__dXcp_
WXYZf
gtggtggtg
uij_XekZ`lmX`_dkno_p`_d
qrm\_e]sknp__dXcp_
WXYZf
gtggtggtg
qX`vwb`XcdXedW_Zlxc
yXwr_f gtugzgtg{zgtg{h
|+)/JAO+/)5+7 ;;;;;D
UA*+-7
4A./HMA}A1+0+)-./+0+1*-)1B/+H)*+B-*)*3-*3@-)/+)O)3H)NH+)*~)T+/-K3+HBFFFDJ)H3KA/13)8O+1.+ N+*++1';;I)1B%&%%9<A0+M+)/-31*63-/)15+0)M1A*N+/+=/+-+1*+B9 8HH@A1@+1*/)*3A1-+R=/+--+B31=)/*-=+/03HH3A19
G6+1)*3A1)H'6A./A}A1+-*)1B)/B)-/+OAT+B31:.1+%&&F9<*)*3-*3@-/+H)*+B*A*6+1)*3A1)H'6A./A}A1+ -*)1B)/B)/+-6A131A/9
81+R@++B)1@+AK)-*)1B)/B3-1A*1+@+--)/3HM/+H)*+B*A)O3AH)*3A1AK*6+-*)1B)/B9 |+)/JAO+/)5+31B3@)*+-*6++R*+1**A63@6)O)3H)NH+0A13*A/315B)*)/+=/+-+1**6+*30+AK*6+M+)/6+1 @A1@+1*/)*3A1-)/++R=+@*+B*AN+6356+-*9&0+)1-*6)*B)*)/+=/+-+1*1A1+AK*6+6356=+/3AB'&&0+)1- *6)*B)*)/+=/+-+1**6++1*3/+6356=+/3AB986356|+)/JAO+/)5+BA+-1A*0+)1*6)**6+/+)--.KK3@3+1* B)*)KA/)11.)H-*)*3-*3@-*AN+@A1-3B+/+BO)H3B9
0+)1-*6+/+)-31-.KK3@3+1*B)*))O)3H)NH+*AB+*+/031+*6+O)H.+9
8NA.*E./A/T+-A./@+-~.-31+--8--3-*)1@+.H+0)T315U+-

!"# $#!%&'#(#)" !"# $#!%&'#(#)" !"# $#!%&'#(#)"
*+'%",+-./ 0&-

123435&6

789#:
123;<
9#=>)?,+-./ 0&-@123;A0&-
@
7 0&-
B
78
C.+'?,+-./ 9#:D
7 0&-E
79#:
7B
*>&'".,+-./ 9#:F
7G5&)D
7 0&-E
7 @
H!6+I>')+!/
J !K%0L>M#".#9"!)?!'?/ EF
E@
H!6+I>')+! #%+-)!"+>)
N!6&#/
7 7

7 OP:#="#?Q#!R !K
H>)=#)"'!"+>)/
7D
7G
7 S!"+>)!6/
TUVWXYZ[\]^_]`^VabVcbd ;13 4ef]VcgX^hiV^]bgjk]l^]b mniZ]c[ogjl]]bVal]
UVWXd
12p12p321
3ef]VcgX^hiV^]bgjk]l^]b
mniZ]c[ogjl]]bVal]
UVWXd
;21121321
mV^qr`^VabVcbU]Xhsa
tVrn]d 123;11233u123;;
v#!'H>M#'!-#/ @8

@G
S>"#%/
,>&'6K>w>)#(#!%&'#(#)"%!)?'#6!"#?%"!"+%"+=%!'#!M!+6!L6#!"O?+%>)L#"x##)@G!)?

79>(# K#!'%+)".+%'!)-#(!K)>"L#'#:'#%#)"#?7
066=>)=#)"'!"+>)%#P:'#%%#?+):!'"%:#'(+66+>)7
C.#)!"+>)!6y.>&'>w>)#%"!)?!'?x!%'#M>R#?+)5&)#

F79"!"+%"+=%'#6!"#?">".#)!"+>)!6y.>&'>w>)#
%"!)?!'?!'#%.>x)+)>'7
0)#P=##?!)=#>I!%"!)?!'?+%)>")#=#%%!'+6K'#6!"#?">!M+>6!"+>)>I".#%"!)?!'?7 v#!'H>M#'!-#+)?+=!"#%".##P"#)"">x.+=.!M!+6!L6#(>)+">'+)-?!"!'#:'#%#)"".#"+(#>I".#K#!'x.#) =>)=#)"'!"+>)%!'##P:#="#?">L#.+-.#%"7
(#!)%".!"?!"!'#:'#%#)")>)#>I".#.+-.:#'+>?z

(#!)%
".!"?!"!'#:'#%#)"".##)"+'#.+-.:#'+>?70.+-.v#!'H>M#'!-#?>#%)>"(#!)".!"".#'#x!%%&II+=+#)" ?!"!I>'!))&!6%"!"+%"+=%">L#=>)%+?#'#?M!6+?7
{(#!)%".#'#x!%+)%&II+=+#)"?!"!!M!+6!L6#">?#"#'(+)#".#M!6&#7
0L>&"|&'}>'R~#%>&'=#%&%+)#%%0%%+%"!)=#~&6#(!R+)-S#x% Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants B-1
APPENDIX B. PROJECT EMISSION CALCULATIONS
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
1 / 71
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
2 / 71

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.6. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.10. Paving (2026) - Mitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.12. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
3 / 71

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
4 / 71

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
5 / 71

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
6 / 71

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
7 / 71

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
8 / 71

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
9 / 71

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Tract 7471 - Phase 1
Construction Start Date 6/2/2025
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 18.0
Location 35.40912711362745, -118.91728770917445
County Kern-San Joaquin
City Bakersfield
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2894
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.22

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
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
10 / 71
Single Family
Housing
116 Dwelling Unit 84.0 226,200 1,358,691 25,756 374 —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Energy E-15 Require All-Electric Development

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. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.36 31.7 30.9 0.06 1.37 19.8 21.1 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 6,734 6,734 0.27 0.09 1.91 6,758 Mit. 3.36 31.7 30.9 0.06 1.37 5.23 6.60 1.26 2.66 3.91 — 6,734 6,734 0.27 0.09 1.91 6,758 %
Reduced
— — — — — 74% 69% — 74% 66% — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 71.0 29.7 28.8 0.06 1.23 9.33 10.6 1.14 3.68 4.82 — 6,717 6,717 0.27 0.09 0.05 6,741 Mit. 71.0 29.7 28.8 0.06 1.23 2.52 3.75 1.14 0.98 2.11 — 6,717 6,717 0.27 0.09 0.05 6,741 %
Reduced
— — — — — 73% 64% — 73% 56% — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
11 / 71
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.08 9.97 10.2 0.02 0.42 3.48 3.90 0.38 1.55 1.94 — 2,193 2,193 0.09 0.05 0.54 2,203 Mit. 4.08 9.97 10.2 0.02 0.42 0.97 1.38 0.38 0.42 0.80 — 2,193 2,193 0.09 0.05 0.54 2,203 %
Reduced
— — — — — 72% 65% — 73% 59% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.75 1.82 1.86 < 0.005 0.08 0.64 0.71 0.07 0.28 0.35 — 363 363 0.01 0.01 0.09 365 Mit. 0.75 1.82 1.86 < 0.005 0.08 0.18 0.25 0.07 0.08 0.15 — 363 363 0.01 0.01 0.09 365 %
Reduced
— — — — — 72% 65% — 73% 59% — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 3.36 31.7 30.9 0.06 1.37 19.8 21.1 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 6,734 6,734 0.27 0.06 0.48 6,758 2026 1.17 10.4 14.5 0.03 0.38 0.35 0.74 0.35 0.09 0.44 — 3,060 3,060 0.10 0.09 1.91 3,090 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 3.24 29.7 28.8 0.06 1.23 9.33 10.6 1.14 3.68 4.82 — 6,717 6,717 0.27 0.09 0.05 6,741 2026 71.0 10.4 14.1 0.03 0.38 0.35 0.74 0.35 0.09 0.44 — 3,028 3,028 0.11 0.09 0.05 3,056 2027 71.0 0.91 2.00 < 0.005 0.02 0.24 0.26 0.02 0.06 0.07 — 360 360 0.01 0.01 0.02 364 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.08 9.97 10.2 0.02 0.42 3.48 3.90 0.38 1.55 1.94 — 2,193 2,193 0.09 0.03 0.18 2,203 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
12 / 71
2026 4.08 6.75 9.29 0.02 0.25 0.24 0.49 0.23 0.06 0.29 — 1,956 1,956 0.07 0.05 0.54 1,974 2027 0.56 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.89 2.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.92 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.20 1.82 1.86 < 0.005 0.08 0.64 0.71 0.07 0.28 0.35 — 363 363 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 365 2026 0.75 1.23 1.69 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.05 — 324 324 0.01 0.01 0.09 327 2027 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.48 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.48

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 3.36 31.7 30.9 0.06 1.37 5.23 6.60 1.26 2.66 3.91 — 6,734 6,734 0.27 0.06 0.48 6,758 2026 1.17 10.4 14.5 0.03 0.38 0.35 0.74 0.35 0.09 0.44 — 3,060 3,060 0.10 0.09 1.91 3,090 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 3.24 29.7 28.8 0.06 1.23 2.52 3.75 1.14 0.98 2.11 — 6,717 6,717 0.27 0.09 0.05 6,741 2026 71.0 10.4 14.1 0.03 0.38 0.35 0.74 0.35 0.09 0.44 — 3,028 3,028 0.11 0.09 0.05 3,056 2027 71.0 0.91 2.00 < 0.005 0.02 0.24 0.26 0.02 0.06 0.07 — 360 360 0.01 0.01 0.02 364 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.08 9.97 10.2 0.02 0.42 0.97 1.38 0.38 0.42 0.80 — 2,193 2,193 0.09 0.03 0.18 2,203 2026 4.08 6.75 9.29 0.02 0.25 0.24 0.49 0.23 0.06 0.29 — 1,956 1,956 0.07 0.05 0.54 1,974 2027 0.56 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.89 2.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.92 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.20 1.82 1.86 < 0.005 0.08 0.18 0.25 0.07 0.08 0.15 — 363 363 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 365 2026 0.75 1.23 1.69 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.05 — 324 324 0.01 0.01 0.09 327 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
13 / 71
2027 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.48 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.48

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. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.47 3.79 36.8 0.07 0.13 5.79 5.93 0.13 1.46 1.60 65.4 8,786 8,851 7.14 0.33 20.6 9,148 Mit. 4.40 2.65 36.3 0.06 0.04 5.79 5.84 0.04 1.46 1.50 65.4 7,342 7,407 7.02 0.32 20.6 7,700 %
Reduced
1% 30% 1% 10% 68% — 2% 70% — 6% — 16% 16% 2% 1% — 16%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.41 4.14 24.4 0.06 0.13 5.79 5.92 0.13 1.46 1.59 65.4 8,077 8,142 7.19 0.35 2.11 8,428 Mit. 3.34 3.00 23.9 0.06 0.04 5.79 5.83 0.04 1.46 1.50 65.4 6,632 6,698 7.06 0.35 2.11 6,980 %
Reduced
2% 28% 2% 11% 70% — 2% 71% — 6% — 18% 18% 2% 1% — 17%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.70 3.89 27.5 0.07 0.13 5.60 5.73 0.13 1.41 1.54 65.4 8,109 8,175 7.15 0.33 9.64 8,461 Mit. 3.63 2.75 27.1 0.06 0.04 5.60 5.64 0.04 1.41 1.45 65.4 6,665 6,730 7.02 0.33 9.64 7,013 %
Reduced
2% 29% 2% 11% 70% — 2% 71% — 6% — 18% 18% 2% 1% — 17%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.67 0.71 5.03 0.01 0.02 1.02 1.05 0.02 0.26 0.28 10.8 1,343 1,353 1.18 0.05 1.60 1,401 Mit. 0.66 0.50 4.94 0.01 0.01 1.02 1.03 0.01 0.26 0.27 10.8 1,103 1,114 1.16 0.05 1.60 1,161 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
14 / 71
% 2% 29% 2% 11% 70% — 2% 71% — 6% — 18% 18% 2% 1% — 17% Reduced

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.43 2.58 29.7 0.06 0.04 5.79 5.83 0.04 1.46 1.50 — 6,629 6,629 0.35 0.29 19.0 6,743 Area 0.97 0.06 6.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 56.7 56.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 57.1 Energy 0.07 1.14 0.48 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 2,053 2,053 0.23 0.01 — 2,063 Water — — — — — — — — — — 9.01 47.5 56.6 0.93 0.02 — 86.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 56.3 0.00 56.3 5.63 0.00 — 197 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62 1.62
Total 4.47 3.79 36.8 0.07 0.13 5.79 5.93 0.13 1.46 1.60 65.4 8,786 8,851 7.14 0.33 20.6 9,148 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.95 3.00 23.9 0.06 0.04 5.79 5.83 0.04 1.46 1.50 — 5,938 5,938 0.39 0.31 0.49 6,041 Area 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 39.1 39.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 39.5 Energy 0.07 1.14 0.48 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 2,053 2,053 0.23 0.01 — 2,063 Water — — — — — — — — — — 9.01 47.5 56.6 0.93 0.02 — 86.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 56.3 0.00 56.3 5.63 0.00 — 197 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62 1.62
Total 3.41 4.14 24.4 0.06 0.13 5.79 5.92 0.13 1.46 1.59 65.4 8,077 8,142 7.19 0.35 2.11 8,428 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.95 2.72 23.8 0.06 0.04 5.60 5.64 0.04 1.41 1.45 — 5,992 5,992 0.36 0.29 8.02 6,096 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
15 / 71
Area 0.68 0.03 3.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 17.5 17.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.6 Energy 0.07 1.14 0.48 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 2,053 2,053 0.23 0.01 — 2,063 Water — — — — — — — — — — 9.01 47.5 56.6 0.93 0.02 — 86.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 56.3 0.00 56.3 5.63 0.00 — 197 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62 1.62
Total 3.70 3.89 27.5 0.07 0.13 5.60 5.73 0.13 1.41 1.54 65.4 8,109 8,175 7.15 0.33 9.64 8,461 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.54 0.50 4.34 0.01 0.01 1.02 1.03 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 992 992 0.06 0.05 1.33 1,009 Area 0.12 0.01 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 2.89 2.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.91 Energy 0.01 0.21 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 340 340 0.04 < 0.005 — 341 Water — — — — — — — — — — 1.49 7.87 9.36 0.15 < 0.005 — 14.4 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 9.33 0.00 9.33 0.93 0.00 — 32.6 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.27
Total 0.67 0.71 5.03 0.01 0.02 1.02 1.05 0.02 0.26 0.28 10.8 1,343 1,353 1.18 0.05 1.60 1,401

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.43 2.58 29.7 0.06 0.04 5.79 5.83 0.04 1.46 1.50 — 6,629 6,629 0.35 0.29 19.0 6,743 Area 0.97 0.06 6.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 56.7 56.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 57.1 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 608 608 0.10 0.01 — 614 Water — — — — — — — — — — 9.01 47.5 56.6 0.93 0.02 — 86.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 56.3 0.00 56.3 5.63 0.00 — 197 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62 1.62
Total 4.40 2.65 36.3 0.06 0.04 5.79 5.84 0.04 1.46 1.50 65.4 7,342 7,407 7.02 0.32 20.6 7,700 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
16 / 71
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.95 3.00 23.9 0.06 0.04 5.79 5.83 0.04 1.46 1.50 — 5,938 5,938 0.39 0.31 0.49 6,041 Area 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 39.1 39.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 39.5 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 608 608 0.10 0.01 — 614 Water — — — — — — — — — — 9.01 47.5 56.6 0.93 0.02 — 86.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 56.3 0.00 56.3 5.63 0.00 — 197 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62 1.62
Total 3.34 3.00 23.9 0.06 0.04 5.79 5.83 0.04 1.46 1.50 65.4 6,632 6,698 7.06 0.35 2.11 6,980 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.95 2.72 23.8 0.06 0.04 5.60 5.64 0.04 1.41 1.45 — 5,992 5,992 0.36 0.29 8.02 6,096 Area 0.68 0.03 3.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 17.5 17.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.6 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 608 608 0.10 0.01 — 614 Water — — — — — — — — — — 9.01 47.5 56.6 0.93 0.02 — 86.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 56.3 0.00 56.3 5.63 0.00 — 197 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62 1.62
Total 3.63 2.75 27.1 0.06 0.04 5.60 5.64 0.04 1.41 1.45 65.4 6,665 6,730 7.02 0.33 9.64 7,013 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.54 0.50 4.34 0.01 0.01 1.02 1.03 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 992 992 0.06 0.05 1.33 1,009 Area 0.12 0.01 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 2.89 2.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.91 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 101 101 0.02 < 0.005 — 102 Water — — — — — — — — — — 1.49 7.87 9.36 0.15 < 0.005 — 14.4 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 9.33 0.00 9.33 0.93 0.00 — 32.6 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.27
Total 0.66 0.50 4.94 0.01 0.01 1.02 1.03 0.01 0.26 0.27 10.8 1,103 1,114 1.16 0.05 1.60 1,161 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
17 / 71

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. 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 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-Road
Equipment

3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.26 2.51 2.40 < 0.005 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 421 421 0.02 < 0.005 — 422 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 1.56 1.56 — 0.80 0.80 — — — — — — —
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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.46 0.44 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 69.7 69.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 69.9 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
18 / 71
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.29 0.29 — 0.15 0.15 — — — — — — —
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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 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 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.76 9.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.89 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.62 1.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.64 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
19 / 71
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37— 1.37 1.26— 1.26— 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04— 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 5.11 5.11— 2.63 2.63———————
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.26 2.51 2.40 < 0.005 0.11— 0.11 0.10— 0.10— 421 421 0.02 < 0.005— 422 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 0.41 0.41— 0.21 0.21———————
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 Annual—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.46 0.44 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 69.7 69.7 < 0.005 < 0.005— 69.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 0.07 0.07— 0.04 0.04———————
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 Offsite—————————————————
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
20 / 71
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 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 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.76 9.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.89 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.62 1.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.64 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment

3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
21 / 71
Dust————— 9.20 9.20— 3.65 3.65———————
From
Material
Movement
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23— 1.23 1.14— 1.14— 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05— 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 9.20 9.20— 3.65 3.65———————
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 Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.64 5.94 5.66 0.01 0.25— 0.25 0.23— 0.23— 1,320 1,320 0.05 0.01— 1,324 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 1.84 1.84— 0.73 0.73———————
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 Annual—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 1.08 1.03 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.04— 0.04— 219 219 0.01 < 0.005— 219 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 0.34 0.34— 0.13 0.13———————
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 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
22 / 71
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 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 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.05 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 118 118 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 120 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.6 24.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 24.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.07 4.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.12 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
23 / 71
Off-Road
Equipment

3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23— 1.23 1.14— 1.14— 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05— 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 2.39 2.39— 0.95 0.95———————
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23— 1.23 1.14— 1.14— 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05— 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 2.39 2.39— 0.95 0.95———————
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 Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.64 5.94 5.66 0.01 0.25— 0.25 0.23— 0.23— 1,320 1,320 0.05 0.01— 1,324 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 0.48 0.48— 0.19 0.19———————
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 Annual—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 1.08 1.03 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.04— 0.04— 219 219 0.01 < 0.005— 219 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 0.09 0.09— 0.03 0.03———————
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
24 / 71
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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 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 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.05 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 118 118 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 120 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.6 24.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 24.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.07 4.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.12 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
25 / 71
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43— 0.43 0.40— 0.40— 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02— 2,406 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 Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 1.43 1.79 < 0.005 0.06— 0.06 0.05— 0.05— 328 328 0.01 < 0.005— 330 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 Annual—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.26 0.33 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 54.4 54.4 < 0.005 < 0.005— 54.6 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 Offsite—————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.10 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06— 237 237 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 239 Vendor 0.01 0.50 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04— 407 407 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 425 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
—————————————————
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
26 / 71
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 33.7 33.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 34.1 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.8 55.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 58.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.57 5.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.65 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.23 9.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.65 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.6. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 1.43 1.79 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 328 328 0.01 < 0.005 — 330 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.26 0.33 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 54.4 54.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 54.6 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
27 / 71
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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.10 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 237 237 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 239 Vendor 0.01 0.50 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 407 407 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 425 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 33.7 33.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 34.1 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.8 55.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 58.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.57 5.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.65 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.23 9.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.65 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
28 / 71
Off-Road 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38— 0.38 0.35— 0.35— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 Equipment
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38— 0.38 0.35— 0.35— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 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 Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.65 5.98 7.87 0.01 0.23— 0.23 0.21— 0.21— 1,454 1,454 0.06 0.01— 1,459 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 Annual—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 1.09 1.44 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04— 241 241 0.01 < 0.005— 242 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 Offsite—————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.07 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06— 264 264 < 0.005 0.01 0.87 268 Vendor 0.01 0.44 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04— 399 399 < 0.005 0.06 1.04 417 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.09 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06— 232 232 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 235 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
29 / 71
Vendor 0.01 0.47 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 399 399 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 416 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 146 146 < 0.005 0.01 0.23 148 Vendor 0.01 0.28 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 242 242 < 0.005 0.03 0.27 253 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.2 24.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 24.5 Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.1 40.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 41.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment

1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 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 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
30 / 71
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.65 5.98 7.87 0.01 0.23 — 0.23 0.21 — 0.21 — 1,454 1,454 0.06 0.01 — 1,459 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 1.09 1.44 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 241 241 0.01 < 0.005 — 242 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.07 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 264 264 < 0.005 0.01 0.87 268 Vendor 0.01 0.44 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 399 399 < 0.005 0.06 1.04 417 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.09 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 232 232 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 235 Vendor 0.01 0.47 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 399 399 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 416 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 146 146 < 0.005 0.01 0.23 148 Vendor 0.01 0.28 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 242 242 < 0.005 0.03 0.27 253 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.2 24.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 24.5 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
31 / 71
Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.1 40.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 41.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving 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 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
32 / 71
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.09 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 232 232 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 235 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.2 13.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.18 2.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.21 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.10. Paving (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
33 / 71
Off-Road
Equipment

0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.09 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 232 232 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 235 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.2 13.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.4 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 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
34 / 71
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.18 2.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.21 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. 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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

70.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.27 6.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.29 Architectu
ral
Coatings

3.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
35 / 71
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.04 1.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.04 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.61 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.09 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 232 232 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 235 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.90 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.12. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
36 / 71
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

70.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.27 6.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.29 Architectu
ral
Coatings

3.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.04 1.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.04 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.61 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
37 / 71
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.09 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 232 232 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 235 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.90 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
38 / 71
Architectu
Coatings

70.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.05 1.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.05 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.55 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.17 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.08 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 227 227 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 230 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
39 / 71
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.85 1.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.87 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

70.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.55 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
40 / 71
Onsite
truck

0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.08 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 227 227 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 230 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.85 1.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.87 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
41 / 71

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

3.43 2.58 29.7 0.06 0.04 5.79 5.83 0.04 1.46 1.50 — 6,629 6,629 0.35 0.29 19.0 6,743 Total 3.43 2.58 29.7 0.06 0.04 5.79 5.83 0.04 1.46 1.50 — 6,629 6,629 0.35 0.29 19.0 6,743 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

2.95 3.00 23.9 0.06 0.04 5.79 5.83 0.04 1.46 1.50 — 5,938 5,938 0.39 0.31 0.49 6,041 Total 2.95 3.00 23.9 0.06 0.04 5.79 5.83 0.04 1.46 1.50 — 5,938 5,938 0.39 0.31 0.49 6,041 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.54 0.50 4.34 0.01 0.01 1.02 1.03 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 992 992 0.06 0.05 1.33 1,009 Total 0.54 0.50 4.34 0.01 0.01 1.02 1.03 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 992 992 0.06 0.05 1.33 1,009

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
42 / 71
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing

0.54 0.50 4.34 0.01 0.01 1.02 1.03 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 992 992 0.06 0.05 1.33 1,009 Total 0.54 0.50 4.34 0.01 0.01 1.02 1.03 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 992 992 0.06 0.05 1.33 1,009

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 606 606 0.10 0.01 — 612
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 606 606 0.10 0.01 — 612
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
43 / 71
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 606 606 0.10 0.01 — 612
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 606 606 0.10 0.01 — 612
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 100 100 0.02 < 0.005 — 101
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 100 100 0.02 < 0.005 — 101

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 608 608 0.10 0.01 — 614
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 608 608 0.10 0.01 — 614
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 608 608 0.10 0.01 — 614
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 608 608 0.10 0.01 — 614
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
44 / 71
Single — — — — — — — — — — — 101 101 0.02 < 0.005 — 102 Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 101 101 0.02 < 0.005 — 102

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.07 1.14 0.48 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,447 1,447 0.13 < 0.005 — 1,451 Total 0.07 1.14 0.48 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,447 1,447 0.13 < 0.005 — 1,451 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.07 1.14 0.48 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,447 1,447 0.13 < 0.005 — 1,451 Total 0.07 1.14 0.48 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,447 1,447 0.13 < 0.005 — 1,451 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.01 0.21 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 240 240 0.02 < 0.005 — 240 Total 0.01 0.21 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 240 240 0.02 < 0.005 — 240

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
45 / 71
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00 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 0.00 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00 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 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.3. 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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 39.1 39.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 39.5 Consume
r
Products
< 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
46 / 71
Architectu 0.39 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ral
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.58 0.06 6.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 17.6 17.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.7 Total 0.97 0.06 6.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 56.7 56.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 57.1 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 39.1 39.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 39.5 Consume
r
Products
< 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.39 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 39.1 39.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 39.5 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 1.45 1.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.47 Consume
r
Products
< 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.05 0.01 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.44 1.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.44 Total 0.12 0.01 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 2.89 2.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.91

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
47 / 71
Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 39.1 39.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 39.5 Consume
r
Products
< 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.39 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 9.01 47.5 56.6 0.93 0.02 — 86.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — 9.01 47.5 56.6 0.93 0.02 — 86.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 9.01 47.5 56.6 0.93 0.02 — 86.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — 9.01 47.5 56.6 0.93 0.02 — 86.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.49 7.87 9.36 0.15 < 0.005 — 14.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.49 7.87 9.36 0.15 < 0.005 — 14.4 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
49 / 71

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 9.01 47.5 56.6 0.93 0.02 — 86.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — 9.01 47.5 56.6 0.93 0.02 — 86.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 9.01 47.5 56.6 0.93 0.02 — 86.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — 9.01 47.5 56.6 0.93 0.02 — 86.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.49 7.87 9.36 0.15 < 0.005 — 14.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.49 7.87 9.36 0.15 < 0.005 — 14.4

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
50 / 71
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 56.3 0.00 56.3 5.63 0.00 — 197
Total — — — — — — — — — — 56.3 0.00 56.3 5.63 0.00 — 197 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 56.3 0.00 56.3 5.63 0.00 — 197
Total — — — — — — — — — — 56.3 0.00 56.3 5.63 0.00 — 197 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 9.33 0.00 9.33 0.93 0.00 — 32.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — 9.33 0.00 9.33 0.93 0.00 — 32.6

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 56.3 0.00 56.3 5.63 0.00 — 197
Total — — — — — — — — — — 56.3 0.00 56.3 5.63 0.00 — 197 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 56.3 0.00 56.3 5.63 0.00 — 197
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
51 / 71
Total — — — — — — — — — — 56.3 0.00 56.3 5.63 0.00 — 197 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 9.33 0.00 9.33 0.93 0.00 — 32.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — 9.33 0.00 9.33 0.93 0.00 — 32.6

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62 1.62
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62 1.62
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62 1.62
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62 1.62
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.27
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.27
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
52 / 71

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62 1.62
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62 1.62
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62 1.62
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62 1.62
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.27
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.27

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) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
53 / 71
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. 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) Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
54 / 71
Equipme
Type
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
55 / 71

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
56 / 71

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) Vegetatio
n
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. 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 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
57 / 71

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 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
58 / 71
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
59 / 71
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
60 / 71
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/2/2025 7/10/2025 5.00 29.0 — Grading Grading 7/14/2025 10/22/2025 5.00 73.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 10/23/2025 11/6/2026 5.00 272 — Paving Paving 11/9/2026 12/4/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/8/2026 1/4/2027 5.00 20.0 —

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 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
61 / 71
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
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 Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
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 Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
62 / 71
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
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 Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 10.0 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
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 20.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 12.4 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
63 / 71
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 20.0 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 20.0 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

Bakersfield City CouncilAugust 13, 2025

Bakersfield City Council
August 13, 2025