Cities Index.
Minutes, regular meeting, second session

Bakersfield City Council
August 13, 2025

Document
Minutes, regular meeting, second session
Meeting
August 13, 2025
Body
Bakersfield City Council
Pages
210
Original file
228.9 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on pub-bakersfield.escribemeetings.com. That file is the official record.

5.3.2. Mitigated
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
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
64 / 71
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
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

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 458,055 152,685 0.00 0.00 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 43.5 0.00 —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
65 / 71
Grading — — 219 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 1.28 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,095 1,107 992 394,911 8,178 8,265 7,407 2,949,456

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,095 1,107 992 394,911 8,178 8,265 7,407 2,949,456
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
66 / 71

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 58
No Fireplaces 58

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 58
No Fireplaces 58

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
458055 152,685 0.00 0.00 —
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
67 / 71

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

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 1,084,203 204 0.0330 0.0040 4,513,829

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 1,088,183 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
68 / 71
Single Family Housing 4,703,551 27,504,265

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 4,703,551 27,504,265

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 105 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 105 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
69 / 71
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
70 / 71

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) Tract 7471 - Phase 1 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
71 / 71

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Special landscaping represents non-buildable landscape lots. Lot acreage provided by Applicant.

Grading will occur for all phases during Phase 1.

Construction: Construction Phases No proposed demolition, construction schedule provided by project Applicant.

Construction: Trips and VMT Client proposed number of contractors.

Operations: Fleet Mix District accepted fleet mix for residential projects - 2027 operational year.

Operations: Hearths No wood stoves or natural gas fireplaces in any of the residences.

Operations: Consumer Products Derived from CalEEMod Appendix E3: Consumer Products Use 2003 Survey Residential Data Grouping
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
1 / 59
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 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. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.2. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
2 / 59

3.3. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated

3.4. Building Construction (2028) - Mitigated

3.5. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated

3.6. Paving (2028) - Mitigated

3.7. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated

3.8. Architectural Coating (2028) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
3 / 59

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

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
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
4 / 59

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

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
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
5 / 59

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

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
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
6 / 59

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

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
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
7 / 59

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

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
8 / 59

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Tract 7471 - Phase 2
Construction Start Date 1/5/2027
Operational Year 2028
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 18.0
Location 35.40908756336067, -118.91654833768757
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 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
9 / 59
Single Family
Housing
154 Dwelling Unit 32.1 300,300 1,803,780 37,813 496 —
City Park 2.21 Acre 2.21 0.00 96,464 96,464 — —

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. 1.13 10.0 14.4 0.03 0.34 0.39 0.74 0.32 0.10 0.42 — 3,173 3,173 0.11 0.10 2.01 3,209 Mit. 1.13 10.0 14.4 0.03 0.34 0.39 0.74 0.32 0.10 0.42 — 3,173 3,173 0.11 0.10 2.01 3,209 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 94.1 10.1 14.0 0.03 0.34 0.39 0.74 0.32 0.10 0.42 — 3,142 3,142 0.11 0.10 0.05 3,176 Mit. 94.1 10.1 14.0 0.03 0.34 0.39 0.74 0.32 0.10 0.42 — 3,142 3,142 0.11 0.10 0.05 3,176 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
10 / 59
% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Reduced
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.24 7.11 9.94 0.02 0.24 0.27 0.52 0.22 0.07 0.29 — 2,226 2,226 0.08 0.07 0.61 2,250 Mit. 5.24 7.11 9.94 0.02 0.24 0.27 0.52 0.22 0.07 0.29 — 2,226 2,226 0.08 0.07 0.61 2,250 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.96 1.30 1.81 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.05 — 369 369 0.01 0.01 0.10 373 Mit. 0.96 1.30 1.81 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.05 — 369 369 0.01 0.01 0.10 373 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.13 10.0 14.4 0.03 0.34 0.39 0.74 0.32 0.10 0.42 — 3,173 3,173 0.11 0.10 2.01 3,209 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.12 10.1 14.0 0.03 0.34 0.39 0.74 0.32 0.10 0.42 — 3,142 3,142 0.11 0.10 0.05 3,176 2028 94.1 9.58 13.9 0.03 0.31 0.39 0.70 0.28 0.10 0.38 — 3,125 3,125 0.11 0.10 0.05 3,159 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.79 7.11 9.94 0.02 0.24 0.27 0.52 0.22 0.07 0.29 — 2,226 2,226 0.08 0.07 0.61 2,250 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
11 / 59
2028 5.24 0.77 1.22 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.03 — 232 232 0.01 0.01 0.06 234 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.14 1.30 1.81 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.05 — 369 369 0.01 0.01 0.10 373 2028 0.96 0.14 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 38.4 38.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 38.7

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.13 10.0 14.4 0.03 0.34 0.39 0.74 0.32 0.10 0.42 — 3,173 3,173 0.11 0.10 2.01 3,209 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.12 10.1 14.0 0.03 0.34 0.39 0.74 0.32 0.10 0.42 — 3,142 3,142 0.11 0.10 0.05 3,176 2028 94.1 9.58 13.9 0.03 0.31 0.39 0.70 0.28 0.10 0.38 — 3,125 3,125 0.11 0.10 0.05 3,159 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.79 7.11 9.94 0.02 0.24 0.27 0.52 0.22 0.07 0.29 — 2,226 2,226 0.08 0.07 0.61 2,250 2028 5.24 0.77 1.22 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.03 — 232 232 0.01 0.01 0.06 234 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.14 1.30 1.81 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.05 — 369 369 0.01 0.01 0.10 373 2028 0.96 0.14 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 38.4 38.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 38.7

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 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
12 / 59
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Unmit. 5.76 4.80 46.7 0.09 0.18 7.69 7.86 0.17 1.94 2.11 86.8 11,468 11,555 9.48 0.42 24.5 11,940 Mit. 5.67 3.29 46.1 0.08 0.05 7.69 7.74 0.05 1.94 1.99 86.8 9,550 9,637 9.31 0.41 24.5 10,017 %
Reduced
2% 32% 1% 10% 69% — 2% 71% — 6% — 17% 17% 2% 1% — 16%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.41 5.23 30.7 0.08 0.17 7.69 7.86 0.17 1.94 2.11 86.8 10,546 10,632 9.53 0.45 2.73 11,006 Mit. 4.32 3.72 30.0 0.07 0.05 7.69 7.74 0.05 1.94 1.99 86.8 8,627 8,714 9.36 0.44 2.73 9,083 %
Reduced
2% 29% 2% 11% 71% — 2% 73% — 6% — 18% 18% 2% 1% — 17%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.78 4.93 34.9 0.09 0.17 7.43 7.60 0.17 1.88 2.05 86.8 10,588 10,675 9.48 0.42 11.6 11,049 Mit. 4.69 3.41 34.2 0.08 0.05 7.43 7.48 0.05 1.88 1.92 86.8 8,670 8,756 9.31 0.42 11.6 9,125 %
Reduced
2% 31% 2% 11% 71% — 2% 72% — 6% — 18% 18% 2% 1% — 17%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.87 0.90 6.36 0.02 0.03 1.36 1.39 0.03 0.34 0.37 14.4 1,753 1,767 1.57 0.07 1.92 1,829 Mit. 0.86 0.62 6.24 0.01 0.01 1.36 1.37 0.01 0.34 0.35 14.4 1,435 1,450 1.54 0.07 1.92 1,511 %
Reduced
2% 31% 2% 11% 71% — 2% 72% — 6% — 18% 18% 2% 1% — 17%

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 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
13 / 59
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.33 3.20 37.3 0.08 0.05 7.69 7.74 0.05 1.94 1.99 — 8,600 8,600 0.45 0.36 22.4 8,743 Area 1.33 0.08 8.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 75.2 75.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 75.8 Energy 0.09 1.51 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,725 2,725 0.30 0.02 — 2,738 Water — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 67.9 79.9 1.24 0.03 — 120 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 74.8 0.00 74.8 7.48 0.00 — 262 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 2.15
Total 5.76 4.80 46.7 0.09 0.18 7.69 7.86 0.17 1.94 2.11 86.8 11,468 11,555 9.48 0.42 24.5 11,940 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.74 3.72 30.0 0.07 0.05 7.69 7.74 0.05 1.94 1.99 — 7,701 7,701 0.51 0.39 0.58 7,832 Area 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 51.9 51.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 52.4 Energy 0.09 1.51 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,725 2,725 0.30 0.02 — 2,738 Water — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 67.9 79.9 1.24 0.03 — 120 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 74.8 0.00 74.8 7.48 0.00 — 262 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 2.15
Total 4.41 5.23 30.7 0.08 0.17 7.69 7.86 0.17 1.94 2.11 86.8 10,546 10,632 9.53 0.45 2.73 11,006 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.74 3.37 29.9 0.08 0.05 7.43 7.48 0.05 1.88 1.92 — 7,772 7,772 0.47 0.37 9.44 7,903 Area 0.95 0.04 4.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.3 Energy 0.09 1.51 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,725 2,725 0.30 0.02 — 2,738 Water — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 67.9 79.9 1.24 0.03 — 120 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 74.8 0.00 74.8 7.48 0.00 — 262 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 2.15
Total 4.78 4.93 34.9 0.09 0.17 7.43 7.60 0.17 1.88 2.05 86.8 10,588 10,675 9.48 0.42 11.6 11,049 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
14 / 59
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.68 0.62 5.46 0.01 0.01 1.36 1.36 0.01 0.34 0.35 — 1,287 1,287 0.08 0.06 1.56 1,308 Area 0.17 0.01 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.84 3.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.86 Energy 0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 451 451 0.05 < 0.005 — 453 Water — — — — — — — — — — 1.98 11.2 13.2 0.20 0.01 — 19.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 12.4 0.00 12.4 1.24 0.00 — 43.3 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.36 0.36
Total 0.87 0.90 6.36 0.02 0.03 1.36 1.39 0.03 0.34 0.37 14.4 1,753 1,767 1.57 0.07 1.92 1,829

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 4.33 3.20 37.3 0.08 0.05 7.69 7.74 0.05 1.94 1.99 — 8,600 8,600 0.45 0.36 22.4 8,743 Area 1.33 0.08 8.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 75.2 75.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 75.8 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 807 807 0.13 0.02 — 815 Water — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 67.9 79.9 1.24 0.03 — 120 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 74.8 0.00 74.8 7.48 0.00 — 262 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 2.15
Total 5.67 3.29 46.1 0.08 0.05 7.69 7.74 0.05 1.94 1.99 86.8 9,550 9,637 9.31 0.41 24.5 10,017 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.74 3.72 30.0 0.07 0.05 7.69 7.74 0.05 1.94 1.99 — 7,701 7,701 0.51 0.39 0.58 7,832 Area 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 51.9 51.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 52.4 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 807 807 0.13 0.02 — 815 Water — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 67.9 79.9 1.24 0.03 — 120 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
15 / 59
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 74.8 0.00 74.8 7.48 0.00 — 262 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 2.15
Total 4.32 3.72 30.0 0.07 0.05 7.69 7.74 0.05 1.94 1.99 86.8 8,627 8,714 9.36 0.44 2.73 9,083 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.74 3.37 29.9 0.08 0.05 7.43 7.48 0.05 1.88 1.92 — 7,772 7,772 0.47 0.37 9.44 7,903 Area 0.95 0.04 4.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.3 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 807 807 0.13 0.02 — 815 Water — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 67.9 79.9 1.24 0.03 — 120 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 74.8 0.00 74.8 7.48 0.00 — 262 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 2.15
Total 4.69 3.41 34.2 0.08 0.05 7.43 7.48 0.05 1.88 1.92 86.8 8,670 8,756 9.31 0.42 11.6 9,125 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.68 0.62 5.46 0.01 0.01 1.36 1.36 0.01 0.34 0.35 — 1,287 1,287 0.08 0.06 1.56 1,308 Area 0.17 0.01 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.84 3.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.86 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 134 134 0.02 < 0.005 — 135 Water — — — — — — — — — — 1.98 11.2 13.2 0.20 0.01 — 19.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 12.4 0.00 12.4 1.24 0.00 — 43.3 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.36 0.36
Total 0.86 0.62 6.24 0.01 0.01 1.36 1.37 0.01 0.34 0.35 14.4 1,435 1,450 1.54 0.07 1.92 1,511

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Building Construction (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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
16 / 59
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34— 0.34 0.31— 0.31— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 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

1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34— 0.34 0.31— 0.31— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 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

0.73 6.63 9.14 0.02 0.24— 0.24 0.22— 0.22— 1,693 1,693 0.07 0.01— 1,699 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

0.13 1.21 1.67 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04— 280 280 0.01 < 0.005— 281 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 0.08 0.07 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06— 259 259 < 0.005 0.01 0.78 262 Vendor 0.02 0.57 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05— 518 518 0.01 0.08 1.23 542 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 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
17 / 59
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 0.02 0.61 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 518 518 0.01 0.08 0.03 541 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 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 167 167 < 0.005 0.01 0.24 169 Vendor 0.01 0.42 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.03 — 366 366 < 0.005 0.05 0.38 382 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 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 27.6 27.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 27.9 Vendor < 0.005 0.08 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 60.6 60.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 63.3 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

3.2. Building Construction (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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
18 / 59
Off-Road
Equipment

1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 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

0.73 6.63 9.14 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,693 1,693 0.07 0.01 — 1,699 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

0.13 1.21 1.67 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 280 280 0.01 < 0.005 — 281 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 0.08 0.07 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 259 259 < 0.005 0.01 0.78 262 Vendor 0.02 0.57 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 518 518 0.01 0.08 1.23 542 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 0.07 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 0.02 0.61 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 518 518 0.01 0.08 0.03 541 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 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 167 167 < 0.005 0.01 0.24 169 Vendor 0.01 0.42 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.03 — 366 366 < 0.005 0.05 0.38 382 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
19 / 59
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 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 27.6 27.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 27.9 Vendor < 0.005 0.08 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 60.6 60.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 63.3 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

3.3. Building Construction (2028) - 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

0.99 8.92 12.9 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 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 0.33 0.48 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 89.1 89.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 89.4 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.06 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.8 14.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.8 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 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
20 / 59
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 223 223 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 226 Vendor 0.01 0.58 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 505 505 0.01 0.08 0.03 527 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 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.60 8.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.71 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.8 18.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 19.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.42 1.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.44 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.10 3.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.25 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. Building Construction (2028) - 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 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
21 / 59
Off-Road
Equipment

0.99 8.92 12.9 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 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 0.33 0.48 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 89.1 89.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 89.4 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.06 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.8 14.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.8 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 223 223 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 226 Vendor 0.01 0.58 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 505 505 0.01 0.08 0.03 527 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 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.60 8.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.71 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.8 18.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 19.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.42 1.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.44 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
22 / 59
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.10 3.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.25 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. Paving (2028) - 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

0.69 6.63 9.91 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 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 0.36 0.54 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 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 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
23 / 59
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 223 223 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 226 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 — 12.7 12.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.8 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 — 2.10 2.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.6. Paving (2028) - 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 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
24 / 59
Off-Road
Equipment

0.69 6.63 9.91 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 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 0.36 0.54 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 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 0.06 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 223 223 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 226 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 — 12.7 12.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.8 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 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
25 / 59
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 — 2.10 2.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Architectural Coating (2028) - 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 0.81 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

94.0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architectu
ral
Coatings

5.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
26 / 59
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.94 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.06 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 223 223 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 226 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 — 12.7 12.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.8 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 — 2.10 2.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Architectural Coating (2028) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
27 / 59
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 0.81 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

94.0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architectu
ral
Coatings

5.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.94 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
28 / 59
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 223 223 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 226 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 — 12.7 12.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.8 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 — 2.10 2.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
29 / 59
Single 4.33 3.20 37.3 0.08 0.05 7.69 7.74 0.05 1.94 1.99 — 8,600 8,600 0.45 0.36 22.4 8,743 Family
Housing
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4.33 3.20 37.3 0.08 0.05 7.69 7.74 0.05 1.94 1.99 — 8,600 8,600 0.45 0.36 22.4 8,743 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

3.74 3.72 30.0 0.07 0.05 7.69 7.74 0.05 1.94 1.99 — 7,701 7,701 0.51 0.39 0.58 7,832 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 3.74 3.72 30.0 0.07 0.05 7.69 7.74 0.05 1.94 1.99 — 7,701 7,701 0.51 0.39 0.58 7,832 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.68 0.62 5.46 0.01 0.01 1.36 1.36 0.01 0.34 0.35 — 1,287 1,287 0.08 0.06 1.56 1,308 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.68 0.62 5.46 0.01 0.01 1.36 1.36 0.01 0.34 0.35 — 1,287 1,287 0.08 0.06 1.56 1,308

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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

4.33 3.20 37.3 0.08 0.05 7.69 7.74 0.05 1.94 1.99 — 8,600 8,600 0.45 0.36 22.4 8,743 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4.33 3.20 37.3 0.08 0.05 7.69 7.74 0.05 1.94 1.99 — 8,600 8,600 0.45 0.36 22.4 8,743 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
30 / 59
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing

3.74 3.72 30.0 0.07 0.05 7.69 7.74 0.05 1.94 1.99 — 7,701 7,701 0.51 0.39 0.58 7,832 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 3.74 3.72 30.0 0.07 0.05 7.69 7.74 0.05 1.94 1.99 — 7,701 7,701 0.51 0.39 0.58 7,832 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.68 0.62 5.46 0.01 0.01 1.36 1.36 0.01 0.34 0.35 — 1,287 1,287 0.08 0.06 1.56 1,308 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.68 0.62 5.46 0.01 0.01 1.36 1.36 0.01 0.34 0.35 — 1,287 1,287 0.08 0.06 1.56 1,308

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
— — — — — — — — — — — 804 804 0.13 0.02 — 812
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 804 804 0.13 0.02 — 812
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
31 / 59
Single — — — — — — — — — — — 804 804 0.13 0.02 — 812
Family
Housing
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 804 804 0.13 0.02 — 812
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 133 133 0.02 < 0.005 — 134
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 133 133 0.02 < 0.005 — 134

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
— — — — — — — — — — — 807 807 0.13 0.02 — 815
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 807 807 0.13 0.02 — 815
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 807 807 0.13 0.02 — 815
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 807 807 0.13 0.02 — 815
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
32 / 59
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 134 134 0.02 < 0.005 — 135
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 134 134 0.02 < 0.005 — 135

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

0.09 1.51 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,921 1,921 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,926 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.09 1.51 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,921 1,921 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,926 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.09 1.51 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,921 1,921 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,926 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.09 1.51 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,921 1,921 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,926 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 318 318 0.03 < 0.005 — 319 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 318 318 0.03 < 0.005 — 319 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
33 / 59

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 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 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 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 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 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 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 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 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
34 / 59
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 51.9 51.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 52.4 Consume
r
Products

0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.76 0.08 8.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.4 23.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.4 Total 1.33 0.08 8.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 75.2 75.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 75.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 51.9 51.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 52.4 Consume
r
Products

0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 51.9 51.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 52.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 1.93 1.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.95 Consume
r
Products

0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
35 / 59
Landscap 0.07 0.01 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.91 1.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.91 e
Total 0.17 0.01 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.84 3.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.86

4.3.2. Mitigated
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 51.9 51.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 52.4 Consume
r
Products

0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.76 0.08 8.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.4 23.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.4 Total 1.33 0.08 8.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 75.2 75.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 75.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 51.9 51.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 52.4 Consume
r
Products

0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 51.9 51.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 52.4 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
36 / 59
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 1.93 1.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.95 Consume
r
Products

0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.07 0.01 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.91 1.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.91 Total 0.17 0.01 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.84 3.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.86

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
— — — — — — — — — — 12.0 63.2 75.2 1.24 0.03 — 115
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 4.73 4.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.77 Total — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 67.9 79.9 1.24 0.03 — 120 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 12.0 63.2 75.2 1.24 0.03 — 115
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
37 / 59
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 4.73 4.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.77 Total — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 67.9 79.9 1.24 0.03 — 120 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.98 10.5 12.4 0.20 0.01 — 19.1
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.78 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.79 Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.98 11.2 13.2 0.20 0.01 — 19.9

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
— — — — — — — — — — 12.0 63.2 75.2 1.24 0.03 — 115
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 4.73 4.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.77 Total — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 67.9 79.9 1.24 0.03 — 120 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 12.0 63.2 75.2 1.24 0.03 — 115
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 4.73 4.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.77 Total — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 67.9 79.9 1.24 0.03 — 120 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.98 10.5 12.4 0.20 0.01 — 19.1
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
38 / 59
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.78 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.79 Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.98 11.2 13.2 0.20 0.01 — 19.9

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 74.7 0.00 74.7 7.47 0.00 — 261
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 — 0.36 Total — — — — — — — — — — 74.8 0.00 74.8 7.48 0.00 — 262 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 74.7 0.00 74.7 7.47 0.00 — 261
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 — 0.36 Total — — — — — — — — — — 74.8 0.00 74.8 7.48 0.00 — 262 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 12.4 0.00 12.4 1.24 0.00 — 43.3
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.06 Total — — — — — — — — — — 12.4 0.00 12.4 1.24 0.00 — 43.3 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
39 / 59

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
— — — — — — — — — — 74.7 0.00 74.7 7.47 0.00 — 261
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 — 0.36 Total — — — — — — — — — — 74.8 0.00 74.8 7.48 0.00 — 262 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 74.7 0.00 74.7 7.47 0.00 — 261
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 — 0.36 Total — — — — — — — — — — 74.8 0.00 74.8 7.48 0.00 — 262 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 12.4 0.00 12.4 1.24 0.00 — 43.3
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.06 Total — — — — — — — — — — 12.4 0.00 12.4 1.24 0.00 — 43.3

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 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
40 / 59
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 2.15
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 2.15
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 2.15
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 2.15
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.36 0.36
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.36 0.36

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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 2.15
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
41 / 59
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 2.15
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 2.15
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 2.15
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.36 0.36
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.36 0.36

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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
42 / 59
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) 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
43 / 59
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

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 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
44 / 59
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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) Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
45 / 59
Vegetatio 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
46 / 59
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
—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Removed—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
47 / 59
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
48 / 59

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
49 / 59
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 Building Construction Building Construction 1/5/2027 1/19/2028 5.00 272 — Paving Paving 1/20/2028 2/16/2028 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/17/2028 3/15/2028 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 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 Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
50 / 59

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 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

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 20.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 16.5 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
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
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
51 / 59
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

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 20.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 16.5 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
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

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
52 / 59
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 608,108 202,703 0.00 0.00 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.70

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 1.70 0%
City Park 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2028 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
53 / 59

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,454 1,469 1,317 524,279 10,858 10,973 9,834 3,915,657 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,454 1,469 1,317 524,279 10,858 10,973 9,834 3,915,657 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 77
No Fireplaces 77

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
54 / 59
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 77
No Fireplaces 77

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
608107.5 202,703 0.00 0.00 —

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

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
55 / 59
Single Family Housing 1,439,374 204 0.0330 0.0040 5,992,497 City Park 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 1,443,353 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
City Park 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 6,244,369 36,573,330
City Park 0.00 3,496,212

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 6,244,369 36,573,330
City Park 0.00 3,496,212

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 139 —
City Park 0.19 —
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
56 / 59

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 139 —
City Park 0.19 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
57 / 59
City Park Stand-alone retail R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00 refrigerators and
freezers

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
58 / 59

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

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Tract 7471 - Phase 2 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
59 / 59
Land Use Residential special landscaping represents non-buildable landscape lots. Lot acreage provided by Applicant.

Construction: Construction Phases Construction timeline provided by Applicant. Grading will occur for all phases during Phase 1 Construction: Trips and VMT Client proposed number of contractors.

Operations: Fleet Mix District accepted fleet mix for residential projects - 2028 operational year.

Operations: Hearths No wood stoves or natural gas fireplaces in any of the residences.

Operations: Consumer Products Derived from CalEEMod Appendix E3: Consumer Products Use 2003 Survey Residential Data Grouping
Operations: Vehicle Data Private park intended for residents, no additional trips anticipated.

Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
1 / 57
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 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. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated

3.2. Building Construction (2028) - Mitigated
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
2 / 57

3.3. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated

3.4. Paving (2028) - Mitigated

3.5. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated

3.6. Architectural Coating (2028) - Mitigated

3.7. Architectural Coating (2029) - Unmitigated

3.8. Architectural Coating (2029) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
3 / 57

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

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
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
4 / 57

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

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
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
5 / 57

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

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
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
6 / 57

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

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
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
7 / 57

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

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
8 / 57

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Tract 7471 - Phase 3
Construction Start Date 3/16/2028
Operational Year 2029
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 18.0
Location 35.40903285622038, -118.91699826583523
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 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
9 / 57
Single Family
Housing

95.0 Dwelling Unit 319 185,250 1,112,721 21,338 306 —

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. 1.08 9.32 14.2 0.03 0.30 0.33 0.64 0.28 0.08 0.36 — 2,962 2,962 0.10 0.08 1.37 2,988 Mit. 1.08 9.32 14.2 0.03 0.30 0.33 0.64 0.28 0.08 0.36 — 2,962 2,962 0.10 0.08 1.37 2,988 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 90.1 9.36 13.9 0.03 0.30 0.49 0.76 0.28 0.11 0.36 — 2,931 2,931 0.10 0.08 0.04 2,957 Mit. 90.1 9.36 13.9 0.03 0.30 0.49 0.76 0.28 0.11 0.36 — 2,931 2,931 0.10 0.08 0.04 2,957 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
10 / 57
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.53 4.98 7.47 0.01 0.16 0.18 0.35 0.15 0.04 0.20 — 1,556 1,556 0.05 0.04 0.32 1,570 Mit. 3.53 4.98 7.47 0.01 0.16 0.18 0.35 0.15 0.04 0.20 — 1,556 1,556 0.05 0.04 0.32 1,570 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.65 0.91 1.36 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.04 — 258 258 0.01 0.01 0.05 260 Mit. 0.65 0.91 1.36 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.04 — 258 258 0.01 0.01 0.05 260 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2028 1.08 9.32 14.2 0.03 0.30 0.33 0.64 0.28 0.08 0.36 — 2,962 2,962 0.10 0.08 1.37 2,988 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2028 90.1 9.36 13.9 0.03 0.30 0.49 0.76 0.28 0.11 0.36 — 2,931 2,931 0.10 0.08 0.04 2,957 2029 89.4 0.86 1.86 < 0.005 0.01 0.24 0.26 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 352 352 0.01 0.01 0.02 355 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2028 3.53 4.98 7.47 0.01 0.16 0.18 0.35 0.15 0.04 0.20 — 1,556 1,556 0.05 0.04 0.32 1,570 2029 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.41 1.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.42 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
11 / 57
2028 0.65 0.91 1.36 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.04 — 258 258 0.01 0.01 0.05 260 2029 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.23 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2028 1.08 9.32 14.2 0.03 0.30 0.33 0.64 0.28 0.08 0.36 — 2,962 2,962 0.10 0.08 1.37 2,988 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2028 90.1 9.36 13.9 0.03 0.30 0.49 0.76 0.28 0.11 0.36 — 2,931 2,931 0.10 0.08 0.04 2,957 2029 89.4 0.86 1.86 < 0.005 0.01 0.24 0.26 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 352 352 0.01 0.01 0.02 355 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2028 3.53 4.98 7.47 0.01 0.16 0.18 0.35 0.15 0.04 0.20 — 1,556 1,556 0.05 0.04 0.32 1,570 2029 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.41 1.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.42 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2028 0.65 0.91 1.36 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.04 — 258 258 0.01 0.01 0.05 260 2029 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.23 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
12 / 57
Unmit. 3.37 2.84 27.6 0.06 0.11 4.74 4.85 0.10 1.20 1.30 53.5 6,966 7,020 5.83 0.25 13.5 7,253 Mit. 3.31 1.91 27.2 0.05 0.03 4.74 4.77 0.03 1.20 1.23 53.5 5,784 5,837 5.73 0.25 13.5 6,067 %
Reduced
2% 33% 1% 10% 71% — 2% 72% — 6% — 17% 17% 2% 1% — 16%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.56 3.09 18.0 0.05 0.10 4.74 4.85 0.10 1.20 1.30 53.5 6,408 6,461 5.86 0.27 1.64 6,689 Mit. 2.51 2.15 17.6 0.05 0.03 4.74 4.77 0.03 1.20 1.23 53.5 5,225 5,279 5.76 0.26 1.64 5,503 %
Reduced
2% 30% 2% 12% 72% — 2% 74% — 6% — 18% 18% 2% 1% — 18%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.79 2.91 20.6 0.05 0.11 4.58 4.69 0.10 1.16 1.26 53.5 6,433 6,487 5.83 0.25 6.47 6,714 Mit. 2.74 1.98 20.2 0.05 0.03 4.58 4.61 0.03 1.16 1.19 53.5 5,251 5,304 5.73 0.25 6.47 5,528 %
Reduced
2% 32% 2% 11% 72% — 2% 73% — 6% — 18% 18% 2% 1% — 18%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.51 0.53 3.75 0.01 0.02 0.84 0.86 0.02 0.21 0.23 8.85 1,065 1,074 0.97 0.04 1.07 1,111 Mit. 0.50 0.36 3.68 0.01 0.01 0.84 0.84 0.01 0.21 0.22 8.85 869 878 0.95 0.04 1.07 915 %
Reduced
2% 32% 2% 11% 72% — 2% 73% — 6% — 18% 18% 2% 1% — 18%

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
13 / 57
Mobile 2.53 1.86 21.8 0.05 0.03 4.74 4.77 0.03 1.20 1.23 — 5,200 5,200 0.27 0.22 12.2 5,283 Area 0.79 0.05 5.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 46.4 46.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 46.8 Energy 0.05 0.93 0.40 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,681 1,681 0.19 0.01 — 1,689 Water — — — — — — — — — — 7.38 38.9 46.3 0.76 0.02 — 71.0 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 46.1 0.00 46.1 4.61 0.00 — 161 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.33 1.33
Total 3.37 2.84 27.6 0.06 0.11 4.74 4.85 0.10 1.20 1.30 53.5 6,966 7,020 5.83 0.25 13.5 7,253 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.19 2.15 17.6 0.05 0.03 4.74 4.77 0.03 1.20 1.23 — 4,656 4,656 0.30 0.23 0.32 4,734 Area 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 32.0 32.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 32.3 Energy 0.05 0.93 0.40 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,681 1,681 0.19 0.01 — 1,689 Water — — — — — — — — — — 7.38 38.9 46.3 0.76 0.02 — 71.0 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 46.1 0.00 46.1 4.61 0.00 — 161 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.33 1.33
Total 2.56 3.09 18.0 0.05 0.10 4.74 4.85 0.10 1.20 1.30 53.5 6,408 6,461 5.86 0.27 1.64 6,689 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.19 1.96 17.5 0.05 0.03 4.58 4.61 0.03 1.16 1.18 — 4,699 4,699 0.28 0.22 5.14 4,776 Area 0.55 0.02 2.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 14.3 14.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.4 Energy 0.05 0.93 0.40 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,681 1,681 0.19 0.01 — 1,689 Water — — — — — — — — — — 7.38 38.9 46.3 0.76 0.02 — 71.0 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 46.1 0.00 46.1 4.61 0.00 — 161 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.33 1.33
Total 2.79 2.91 20.6 0.05 0.11 4.58 4.69 0.10 1.16 1.26 53.5 6,433 6,487 5.83 0.25 6.47 6,714 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.40 0.36 3.19 0.01 0.01 0.84 0.84 < 0.005 0.21 0.22 — 778 778 0.05 0.04 0.85 791 Area 0.10 < 0.005 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 2.37 2.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
14 / 57
Energy 0.01 0.17 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 278 278 0.03 < 0.005 — 280 Water — — — — — — — — — — 1.22 6.45 7.67 0.13 < 0.005 — 11.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 7.63 0.00 7.63 0.76 0.00 — 26.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.22 0.22
Total 0.51 0.53 3.75 0.01 0.02 0.84 0.86 0.02 0.21 0.23 8.85 1,065 1,074 0.97 0.04 1.07 1,111

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 2.53 1.86 21.8 0.05 0.03 4.74 4.77 0.03 1.20 1.23 — 5,200 5,200 0.27 0.22 12.2 5,283 Area 0.79 0.05 5.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 46.4 46.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 46.8 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 498 498 0.08 0.01 — 503 Water — — — — — — — — — — 7.38 38.9 46.3 0.76 0.02 — 71.0 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 46.1 0.00 46.1 4.61 0.00 — 161 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.33 1.33
Total 3.31 1.91 27.2 0.05 0.03 4.74 4.77 0.03 1.20 1.23 53.5 5,784 5,837 5.73 0.25 13.5 6,067 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.19 2.15 17.6 0.05 0.03 4.74 4.77 0.03 1.20 1.23 — 4,656 4,656 0.30 0.23 0.32 4,734 Area 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 32.0 32.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 32.3 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 498 498 0.08 0.01 — 503 Water — — — — — — — — — — 7.38 38.9 46.3 0.76 0.02 — 71.0 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 46.1 0.00 46.1 4.61 0.00 — 161 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.33 1.33
Total 2.51 2.15 17.6 0.05 0.03 4.74 4.77 0.03 1.20 1.23 53.5 5,225 5,279 5.76 0.26 1.64 5,503 Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
15 / 57
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.19 1.96 17.5 0.05 0.03 4.58 4.61 0.03 1.16 1.18 — 4,699 4,699 0.28 0.22 5.14 4,776 Area 0.55 0.02 2.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 14.3 14.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.4 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 498 498 0.08 0.01 — 503 Water — — — — — — — — — — 7.38 38.9 46.3 0.76 0.02 — 71.0 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 46.1 0.00 46.1 4.61 0.00 — 161 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.33 1.33
Total 2.74 1.98 20.2 0.05 0.03 4.58 4.61 0.03 1.16 1.19 53.5 5,251 5,304 5.73 0.25 6.47 5,528 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.40 0.36 3.19 0.01 0.01 0.84 0.84 < 0.005 0.21 0.22 — 778 778 0.05 0.04 0.85 791 Area 0.10 < 0.005 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 2.37 2.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 82.5 82.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 83.3 Water — — — — — — — — — — 1.22 6.45 7.67 0.13 < 0.005 — 11.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 7.63 0.00 7.63 0.76 0.00 — 26.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.22 0.22
Total 0.50 0.36 3.68 0.01 0.01 0.84 0.84 0.01 0.21 0.22 8.85 869 878 0.95 0.04 1.07 915

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Building Construction (2028) - 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

0.99 8.92 12.9 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
16 / 57
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

0.99 8.92 12.9 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 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

0.50 4.50 6.52 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 1,209 1,209 0.05 0.01 — 1,213 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

0.09 0.82 1.19 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 200 200 0.01 < 0.005 — 201 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 0.08 0.06 1.19 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 254 254 < 0.005 0.01 0.70 257 Vendor 0.01 0.34 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 311 311 < 0.005 0.05 0.68 326 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 0.06 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 223 223 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 226 Vendor 0.01 0.36 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 311 311 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 325 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 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
17 / 57
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 117 117 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 118 Vendor < 0.005 0.18 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 157 157 < 0.005 0.02 0.15 164 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 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 19.3 19.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 19.6 Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.0 26.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 27.2 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. Building Construction (2028) - 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

0.99 8.92 12.9 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 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

0.99 8.92 12.9 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
18 / 57
Off-Road 0.50 4.50 6.52 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 1,209 1,209 0.05 0.01 — 1,213 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.82 1.19 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 200 200 0.01 < 0.005 — 201 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 0.08 0.06 1.19 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 254 254 < 0.005 0.01 0.70 257 Vendor 0.01 0.34 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 311 311 < 0.005 0.05 0.68 326 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 0.06 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 223 223 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 226 Vendor 0.01 0.36 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 311 311 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 325 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 0.03 0.03 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 117 117 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 118 Vendor < 0.005 0.18 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 157 157 < 0.005 0.02 0.15 164 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 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 19.3 19.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 19.6 Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.0 26.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 27.2 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 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
19 / 57

3.3. Paving (2028) - 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

0.69 6.63 9.91 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 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

0.02 0.24 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 53.8 53.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 54.0 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
< 0.005 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.91 8.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.94 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
20 / 57
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 223 223 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 226 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 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.24 8.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.34 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — 1.36 1.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.38 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. Paving (2028) - 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

0.69 6.63 9.91 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
21 / 57
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.24 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 53.8 53.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 54.0 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
< 0.005 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.91 8.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.94 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 0.06 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 223 223 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 226 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 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.24 8.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.34 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — 1.36 1.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.38 Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
22 / 57
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. Architectural Coating (2028) - 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 0.81 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

89.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.44 4.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.46 Architectu
ral
Coatings

2.97 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
23 / 57
Architectu
Coatings

0.54 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.06 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 223 223 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 226 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 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.69 7.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.79 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 — 1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.29 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

3.6. Architectural Coating (2028) - 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 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
24 / 57
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.81 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

89.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.44 4.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.46 Architectu
ral
Coatings

2.97 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.54 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
25 / 57
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 223 223 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 226 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 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.69 7.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.79 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 — 1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.29 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Architectural Coating (2029) - 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

0.10 0.79 1.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

89.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
26 / 57
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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.52 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.52 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 219 219 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 221 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.89 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.90 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 Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
27 / 57
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 — 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 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

3.8. Architectural Coating (2029) - 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

0.10 0.79 1.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

89.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.52 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.52 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
28 / 57
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 219 219 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 221 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.89 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.90 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
29 / 57

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

2.53 1.86 21.8 0.05 0.03 4.74 4.77 0.03 1.20 1.23 — 5,200 5,200 0.27 0.22 12.2 5,283 Total 2.53 1.86 21.8 0.05 0.03 4.74 4.77 0.03 1.20 1.23 — 5,200 5,200 0.27 0.22 12.2 5,283 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

2.19 2.15 17.6 0.05 0.03 4.74 4.77 0.03 1.20 1.23 — 4,656 4,656 0.30 0.23 0.32 4,734 Total 2.19 2.15 17.6 0.05 0.03 4.74 4.77 0.03 1.20 1.23 — 4,656 4,656 0.30 0.23 0.32 4,734 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.40 0.36 3.19 0.01 0.01 0.84 0.84 < 0.005 0.21 0.22 — 778 778 0.05 0.04 0.85 791 Total 0.40 0.36 3.19 0.01 0.01 0.84 0.84 < 0.005 0.21 0.22 — 778 778 0.05 0.04 0.85 791

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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
30 / 57
Single
Family
Housing

2.53 1.86 21.8 0.05 0.03 4.74 4.77 0.03 1.20 1.23 — 5,200 5,200 0.27 0.22 12.2 5,283 Total 2.53 1.86 21.8 0.05 0.03 4.74 4.77 0.03 1.20 1.23 — 5,200 5,200 0.27 0.22 12.2 5,283 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

2.19 2.15 17.6 0.05 0.03 4.74 4.77 0.03 1.20 1.23 — 4,656 4,656 0.30 0.23 0.32 4,734 Total 2.19 2.15 17.6 0.05 0.03 4.74 4.77 0.03 1.20 1.23 — 4,656 4,656 0.30 0.23 0.32 4,734 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.40 0.36 3.19 0.01 0.01 0.84 0.84 < 0.005 0.21 0.22 — 778 778 0.05 0.04 0.85 791 Total 0.40 0.36 3.19 0.01 0.01 0.84 0.84 < 0.005 0.21 0.22 — 778 778 0.05 0.04 0.85 791

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
— — — — — — — — — — — 496 496 0.08 0.01 — 501
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 496 496 0.08 0.01 — 501
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
31 / 57
Single — — — — — — — — — — — 496 496 0.08 0.01 — 501
Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 496 496 0.08 0.01 — 501
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 82.2 82.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 83.0
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 82.2 82.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 83.0

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
— — — — — — — — — — — 498 498 0.08 0.01 — 503
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 498 498 0.08 0.01 — 503
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 498 498 0.08 0.01 — 503
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 498 498 0.08 0.01 — 503
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 82.5 82.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 83.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 82.5 82.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 83.3 Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
32 / 57

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

0.05 0.93 0.40 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,185 1,185 0.10 < 0.005 — 1,188 Total 0.05 0.93 0.40 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,185 1,185 0.10 < 0.005 — 1,188 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.05 0.93 0.40 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,185 1,185 0.10 < 0.005 — 1,188 Total 0.05 0.93 0.40 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,185 1,185 0.10 < 0.005 — 1,188 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.01 0.17 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 196 196 0.02 < 0.005 — 197 Total 0.01 0.17 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 196 196 0.02 < 0.005 — 197

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 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 Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
33 / 57
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 32.0 32.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 32.3 Consume
r
Products
< 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.47 0.05 5.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.4 14.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.5 Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
34 / 57
Total 0.79 0.05 5.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 46.4 46.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 46.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 32.0 32.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 32.3 Consume
r
Products
< 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 32.0 32.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 32.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 1.19 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.20 Consume
r
Products
< 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.04 < 0.005 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.18 1.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.18 Total 0.10 < 0.005 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 2.37 2.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38

4.3.2. Mitigated
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 32.0 32.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 32.3 Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
35 / 57
Consume
Products
< 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.47 0.05 5.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.4 14.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.5 Total 0.79 0.05 5.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 46.4 46.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 46.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 32.0 32.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 32.3 Consume
r
Products
< 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 32.0 32.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 32.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 1.19 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.20 Consume
r
Products
< 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.04 < 0.005 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.18 1.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.18 Total 0.10 < 0.005 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 2.37 2.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
36 / 57

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
— — — — — — — — — — 7.38 38.9 46.3 0.76 0.02 — 71.0
Total — — — — — — — — — — 7.38 38.9 46.3 0.76 0.02 — 71.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 7.38 38.9 46.3 0.76 0.02 — 71.0
Total — — — — — — — — — — 7.38 38.9 46.3 0.76 0.02 — 71.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.22 6.45 7.67 0.13 < 0.005 — 11.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.22 6.45 7.67 0.13 < 0.005 — 11.8

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
37 / 57
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 7.38 38.9 46.3 0.76 0.02 — 71.0
Total — — — — — — — — — — 7.38 38.9 46.3 0.76 0.02 — 71.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 7.38 38.9 46.3 0.76 0.02 — 71.0
Total — — — — — — — — — — 7.38 38.9 46.3 0.76 0.02 — 71.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.22 6.45 7.67 0.13 < 0.005 — 11.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.22 6.45 7.67 0.13 < 0.005 — 11.8

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 46.1 0.00 46.1 4.61 0.00 — 161
Total — — — — — — — — — — 46.1 0.00 46.1 4.61 0.00 — 161 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
38 / 57
Single — — — — — — — — — — 46.1 0.00 46.1 4.61 0.00 — 161 Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — 46.1 0.00 46.1 4.61 0.00 — 161 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 7.63 0.00 7.63 0.76 0.00 — 26.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — 7.63 0.00 7.63 0.76 0.00 — 26.7

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
— — — — — — — — — — 46.1 0.00 46.1 4.61 0.00 — 161
Total — — — — — — — — — — 46.1 0.00 46.1 4.61 0.00 — 161 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 46.1 0.00 46.1 4.61 0.00 — 161
Total — — — — — — — — — — 46.1 0.00 46.1 4.61 0.00 — 161 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 7.63 0.00 7.63 0.76 0.00 — 26.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — 7.63 0.00 7.63 0.76 0.00 — 26.7 Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
39 / 57

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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.33 1.33
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.33 1.33
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.33 1.33
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.33 1.33
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.22 0.22
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.22 0.22

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
40 / 57
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.33 1.33
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.33 1.33
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.33 1.33
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.33 1.33
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.22 0.22
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.22 0.22

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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
41 / 57
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) 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
42 / 57
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

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
43 / 57
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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 Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
44 / 57
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
45 / 57
Avoided—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Sequeste
red
—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Removed—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Avoided—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Sequeste
red
—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Removed—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
——————————————————
Annual—————————————————
Avoided—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Sequeste
red
—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Removed—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
——————————————————
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
46 / 57

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
47 / 57
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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
48 / 57
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 Building Construction Building Construction 3/16/2028 11/28/2028 5.00 184 — Paving Paving 11/29/2028 12/15/2028 5.00 13.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/15/2028 1/2/2029 5.00 13.0 —

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 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 Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
49 / 57

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 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

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 20.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 10.2 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
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
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
50 / 57
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

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 20.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 10.2 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
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

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
51 / 57
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 375,131 125,044 0.00 0.00 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 1.05 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2028 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2029 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
52 / 57

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
897 906 812 323,419 6,698 6,769 6,066 2,415,503

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
897 906 812 323,419 6,698 6,769 6,066 2,415,503

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 48
No Fireplaces 48

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
53 / 57
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 48
No Fireplaces 48

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
375131.25 125,044 0.00 0.00 —

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

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 887,925 204 0.0330 0.0040 3,696,670 Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
54 / 57

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 891,905 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 3,852,046 22,529,034

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 3,852,046 22,529,034

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 85.5 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 85.5 —
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
55 / 57

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
56 / 57

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Tract 7471 - Phase 3 Custom Report, 4/19/2024
57 / 57
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Special landscaping represents non-buildable landscape lots. Lot acreage provided by Applicant.

Construction: Construction Phases Construction timeline provided by Applicant. Grading will occur for all phases during Phase 1.

Construction: Trips and VMT Client proposed number of contractors.

Operations: Fleet Mix District accepted fleet mix for residential projects - 2029 operational year.

Operations: Hearths No wood stoves or natural gas fireplaces in any of the residences.

Operations: Consumer Products Derived from CalEEMod Appendix E3: Consumer Products Use 2003 Survey Residential Data Grouping
Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants C-1
APPENDIX C. CARB 2020 AND 2025 ESTIMATED EMISSION

INVENTORIES
CEPAM2019v1.03 Emission Projection Data
2020 Estimated Annual Average Emissions

KERN COUNTY
All emissions are represented in Tons per Day and reflect the most current data provided to ARB.

See detailed information.

Start a new query.

KERN COUNTY COUNTY - MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN
STATIONARY SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3 FUEL COMBUSTION 2.8 0.3 1.8 2.6 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.0
WASTE DISPOSAL 9.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGS 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND

MARKETING

0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 0.2 0.2 11.3 15.9 1.4 4.8 2.1 0.4 0.0 * TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES 13.8 1.6 13.2 18.5 1.7 5.3 2.5 0.8 0.1 AREAWIDE SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3
SOLVENT EVAPORATION 1.7 1.4 - - - - - - 1.3
MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES 1.8 0.4 2.5 0.2 0.0 15.2 7.4 1.4 0.5 * TOTAL AREAWIDE SOURCES 3.5 1.8 2.5 0.2 0.0 15.2 7.4 1.4 1.8 MOBILE SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3
ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES 1.1 1.0 7.2 3.8 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 5.7 5.5 28.1 5.2 0.3 3.0 2.9 2.9 0.0 * TOTAL MOBILE SOURCES 6.8 6.5 35.2 9.0 0.3 3.3 3.2 3.0 0.3 TOTAL KERN COUNTY IN MOJAVE DESERT 24.1 9.9 50.9 27.8 2.0 23.8 13.2 5.3 2.2

KERN COUNTY COUNTY - SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
STATIONARY SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3 FUEL COMBUSTION 9.2 1.7 7.8 6.6 0.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 0.7
WASTE DISPOSAL 199.5 11.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.8
CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGS 2.8 2.5 - - - 0.1 0.1 0.1 -

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND

MARKETING

44.3 10.9 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 -
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 1.9 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.3 1.0 0.3 0.0 * TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES 257.8 28.8 8.7 6.9 1.3 5.4 4.0 3.3 6.6 AREAWIDE SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3
SOLVENT EVAPORATION 12.9 11.4 - - - - - - 27.1
MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES 62.1 10.6 15.5 1.9 0.1 66.6 33.7 6.8 16.5 * TOTAL AREAWIDE SOURCES 75.0 21.9 15.5 1.9 0.1 66.6 33.7 6.8 43.6 MOBILE SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3
ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES 5.1 4.5 32.8 21.9 0.1 1.7 1.7 0.8 1.4 OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 7.7 7.0 50.6 14.1 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.0 * TOTAL MOBILE SOURCES 12.7 11.6 83.4 35.9 0.2 2.5 2.4 1.5 1.4

TOTAL KERN COUNTY IN SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY
345.5 62.3 107.6 44.7 1.5 74.4 40.1 11.7 51.5
GRAND TOTAL FOR KERN COUNTY 369.6 72.2 158.5 72.5 3.5 98.2 53.3 16.9 53.7 About Our Work Resources Services Rulemaking News Equity CEPAM2019v1.03 Emission Projection Data
2025 Estimated Annual Average Emissions

KERN COUNTY
All emissions are represented in Tons per Day and reflect the most current data provided to ARB.

See detailed information.

Start a new query.

KERN COUNTY COUNTY - MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN
STATIONARY SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3 FUEL COMBUSTION 2.9 0.3 1.9 2.6 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.0
WASTE DISPOSAL 10.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGS 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND

MARKETING

0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 0.2 0.2 11.8 16.6 1.5 5.0 2.2 0.4 0.0 * TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES 14.5 1.7 13.7 19.2 1.7 5.5 2.6 0.9 0.1 AREAWIDE SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3
SOLVENT EVAPORATION 1.7 1.4 - - - - - - 1.3
MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES 1.7 0.4 2.5 0.2 0.0 15.2 7.4 1.4 0.5 * TOTAL AREAWIDE SOURCES 3.4 1.8 2.5 0.2 0.0 15.2 7.4 1.4 1.8 MOBILE SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3
ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES 0.8 0.7 5.3 2.8 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 5.6 5.4 28.9 5.2 0.3 3.0 2.9 2.9 0.0 * TOTAL MOBILE SOURCES 6.3 6.1 34.2 8.0 0.3 3.3 3.2 3.0 0.3 TOTAL KERN COUNTY IN MOJAVE DESERT 24.2 9.6 50.4 27.4 2.1 24.0 13.2 5.2 2.2

KERN COUNTY COUNTY - SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
STATIONARY SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3 FUEL COMBUSTION 8.6 1.6 7.3 5.7 0.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 0.7
WASTE DISPOSAL 210.0 12.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.0
CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGS 3.0 2.7 - - - 0.1 0.1 0.1 -

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND

MARKETING

41.5 9.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 -
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 2.0 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.4 1.0 0.3 0.0 * TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES 265.2 28.0 8.1 5.9 1.2 5.2 3.8 3.1 6.7 AREAWIDE SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3
SOLVENT EVAPORATION 12.8 11.2 - - - - - - 26.3
MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES 61.4 10.5 15.2 1.8 0.1 64.3 32.6 6.7 16.4 * TOTAL AREAWIDE SOURCES 74.2 21.7 15.2 1.8 0.1 64.3 32.6 6.7 42.7 MOBILE SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3
ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES 3.7 3.4 25.9 15.0 0.1 1.6 1.6 0.7 1.8 OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 6.7 6.2 53.4 11.7 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.0 * TOTAL MOBILE SOURCES 10.4 9.5 79.3 26.7 0.2 2.2 2.2 1.2 1.8

TOTAL KERN COUNTY IN SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY
349.8 59.3 102.6 34.4 1.4 71.8 38.6 11.0 51.3
GRAND TOTAL FOR KERN COUNTY 374.0 68.9 153.0 61.8 3.5 95.8 51.8 16.3 53.4 About Our Work Resources Services Rulemaking News Equity

CONTACT US
(800) 242-4450 | [email protected]
1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812
California Governor
Gavin Newsom
Visit Governor's Website
CEPAM2019v1.03 Emission Projection Data
2020 Estimated Annual Average Emissions

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
All emissions are represented in Tons per Day and reflect the most current data provided to ARB.

See detailed information.

Start a new query.

STATIONARY SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3 FUEL COMBUSTION 14.2 3.2 19.5 17.6 1.6 4.5 4.4 4.4 1.1
WASTE DISPOSAL 492.8 23.8 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.2 12.0
CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGS 27.1 24.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND

MARKETING
109.8 15.6 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 16.5 16.1 0.8 3.7 2.8 15.4 6.9 2.5 0.1 * TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES 660.3 83.2 21.6 21.9 5.0 21.2 12.1 7.5 13.2 AREAWIDE SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3
SOLVENT EVAPORATION 66.0 57.8 - - - - - - 113.8
MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES 742.7 109.8 166.1 11.9 0.6 482.1 246.9 51.9 176.8 * TOTAL AREAWIDE SOURCES 808.8 167.5 166.1 11.9 0.6 482.1 246.9 51.9 290.6 MOBILE SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3
ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES 25.9 23.5 170.6 84.2 0.5 7.7 7.5 3.6 6.0 OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 44.4 40.7 303.7 79.3 0.3 6.0 5.8 5.3 0.1 * TOTAL MOBILE SOURCES 70.3 64.1 474.3 163.5 0.9 13.7 13.4 9.0 6.1

GRAND TOTAL FOR SAN JOAQUIN

VALLEY AIR BASIN
1539.4 314.9 662.0 197.3 6.4 517.0 272.3 68.4 309.9
Start a new query.

ACCESSIBILITY

PRIVACY POLICY

CONDITIONS OF USE

LOCAL AIR DISTRICTS

REGISTER TO VOTE
About Our Work Resources Services Rulemaking News Equity

CONTACT US
(800) 242-4450 | [email protected]
1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812
California Governor
Gavin Newsom
Visit Governor's Website
CEPAM2019v1.03 Emission Projection Data
2025 Estimated Annual Average Emissions

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
All emissions are represented in Tons per Day and reflect the most current data provided to ARB.

See detailed information.

Start a new query.

STATIONARY SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3 FUEL COMBUSTION 13.5 2.9 19.0 15.6 1.5 4.1 4.1 4.1 1.1
WASTE DISPOSAL 514.9 24.5 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 12.4
CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGS 28.8 26.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND

MARKETING
106.1 13.6 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 17.4 16.9 0.8 3.9 2.9 16.2 7.2 2.6 0.1 * TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES 680.7 84.1 21.1 19.9 4.9 21.5 12.0 7.2 13.6 AREAWIDE SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3
SOLVENT EVAPORATION 65.9 57.6 - - - - - - 111.7
MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES 740.8 109.5 164.9 11.4 0.6 478.0 244.8 51.7 176.0 * TOTAL AREAWIDE SOURCES 806.7 167.1 164.9 11.4 0.6 478.0 244.8 51.7 287.7 MOBILE SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 PM2.5 NH3
ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES 18.3 16.8 125.9 55.0 0.5 7.3 7.2 3.1 7.3 OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 39.3 36.1 317.3 65.3 0.3 5.0 4.9 4.5 0.1 * TOTAL MOBILE SOURCES 57.7 52.9 443.2 120.3 0.8 12.4 12.1 7.6 7.4

GRAND TOTAL FOR SAN JOAQUIN

VALLEY AIR BASIN
1545.0 304.1 629.2 151.6 6.4 511.9 268.8 66.5 308.7
Start a new query.

ACCESSIBILITY

PRIVACY POLICY

CONDITIONS OF USE

LOCAL AIR DISTRICTS

REGISTER TO VOTE
About Our Work Resources Services Rulemaking News Equity Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 Residential Development / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants D-1
APPENDIX D. HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT MODELING FILES
(Electronic Files)
JE:CC/S:\\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\VTTM7471_Staff Report

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 1, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: 6.a.

TO: Chair Cater and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J.Eng
DATE: April 25, 2025
FILE: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased)
WARD: 3
STAFF PLANNER: Courtney Camps, Principal Planner
REQUEST: A proposed vesting tentative tract map to subdivide 83.97 acres into 363 single-family residential lots, 5 landscape lots, 5 private landscape lots, 1 retention basin, 1 private retention basin and 1 private park in the R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling)zone, including a request for alternate lot and street design, and to waive mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 A.1. (Ward 3) APPLICANT: OWNER:

San Joaquin Engineering, Inc. LGI Homes – California, LLC 200 New Stine Road, Suite 175 2251 Douglas Blvd., Suite 110 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Roseville, CA 95661
LOCATION: Southwest corner of Morning Drive and Paladino Drive.

APN: 437-010-43
PROJECT SIZE: 83.97 acres CEQA: Section 15162 (MND)
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LR (Low-Density Residential) EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution and suggested findings APPROVING Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased) with conditions.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:

The project site is vacant land. Surrounding properties are primarily developed as: north – vacant land; east – vacant land; south - single-family residential; and west - vacant.

Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 / 24-60000097
BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:
• August 24, 1977 – This site was annexed into the City as part of a larger annexation (Annexation 240, Rio Bravo Annexation) (Ordinance No. 2370).
• October 8, 2003 – City Council approved the original Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6191; the Council upheld the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the subdivision on an appeal by the Sierra Club. The original VTTM 6191 contained 173 lots for single-family residential development (Resolution No. 121-03).
• October 20, 2005 – Original approval of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6191 by your Commission to create 281 single-family residential lots, 5 landscape lots, and a retention basin. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was also adopted for RVTTM 6191 (Resolution No. 156-05). • 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2015 – In response to the economic downturn and recession, the California State Legislature approved a series of automatic extensions for certain approved tentative subdivision maps. Consequently, these state extensions, along with the Subdivision Map Act and the Bakersfield Municipal Code, permit your Commission to approve additional extensions totaling up to six years. However, RVTTM 6191 has already exhausted all the extensions allowed.
• October 19, 2023 – Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6191 expired. • October 10, 2024 – The application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 was deemed complete.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:

The applicant is requesting a vesting tentative tract to subdivide 83.97 acres into 363 single-family residential lots, 5 landscape lots, 5 private landscape lots, 1 retention basin, 1 private retention basin and 1 private park. The residential lots range in size from 4,836 square feet (s.f.) to 15,552 s.f., and the typical lot size is approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep (5,000 square feet). The net density is 4.32 units per net acre which is consistent with the LR designation of the project site of less than or equal to 7.26 dwelling units per net acre.

The project proposes utilizing previous actions taken prior to the expiration of VTTM 6191. Before VTTM 6191 expired, the subdivider prepared the property by rough grading and preparation of improvement plans. The developer encountered delays stemming from issues concerning the Mojave Pipeline.

Additionally, complications related to the design of the landscaped paseo necessitated attention to uphold the project's aesthetic and functional objectives. In light of the expiration of VTTM 6191 and these related challenges, the subdivider has introduced design modifications under VTTM 7471 to effectively address outstanding issues and facilitate the continued advancement of the project.

Consistency/Deviation from Design Standards. The applicant has requested seven (7) deviations from City standards as listed below in Table A. Except as may otherwise be described in this staff report, the proposed project, subject to the conditions of approval, complies with the ordinances and policies of the City of Bakersfield.

Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 / 24-60000097
Table A. Deviation Requests

REQUEST
APPLICANT’S

REASON/JUSTIFICATION

STAFF COMMENT/

RECOMMENDATION
1) Double frontage lots
along Morning Drive and
Paladino Drive for Phase 1
Lots 1-20, 106-114, Phase
2 Lots 1-7, 150-154, Phase
3 Lots 1, 33-40.

Common lot and street
layouts throughout the
City utilize this lot and
street layout.

Controlling factors such as traffic, safety,
appearance, setback - APPROVE
2) Reverse corner lots for
Phase 2 Lots 91, 94, 114,
140, 144 & 148, Phase 3
Lots 18, 226, 29.

Unique shape and
dimensions of property
limit ability to adhere
strictly to City standard.

Due to configuration of the lots and to allow
for best usage of the property with uniform
lot size - APPROVE
3) Non-radial lot lines
along lots fronting cul-desacs and knuckles. Double
check at final map.

Unique shape and
dimensions of property
limit ability to adhere
strictly to City standard.

Due to physical constraints, and to allow for
uniformity in lot widths and common rear
property areas - APPROVE
4) Block length to exceed
1,000 feet on Enchanted
Drive and Beauty Avenue.

Development of the
subdivision is restricted
by the existing tract
boundary and future
road alignments.

Proposed block length is 2,250 feet. This has
been reviewed by Public Works and the Fire
Department with no objection - APPROVE
5) Maximum landscape
wall height to exceed 9
feet. Phase 2 Morning
Drive wall station Max
height 10.3’, about 115’
distance. Phase 3 Morning
Drive wall station Max
height 9.5’, about 50’
distance.

Development of the
subdivision is restricted
by the existing tract
boundary and future
road alignments.

This has been reviewed by Public Works and
Parks and Recreation with no objection -

APPROVE
6) Use of Storm Drain
easements. Phase 1 Lot D,
Phase 2 Lot F & G, Phase 3
Lot B.

Development requires
the use of storm drain
easements along the
sides of residential lots.

Because of the Mojave
Pipeline, the tract will
have 2 separate
retention basins. Due to
the inclusion of the
paseo and the need for
a second basin, a storm
This has been reviewed by the Public Works
Department with no objection - APPROVE
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 / 24-60000097
drain easement will
need to be included.
7) Allow 300’ centerline
radius on Thorner Street,
Happy Court and Elated
Court.

Some phases being
subdivided have shapes
due to the Mojave
Pipeline and alignment
of the boundary, thus
limiting the ability to
strictly adhere to City
standard.

Reduction will not negatively impact public
safety - APPROVE
Circulation. Access to this subdivision would be from Paladino Drive (arterial street) on the subdivision's north boundary and from Morning Drive (arterial street) to the east. Along the southern boundary Thorner Street (local street) is proposed to be extended through this subdivision to provide circulation within the neighborhood.

Park Land In-Lieu Fees/Dedication. The City of Bakersfield Recreation and Parks Department provides park and recreational services to the project site. The nearest existing City park is either University Park to the west or City Hills Park to the east. Staff recommends payment of in-lieu fees to satisfy the park land requirement of Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 15.80 (Condition No. 17).

Mineral Rights. The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission approve waiver of mineral rights signatures on the final map pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 A.1 as the party’s right of surface entry has been waived by recorded document prior to recordation of any final map. Staff has received evidence of surface waiver; therefore, the final map shall have a statement indicating the mineral owner’s name and nature of his or her interest. Nonetheless, should ownership change, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring that prior to recordation of the first final map, the subdivider shall provide evidence verifying surface waiver from mineral interests otherwise the subdivider must return for a public hearing for a revised tentative map before the Planning Commission in accordance with BMC Section

16.20.060. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve waiver of these signatures on the final map, subject to the condition (Condition No. 25).

The applicant submitted a letter indicating that the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM) has identified several wells located both within and near the parcel boundary of the project site. These wells may impede future access to the area. If a well is uncovered during development, the subdivider must consult with CalGEM to ensure proper abandonment of the well, in accordance with the municipal code (Conditions 26-28).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:

Based upon an initial study, Staff determined the proposed project, with mitigation, would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The MND was circulated for public and agency review from November 21, 2024 to December 23, 2024. The following special studies were submitted: Biological resources, cultural resources and air quality analysis.

Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 / 24-60000097
Comments Received. Three letters related to the proposed MND were received by staff. Respectively from Mr. Jeremy Bowman, neighboring property owner, The Sierra Club and The Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Mr. Jeremy Bowman (Letter dated December 23, 2024). Mr. Bowman raised the following concerns:

1. Aesthetics: Obstruction of scenic views and visual environment.

2. Overall character impacts: Reduced lot sizes lead to higher density.

Responses to Mr. Bowman’s Concerns:

1. Aesthetics: Views in this neighborhood are not classified as protected viewsheds. The builder of T5929 may have marketed the lots as “view lots” but the City does not enforce the view lot claims made by the builder.

2. Overall character impacts: The lot sizes comply with the current zoning ordinance for R-1 (SingleUnit Dwelling), which requires a minimum square footage of 4,500 square feet.

Sierra Club (Letter dated December 30, 2024). The Sierra Club submitted comments requesting:

1. The City should mandate that the developer achieve zero project emissions by entering into a Developer Mitigation Contract with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this project is deficient, as it has failed to compute or address the cumulative emissions from this and other proposed projects.

3. The City must require the project to adopt an adequate number of effective air pollution reduction measures to mitigate cumulative impacts.

4. A comprehensive biological survey and consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) should be obligatory prior to project approval.

5. Mitigation strategies for habitat loss and potential species take should include the acquisition of an Incidental Take Permit and the procurement of replacement habitat.

6. The City must present a thorough analysis of the project's cumulative impact report.

Please refer to the attached memo for comments and responses.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Letter dated December 23, 2024). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife provided comments concerning the project. They noted that the project lies within the geographical range of several special-status animal species. While various mitigation measures are proposed to minimize impacts to a less-than-significant level, CDFW has expressed concerns regarding the effectiveness of some of these measures. Specifically, they are worried about the potential for unauthorized take of several special-status species, including:

1. The state-endangered, fully protected, and federally endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizard.

2. The state-threatened and federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox.

3. The state candidate western burrowing owl.

4. Crotch’s bumblebee.

5. The state species of special concern, the American badger.

The department emphasizes the importance of ensuring that impacts on these species are adequately addressed.

Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 / 24-60000097
Please refer to the attached memo for comments and responses.

Environmental Conclusion. The State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed in the evaluation of the environmental effects of this project. With mitigation, environmental impacts for the proposed project have been reduced to less than significant.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in The Bakersfield Californian and posted on the bulletin board in the City of Bakersfield Development Services Building, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California. All property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified by United States Postal Service mail regarding this public hearing in accordance with city ordinance and state law. Signs are required as part of the public notification process and must be posted between 20 to 60 days before the public hearing date. Photographs of the posted signage and the Declaration of Posting Public Hearing Notice signed by the applicant are on file at the Planning Division.

Comments Received. As of this writing, no further written public comments have been received.

CONCLUSIONS:

Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan, which provides for accommodations of new development which channels land uses in a phased, orderly manner and is coordinated with the provision of infrastructure and public improvements (Goal No. 4); and encourages continuity of existing development and allows incremental expansion of infrastructure (Policy No. 79). Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and any future development onsite will also be required to comply with all applicable regulations and design standards as identified in the Zoning Ordinance.

Recommendation. Staff finds that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal is compatible with the existing land use designation and land uses in the surrounding area. Staff finds the proposed subdivision is reasonable and the request to waive mineral rights is consistent with BMC Section 16.20.060 A.1. Based on information in the record, Staff recommends your Commission adopt the Resolution and findings APPROVING Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 as outlined in this staff report subject to the recommended conditions.

ATTACHMENTS:

Map Set
• Aerial
• Zone Classification
• General Plan Designation
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased)
Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments
Correspondence
Planning Commission Draft Resolution

MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 25, 2025
TO: Chair Cater and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J.Eng
SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased) – Initial Study Comments and Responses An Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were circulated for public and agency review from November 21, 2024, to December 23, 2024. Throughout this circulation period, comments were received from a neighboring property owner, A. Mr. Jeremy Bowman, as well as from B. The Sierra Club and C. The Department of Fish and Wildlife. This memorandum serves to summarize those comments, accompanied by the relevant letters and responses for your examination.

A. Mr. Bowman's concerns are related to aesthetics, particularly the obstruction of scenic views and the visual environment, as well as concerns about the reduction in lot sizes, which he anticipates will result in higher density. The response from the City is that the views within this neighborhood are not within protected viewsheds. Although the builder of T5929 (where Mr. Bowman resides) may have represented the lots as view lots, the City does not enforce this designation. The proposed lot sizes conform to the zoning ordinance for R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling), which stipulates a minimum square footage of 4,500 square feet.

B. The Sierra Club concentrated on matters related to air pollution and biological resources, which have been addressed by Trinity Consultants and McCormick Biological, Inc. in the attached letters. The Sierra Club submitted the following requests:

1. The City should require that the developer achieve zero project emissions by entering into a Developer Mitigation Contract with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this project is inadequate, as it has failed to calculate or address cumulative emissions from both this and other proposed projects.

3. The City must mandate that the project adopt a sufficient number of effective air pollution reduction measures to counteract cumulative impacts.

4. A comprehensive biological survey and consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) should be obligatory prior to project approval.

5. Mitigation strategies for habitat loss and potential species take should include obtaining an Incidental Take Permit and securing replacement habitat.

6. The City must provide a detailed analysis of the project's cumulative impact report.

McCormick Biological, Inc. has addressed the Sierra Club’s comments in their letter dated February 24, 2025. In addition, staff has provided responses to the Sierra Club’s comments which are summarized below:

City Response to Comment 2: Compliance with the Migratory Bird Act regarding nesting birds, as well as federal and state endangered species acts, is obligatory for all development, irrespective of specific conditions.

City Response to Comments 3 and 4: Mitigation measures pertaining to endangered species, including the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, San Joaquin kit fox, and native plant species, have been designed to reduce impacts to levels that are less than significant, including cumulative impacts.

No Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is proposed at this time.

City Response to Comment 7: The sections Bio 8 and 9 have been updated to reflect Sierra Club’s comments, which include consultations with Fish and Wildlife.

C. The Department of Fish and Wildlife submitted comments regarding the project, indicating that it is situated within the geographical range of several special-status animal species. Although various mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels, the CDFW has expressed concerns regarding the effectiveness of some of these measures. Specific concerns include the potential for unauthorized take of several special-status species, including:

1. The state-endangered, fully protected, and federally endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizard.

2. The state-threatened and federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox.

3. The state candidate western burrowing owl.

4. Crotch’s bumblebee.

5. The state species of special concern, the American badger.

The department emphasized the necessity of adequately addressing impacts on these species. The comments were duly noted and responded to by McCormick Biological, Inc., and the mitigation measures have been revised accordingly to incorporate CDFW recommendations.

December 23, 2024
Courtney Camps, Associate Planner
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(Sent via email)
Dear Ms. Camps,
I would like to discuss the aesthetics and overall character impacts of Vesting Tentative Tract 7471 as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the comment period beginning November 21, 2024.

The declaration that this project would have no impact to the visual environment in the surrounding area is not accurate. The neighborhood immediately to the south (tract 5929) was built with “view lots” that were initially sold at a premium because of the views to the mountains to the northeast.

In fact, the original, and still standing fences of these residences are not solid to promote the scenic views from backyards. Some of the proposed Tract 74171 lots, due to their higher pad elevation (in particular Lot 17,) will obstruct the scenic views from several houses, particularly on Bald Eagle St.

The overall character of this area is rural with views of the mountains and hills; this development as currently planned/configured with high density residential will change this. The project should consider the negative impact it will have on residences that currently have unobstructed views from their backyards and mitigate the issue by adjusting the lot elevations and/or configuration accordingly. It should also be noted that high density 5,000 SF standard lot size is considerably smaller than the lot sizes of the adjacent and surrounding tracts. This further disrupts the rural and scenic nature of this area and warrants further study.

Sincerely,
Jeremy Bowman
1 P.O. Box 3357
Bakersfield, CA 93385
December 30, 2024

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
Attention: Courtney Camps
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471
Dear Planners:

The Sierra Club offers comments about the above project, a residential development proposing to subdivide 83.97 acres at the southwest corner of Paladino Drive and Morning Drive into 363 single-family residential lots, 5 landscape, 5 private landscape, 1 retention basin, 1 private retention basin, and 1 private park.

This seems to be the rebirth of an earlier proposed housing project on the same site, Tract 6191, with 281 lots. The Sierra Club has a private agreement with the developer of Tract 6191 which applies as well to this current proposal. The agreement requires the developer to address cumulative air pollution impacts, blunt-nosed leopard lizard habitat loss, and other issues.

In the details below, we present evidence that the current Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) does not adequately address the many issues associated with this proposed project and that a full-fledged EIR must be written for this project.

AIR POLLUTION
Bakersfield has arguably the worst air in the nation. See the American Lung Association report at http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-rankings/states/california/.

Specifically, according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0 | OEHHA, this project site area is in the 95th 2 percentile for ozone exposure, in the 99th percentile for PM2.5 exposure, and in the 76th percentile for asthma cases. Since our extreme air pollution affects the health of many residents, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) must thoroughly address the issue.

Juliet Thorner Elementary School is located less than 0.5 miles south of the project site. Many children have asthma. With no discussion whatsoever of the project’s criteria pollutant impacts on the school, the MND improperly concludes that “the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.” The MND is defective in not having thoroughly addressed this project’s air pollution impact on these sensitive receptors.

Without presenting evidence, the MND concludes that there is a “relatively low probability of the presence of C. immitis spores”. The project should be required to test the soil for Valley fever spores before drawing this conclusion, all the more important given the proximity to the Thorner School and given the recent increase in cases. Valley fever cases spike in California, already way up from recent years
California courts have ruled, “the greater the existing environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for treating a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts as significant.” In a region with arguably the dirtiest air in the nation and where large numbers of Kern County children have asthma, any air pollution additions must be considered significant and adequately mitigated. In the context of air quality in particular, our courts have cautioned that “The magnitude of the current air quality problems in the San Joaquin Valley cannot be used to trivialize the cumulative contributions of the shopping centers and the scope of the analysis cannot be artificially limited to a restricted portion of the air basin.” (citation omitted.) Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1219 To this end, the MND should adopt a net zero threshold for air pollution impacts.

Table 4-4 of the MND is entitled “Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions”. Are there emissions which are actually “permitted” and not accounted for in Table 4-4? Environmental documents must list all emissions, including the “permitted” ones. The earlier MND for the smaller tract 6191 housing project on the same site listed operational emissions for the smaller project at 6.09 tons/year for ROG, 5.32 tons/year for NOx and10.29 tons/year for PM, much larger values than those in the current Table 4-4. The City must account for the comparatively smaller values in Table 4-4.

The City is only requiring this project to comply with weak San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District requirements that have not over the years addressed our local pollution problem. Rather than leaving it at the discretion of the Air District, the City should place a requirement that the developer reduce project emissions to zero by entering into a Developer Mitigation Contract with the SJVAPCD. (For that matter, reducing emissions from any new project to zero should be standard policy so that our dreadful air doesn’t get dirtier. Contract emissions reductions must be in the local region.) 3 On page 24, in the section meant to address the cumulative impact of the project, the MND states, “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.” The City illogically asserts that project-specific insignificance implies cumulative insignificance, violating the very meaning of cumulative impacts.

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3), ““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.”
From page 107 and 108 of SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf):
 “If a project is significant based on the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, then it is also cumulatively significant. This does not imply that if the project is below all such significance thresholds, it cannot be cumulatively significant.” (Underline added)  “Lead Agencies should also consider the cumulative impact of multiple simultaneously proposed projects, located within the same area. If the combined impacts of such projects cause or worsen an exceedance of the concentration standards, the project would have a cumulatively significant impact under CEQA.” The City’s approach is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement that the environmental documents include analysis of a project’s direct AND cumulative impact. Under the City’s proposed approach, the MND need not undertake any analysis of the project’s cumulative impact on air quality because the results would be identical to the direct impacts analysis. But the point of cumulative impact analysis is to understand the significance of the Project’s incremental impact in light of the magnitude of the environmental problem to which the project would contribute. The MND must “view” the effects of this project in connection with the effects of at least nearby projects.

The MND for this project is defective in that it has not computed or addressed the cumulative emissions from this and other planned projects, cumulative emissions which almost certainly would exceed air quality standards and should be considered significant. In the interest of public health, cumulative emissions computations must include emissions from other planned projects, not just from this project. For example, unbuilt Tract 6148 alone is projected to emit 9.99 tons/year of ROG and 8.97 tons/year of NOx. Tract 6137, currently building, is projected to emit 9.97 tons/year of ROG and 7.49 tons/year of NOx. There are many other area projects such as Tract 7427, GPA/ZC 22-0128, and others whose emissions should be included in a Cumulative Emissions table of the Initial Study. Reducing project emissions to zero through an Air District contract would help address the potentially significant cumulative air quality impact of this project.
4 The City must require this project to adopt a sufficient number of effective air pollution reduction measures to offset cumulative impacts. Each such requirement must include performance standards that are mandatory, specifically defined, and enforceable.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
One of the basic purposes of CEQA is to “inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.” Post-approval biological surveys do not satisfy CEQA’s informational requirements; the decision-makers need to know the results of the biological surveys in order to assess the Project’s potential biological impacts BEFORE deciding whether to approve the Project. Postapproval surveys cannot inform the County’s decision whether to approve the Project.

Deferred mitigation violates CEQA if it lacks performance standards to ensure the mitigation goal will be achieved. To address biological resource issues a biological survey and consultation with the USFWS and CDFW should be required before project approval.

On page 25, the MND states, “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 City must specifically require the project to consult with USFWS and CDFW before project approval.

Consultation with state and federal wildlife agencies must not be left to the developer’s or the biologist’s option.

The project property seems to be on and adjacent to potential habitat for a number of species which could forage or exist on the project property. The biological study for the Tract 6191 project on this site noted that blunt-nosed leopard lizards have been sighted in the past in the vicinity of this project, and the Tract 6191 developer agreed to help purchase BNLL replacement habitat. According to the June 1993 Biological Assessment for the Northeast Bakersfield Sewer Trunkline, the general area at that time contained endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizards (BNLLs) and San Joaquin kit foxes (a current score of 90 out of 100 for kit fox habitat suitability on Maps | Data Basin) as well as many other native species, perhaps burrowing owls and Kern brodiaea. Cumulative impacts to biological resources and viable mitigation measures for these impacts should be studied in a full EIR.

While many of these species may have been driven out of the project site by mowing and disking operations, an EIR should require reintroducing some of the native plant species by replanting them in project open space areas. The project’s landscaping should include drought-tolerant and/or native plants.
5 Mitigation measures should include requiring the project to plant trees that could serve as Swainson’s hawk nesting sites and requiring the project to purchase conservation easements on nearby Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.

To help scientifically determine whether kit fox use the site, a qualified biologist should extract DNA from onsite potential San Joaquin kit fox scat samples, following a procedure published in 2014 by De Barba et al. (De Barba, M., Adams, J. R., Goldberg, C. S., Stansbury, C. R., Arias, D., Cisneros, R., & Waits, L. P. (2014). Molecular species identification for multiple carnivores. Conservation Genetics Resources, 6, 821-824). If the scat actually is kit fox scat, then clearly kit fox inhabit the site, and appropriate mitigation should be applied.

According to the publication Conservation Strategies for San Joaquin Kit Foxes in Urban Environments by Brian Cypher, Christine Van Horn Job, and Scott Phillips at http://esrp.csustan.edu/publications/pdf/cypher_etal_2012_urban_kitfox_conservation_esrp.pdf , “To the extent practical and possible, urban planners could design new developments in a manner that facilitates use by kit foxes.” While such design is “highly encouraged” by mitigation measure BIO-8, this measure is so vague that it unlikely to be implemented. The City should actually require this project to be designed with urban kit fox conservation measures in mind, perhaps including artificial kit fox dens and movement corridors as suggested in the above document. Such a requirement must include performance standards that are mandatory, specifically defined, and enforceable.

Loss of habitat is a major reason for species decline. Mitigation for habitat loss and potential species take should include Incidental Take Permit acquisition and purchase of replacement habitat.

CLIMATE CRISIS
There is much important new information on climate change. For example:
 The IPCC AR6 synthesis report (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ ) includes warnings that the world is approaching “irreversible” levels of global heating, with catastrophic impacts rapidly becoming inevitable; and that it is “now or never” to take drastic action to avoid disaster.
 “A new study has revealed that the language used by the global climate change watchdog, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is overly conservative - and therefore the threats are much greater than the Panel's reports suggest.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190320102010.htm  Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI) - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory (https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/) is also substantial and critically important new information.  Harmful tipping points in the natural world pose some of the gravest threats faced by humanity. Environmental stresses could become so severe that large parts of the natural world are unable to maintain their current state, leading to abrupt and/or irreversible changes. Global Tipping Points | Home (global-tipping-points.org) 6  UN secretary general, António Guterres, said,” This is climate breakdown, in real time.

We must exit this road to ruin, and we have no time to lose.” World endures 'decade of deadly heat' as 2024 caps hottest years on record | Climate crisis | The Guardian California courts have ruled, “the greater the existing environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for treating a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts as significant.” The climate crisis is inherently a cumulatively significant issue.

On page 29, the MND inappropriately jumps a huge logical gap and ignores scientific evidence to conclude that the project’s cumulative impact to climate change is insignificant. “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).” Table 4-7 only contains values for annual project GHG emissions, no arguments whatsoever. The MND is deficient in that it has not filled in the logical gap between issue and conclusion. The City must present an analysis of the project’s cumulative impact.

The State CEQA Guidelines state,
“15355(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.”
As best we can tell from the available documentation, there has been no attempt to quantify the cumulative impact and that there is thus no data upon which to base a conclusion of insignificance. There are many closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects (for example, the nearby Tract 6137, Tract 6193, Tract 7427, GPA/ZC 22-0128, the Rio Bravo Ranch project, the City in the Hills project, Tentative Tract 6148, etc.), and the cumulative impact of all these projects on climate change must be quantified and addressed. The MND is deficient in not having considered the cumulative impact of a list of area projects on climate change. It is deficient in concluding without these considerations that the project’s climate change impact is cumulatively insignificant.

On page 30, the MND states, “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.” This unfounded conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence. Table 4-7 only contains values for annual project GHG emissions, no arguments for consistency with any strategies whatsoever. The City must clearly describe its reasoning and identify substantial evidence that supports this conclusion. An agency's determination regarding a mitigation measure’s efficacy must be based on “evidence in the record showing it will be effective in remedying the identified environmental impact. (See Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1167-1170, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 154.

The emission reduction targets set forth in AB 32 mark only a first and interim step toward avoiding dangerous climate change. By myopically focusing on AB 32, the project ignores the long-term emission reductions necessary to stabilize the climate. 7 Since the City has shelved adopting a Climate Action Plan, it must be extra diligent in assuring that individual projects like this one satisfy state goals and regulations and legal requirements through adoption of feasible mitigation in a full EIR.

SB 32 requires that statewide greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. The MND is deficient in not having addressed this requirement.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets extend beyond 2020 and are much larger than the 2020 target; Executive Order B-30-15 targets a GHG reduction of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, codified in SB 32. Executive Order S-3-05 sets an 80% reduction of GHG from 1990 levels in 2050 as a goal. In order to achieve GHG emission reduction goals beyond 2020, the City should require feasible mitigation measures that would reduce GHG emissions beyond the AB 32 goals.

If we care to not leave an overheated planet for future generations, the City must thoroughly address the climate crisis. Feasible potential mitigation measures include:
 A requirement that all buildings contain enough solar photovoltaics (PV) and solar water heating to offset energy usage to the maximum extent feasible, with a capacity that matches the maximum allowed for distributed solar connections to the grid.
 Green building measures should be required for all structures, including passive solar design and a requirement that buildings be at least 25% more energy efficient than Title 24 standards current when permits are pulled.
 Adopt appropriate Tier 2 requirements in CALGreen for new residential buildings.

APPENDIX A4 RESIDENTIAL VOLUNTARY MEASURES - 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, TITLE 24, PART 11 (CALGREEN) WITH JULY  Provide EV charging infrastructure at least in accordance with CALGreen Tier 2 standards. (from CARB 2022 scoping plan)
 Use all electric appliances, without any natural gas connections, and not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking. (from CARB 2022 scoping plan)
 Relax parking requirements by (1) Eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios. (2) Providing residential parking supply at a ratio of <1 parking space per unit; (3) Unbundling residential parking costs from costs to rent or lease. (from CARB 2022 scoping plan)
 To help address the housing crisis, encourage public transit, and lower VMT, at least 20% of the project should consist of higher density housing affordable to lower-income residents. (from CARB 2022 scoping plan)
 A project design requirement that buildings be situated to maximize rooftop solar production.
 Use cool pavement material on new streets.
8  A requirement that the developer contribute to tree planting and urban forestry projects.

Tree planting plays an essential role in achieving the goal of reaching net zero GHG emissions. One recent study found that California’s working and urban lands have the potential to absorb up to 103 MMT CO2e additional per year by 2030. https://theclimatecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/The-Climate-Center-Settingan-Ambitious-Sequestration-Goal-for-CA-WL-Jan-22.pdf  Facilitate and promote public transit by providing amenities such as contributing to public transit, facilitating ride-share programs, create incentives for ride-share and/or use of public transit. Homeowners’ Association fees should include public transit funding.
 A requirement that the developer contribute a GHG fee to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to be used to fund projects that would reduce GHG emissions elsewhere. This could be built into a criteria pollutant Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement as the Air District has suggested in the past.

The environmental documents must evaluate these and other potential mitigation measures in order to require sufficient mitigation to substantially reduce the impact of the project on the climate crisis. Many of these measures serve as well for air pollution mitigation.

Please place the Sierra Club on the distribution list for this project to receive any noticing of meetings, hearings, availability of documents, and to receive the environmental documents.

We prefer email communications and electronic formatting of documents. Thank you for your consideration and for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,
Gordon L. Nipp, Ph.D.

Vice-Chair
[email protected]
661-872-2432
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, CA 93710
(559) 243 - 4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
December 23, 2024
Courtney Camps, Associate Planner
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
(661) 326-3070
[email protected]
Subject: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 (Project) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
State Clearinghouse No.: 2024110806
Dear Courtney Camps:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a MND from the City of Bakersfield, as Lead Agency, for the above-referenced Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802.). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

Page 2 ends

agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code will be required.

Fully Protected Species: CDFW has jurisdiction over fully protected species of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, and fish, pursuant to Fish and Game Code sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except as follows:
 Take is for necessary scientific research,
 Efforts to recover a fully protected, endangered, or threatened species, live capture, and relocation of a bird species for the protection of livestock, or  They are a covered species whose conservation and management is provided for in a Natural Community Conservation Plan (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, & 5515).

Additionally, specified types of infrastructure projects may be eligible for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for unavoidable impacts to fully protected species if certain conditions are met (see Fish & G. Code §2081.15). Project proponents should consult with CDFW early in the Project planning process if an ITP may be pursued for the Project.

Nesting Birds: CDFW has jurisdiction over actions with potential to result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections that protect birds, their eggs and nests include, sections 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird).

Unlisted Species: Species of plants and animals need not be officially listed as Endangered, Rare, or Threatened (E, R, or T) on any State or Federal list to be considered E, R, or T under CEQA. If a species can be shown to meet the criteria for E, R, or T under CEQA Guidelines section 15380, CDFW recommends it should be fully considered in the environmental analysis for the Project.

Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

Page 3 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: LGI Homes – California, LLC
Objective: The Project proposes to subdivide 83.97 acres into 393 single-family residential lots. The Project also includes the subdivision of five landscape and five private landscape areas, and one retention basin, one private retention basin, and one private park.

Location: The Project site is located within the City of Bakersfield on the southwest corner of Paladino Drive and Morning Drive in northeast Bakersfield. Adjacent properties to the north, west, and east are vacant land. To the south of the Project site is an elementary school and existing single-family residential development. The specific parcel number affected by this Project is Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 437-010- 043.

Timeframe: Unspecified.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of Bakersfield in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct, and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the CEQA document prepared for this Project.

The MND and aerial imagery of the parcel show that the Project site is comprised of disturbed annual grassland. Historic imagery demonstrates that initial grading for residential development occurred around the year 2006 and the land has since remained fallow and occupied by non-native grasses. The surrounding habitats to the west, north, and east are largely composed of vacant, undisturbed annual grasslands.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records show the Project is within the geographic range of several special-status animal species, and several mitigation measures are proposed to reduce impacts to less than significant. CDFW has concerns about the ability of some the proposed mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant and avoid unauthorized take for several special-status animal species, including the State endangered and fully protected and federally endangered bluntnosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila); the State threatened and federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica); the State candidate western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) and Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii); and the State species of special concern American badger (Taxidea taxus).

Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

Page 4 ends

Comment 1: Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (BNLL) is a State endangered and fully protected and federally endangered species. The Project site is within the known geographic range of BNLL, and the species is known to occur less than 3 miles away from the Project site (CNDDB 2024).

Suitable BNLL habitat includes all areas of grassland and shrub habitat that contain required habitat elements, such as small mammal burrows and open areas for basking.

BNLL are also known to utilize open space patches between suitable habitat features including disturbed sites, and unpaved access roadways. Based on aerial imagery and the information provided in the MND, the Project site may contain suitable habitat for BNLL.

CDFW concurs with the use of the methodologies outlined in mitigation measures BIO8, through BIO-10 to minimize and avoid impacts to BNLL. BIO-8 states that a qualified biologist(s) will conduct protocol surveys in accordance with the “Approved Survey Methodology for the Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard” (CDFW 2019) to detect any BNLL that may occur on the Project site. In addition to these measures, CDFW also recommends that any BNLL detection, known burrows, or egg clutch sites have a minimum 395-acre buffer. This buffer is based on unpublished data from Dr. David Germano documenting that “male BNLL have home ranges up to 52 acres and that female BNLL have home ranges exceeding 98 acres, the known maximum home range sizes observed for the species, the unknown specific footprint of the individual BNLL’s home range relative to where the lizard was observed on the surface, and the unknown location of the lizard underground when construction commences.” CDFW would like to additionally refer to a 2018 study from Tennant, Germano, and others titled “Investigating blunt-nosed leopard lizard population size, demographics, space use, and future population trends on Department Ecological Reserves”. Among other findings, this study recorded female BNLL in competitive areas dispersing over a kilometer before returning back to their home range. One surveyed female was identified 1,344 meters from her original detection point (Tennant 2018). CDFW also recommends that an appropriate number of qualified biologists be present during all ground-disturbing Project activities to monitor for BNLL, not just the initial surface disturbance activities, and that any individual that may enter the Project activity area be allowed to leave unobstructed of its own accord.

Comment 2: San Joaquin Kit Fox
The MND notes that during the biological resource evaluation, evidence of San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) was observed on the proposed Project site. This detection is further supported by multiple historical and recent observations on CNDDB near the Project site (CNDDB 2024). Mitigation measures BIO-7 through BIO-9 are provided to mitigate for impacts to SJKF. CDFW concurs with the mitigation measures outlined in the MND; Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

Page 5 ends

however, if take cannot be avoided, acquisition of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) prior to any ground disturbing activities, pursuant Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b), would be required to comply with the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

Comment 3: Western Burrowing Owl
The California Fish and Game Commission named western burrowing owl (BUOW) as a candidate for potential listing as a protected species under CESA on October 10, 2024.

This action advanced the species to candidacy under CESA and as such BUOW now receives the same legal protection afforded to an endangered or threatened species (Fish & G. Code, §§ 2074.2 & 2085). It is illegal to import, export, take (hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt engage in any of these activities), possess, purchase, or sell BUOW or any part or product thereof (Fish & G. Code, §§§ 86, 2080, 2085).

The Project site is within the known geographic range of BUOW and there are multiple historic and recent occurrences located within five miles of the Project site (CDFW 2024). BUOW inhabit open grasslands and desert scrublands containing small mammal burrows, a requisite habitat feature used by BUOW for nesting and cover. Based on aerial imagery and the information provided in the MND, the Project site and adjacent lands contain suitable habitat for BUOW nesting and foraging.

Mitigation measure BIO-11 is provided to mitigate for potential impacts to BUOW.

However, CDFW does not concur that BIO-11 is sufficient to mitigate for potential impacts to BUOW and recommends the MND include the following:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 1: BUOW Surveys Prior to Construction CDFW recommends that surveys following the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) be conducted the survey season immediately prior to construction.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 2: BUOW Avoidance Buffer Should a BUOW or known BUOW den (active or inactive) be detected, either during preconstruction surveys or construction activities, CDFW recommends that no-disturbance buffers, as outlined in the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012), be implemented prior to and during any grounddisturbing activities. CDFW also recommends that these buffers be implemented for both wintering and breeding BUOW.

Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

Page 6 ends

Recommended Mitigation Measure 3: BUOW Take Authorization If a BUOW or known BUOW den (active or inactive) is detected, and the nodisturbance buffers outlined in the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Mitigation are not feasible, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the Project and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to comply with CESA.

Comment 4: Crotch’s Bumble Bee
The Project site is within the known geographic range of Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB) and there are at least two historical observations within ten (10) miles of the Project site (CNDDB 2024). CBB are known to inhabit areas of grasslands and scrub that contain requisite habitat elements for nesting, such as small mammal burrows and bunch/thatched grasses, and these habitat elements appear to be present within the vacant lands in the vicinity of the Project site. Mitigation measure BIO-8 is provided to mitigate for potential impacts to CBB. However, CDFW does not concur that BIO-8 is sufficient to mitigate for potential impacts to CBB and recommends the following:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 4: CBB Habitat Assessment CDFW recommends a qualified biologist conduct a habitat assessment to determine if the Project site and the immediate surrounding vicinity contain habitat suitable to support CBB. Potential nesting sites, which include all small mammal burrows, perennial bunch grasses, thatched annual grasses, brush piles, old bird nests, dead trees, and hollow logs would need to be documented as part of the assessment.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 5: CBB Surveys
If potentially suitable habitat is identified, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct focused surveys for CBB, and their requisite habitat features following the methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023).

Recommended Mitigation Measure 6: CBB Avoidance
If CBB is detected, then CDFW recommends that all small mammal burrows and thatched/bunch grasses be avoided by a minimum of 50 feet to avoid take and potentially significant impacts. If ground-disturbing activities will occur during the overwintering period (October through February), consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement Project activities and avoid take. Any Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

Page 7 ends

detection of CBB prior to or during Project implementation warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 7: CBB Take Authorization If take cannot be avoided, CDFW recommends acquiring an ITP pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2081(b), prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities.

Comment 5: American Badger
The Project site is within the known geographic range of American badger (AMBA) and suitable habitat is present (CDFW 2024) within the Project site and its vicinity. AMBA occupy sparsely vegetated land cover with dry, friable soils to excavate dens, which they use for cover, and that support fossorial rodent prey populations (i.e., ground squirrels, pocket gophers, etc.) (Zeiner et. al 1990). Mitigation Measure BIO-11 is provided to mitigate for potential impacts to AMBA. CDFW concurs with BIO-11 and also recommends the following:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 8: Surveys
CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct focused surveys for AMBA, as well as their requisite habitat features, to evaluate potential impacts resulting from ground disturbance.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 9: Avoidance
Avoidance whenever possible is encouraged via delineation and a 50-foot no disturbance buffer around burrows. CDFW also advises that any individuals observed be allowed to leave the Project site of their own volition.

Editorial Comments and/or Suggestions
Federally Listed Species: CDFW recommends consulting with USFWS regarding potential impacts to federally listed species including, but not limited to BNLL and SJKF.

Take under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) is more broadly defined than CESA; take under FESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting. Consultation with the USFWS in order to comply with FESA is advised well in advance of any Project activities.

Nesting birds: CDFW encourages that Project ground-disturbing activities occur during the bird non-nesting season; however, if ground-disturbing or vegetation-disturbing activities must occur during the nesting season (February 1st through September 15th), the Project applicant is responsible for ensuring that implementation of the Project does Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

Page 8 ends

not result in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or relevant Fish and Game Code sections as referenced above.

CDFW further recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction survey for active nests no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected. CDFW also recommends that surveys cover a sufficient area around the Project site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially affected, either directly or indirectly, by the Project. In addition to direct impacts (i.e., nest destruction), noise, vibration, and movement of workers or equipment could also affect nests. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests. Once Project activities begin, CDFW recommends having a qualified biologist continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from the Project. If behavioral changes occur, CDFW recommends halting the work causing that change and consulting with CDFW for additional avoidance and minimization measures.

If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified biologist is not feasible, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of nonlisted bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of nonlisted raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or on-site parental care for survival. Variance from these no-disturbance buffers is possible when there is a compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the Project site would be concealed from a nest site by topography. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist advise and support any variance from these buffers and notify CDFW in advance of implementing a variance.

CNDDB: Please note that the CNDDB is populated by records through voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be present in locations not depicted in the CNDDB but where there is suitable habitat and features capable of supporting species. A lack of an occurrence record in the CNDDB does not mean a species is not present. In order to adequately assess any potential Project related impacts to biological resources, surveys conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology are warranted in order to determine whether or not any special-status species are present at or near the Project site.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database, which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

Page 9 ends

communities detected during Project surveys to the CNDDB. The CNDDB field survey form can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be mailed electronically to the CNDDB at the following email address:

[email protected]. The types of information reported to the CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, could have an impact on biological resources, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G.

Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City of Bakersfield in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 1) is included below to assist the City of Bakersfield with incorporating the recommended mitigation measures provided above.

More information on survey and monitoring protocols for sensitive species can be found at CDFW’s website (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols). If you have any questions regarding this letter or further coordination, please contact Marile Colindres, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead, by telephone at (559) 974-3452, or by electronic mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
ec: State Clearinghouse
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
[email protected]
Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 For
Courtney Camps
City of Bakersfield
December 23, 2024

Page 10 ends

REFERENCES
California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation guidelines. Pages 171-177 in Lincer, J. and K. Steenhof (editors). 1993. The burrowing owl, its biology and management. Raptor Research Report Number 9.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation.

California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. Approved survey methodology for the blunt-nosed leopard lizard. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, USA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey considerations for California endangered species act candidate bumble bee species. Sacramento, California, USA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. Biogeographic information and observation system (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Accessed 12 December 2024.

Tennant, E., D. Germano, J. Stewart, H. Butterfield, and M. Westphal. 2018.

Investigating blunt-nosed leopard lizard population size, demographics, space use, and future population trends on Department Ecological Reserves. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, USA.

Zeiner, D., W. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California’s Wildlife.

Volumes I-III in California Department of Fish and Game, editor. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, USA.

Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 Attachment 1

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) PROJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7471 (Project) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
SCH No.: 2024110806

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURE STATUS/DATE/INITIALS
Before Disturbing Soil or Vegetation
Western Burrowing Owl (BUOW)
Recommended Mitigation Measure 1:

BUOW Surveys Prior to Construction
Recommended Mitigation Measure 3:

BUOW Take Authorization
Crotch’s Bumble Bee (CBB)
Recommended Mitigation Measure 4:

CBB Habitat Assessment
Recommended Mitigation Measure 5:

CBB Surveys
State Species of Special Concern
Recommended Mitigation Measure 8:

Surveys
During Construction
Western Burrowing Owl (BUOW)
Recommended Mitigation Measure 2:

BUOW Avoidance Buffer
Crotch’s Bumble Bee (CBB)
Recommended Mitigation Measure 6:

CBB Avoidance
Recommended Mitigation Measure 7:

CBB Take Authorization
American Badger
Recommended Mitigation Measure 9:

Avoidance
Docusign Envelope ID: 99B40C4D-CE11-4EB5-8A71-0507368B6229 4900 California Ave, Ste 420A, Bakersfield, CA 93309 / P 661.282.2200 / F 661.427.0703 / trinityconsultants.com

HEADQUARTERS
12700 Park Central Dr, Ste 600, Dallas, TX 75251 / P +1 800.229.6655 / P +1 972.661.8100 January 29, 2025
City of Bakersfield Development Services Department
Planning Division
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301-5210
RE: Response to Comments on Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased) Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Division:

Trinity Consultants (Trinity) is pleased to provide this response to specific comments received from The Sierra Club on the Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) for the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased) Project. These responses pertain to specific comments therein that referred to the AQIA prepared by Trinity on behalf of the subject project. The comments are addressed in the order in which they were made.

AIR QUALITY
Sensitive Receptor Analysis
Comment
The MND is defective in not having thoroughly addressed this project’s air pollution impact on these sensitive receptors.

Response
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) states that “ambient air quality standards (AAQS) define clean air and are established to protect the health of the most sensitive groups in our communities.” California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) were first established in 1962, followed by the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in 1971. The development of CAAQS relies on the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which reviews health literature to develop recommendations for the standards. Similarly, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts an Integrated Science Assessment (ISA), a Risk/Exposure Assessment (REA), and a Policy Assessment (PA) to determine the NAAQS.

This assessment followed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), dated March 19, 2015, specifically the screening thresholds outlined in Section 8.4.4. According to this guidance, if a project's construction emissions, permitted operational emissions (not applicable to this project), or non-permitted operational emissions exceed 100 pounds per day, an ambient air quality analysis is required.

For this project, maximum estimated construction emissions and non-permitted operational emissions are each below 100 pounds per day. Based on the discussion above, because the proposed Project’s emissions are all below SJVAPCD’s screening thresholds, the proposed Project’s potential air quality emissions would not have the potential to generate adverse health impacts to nearby receptors.

Planning Division - Page 2
January 29, 2025
Table 4-4. Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions Comment
Table 4-4 of the MND is entitled “Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions”. Are there emissions which are actually “permitted” and not accounted for in Table 4-4? Response
The SJVAPCD categorizes criteria pollutant emissions into three groups: construction emissions, operational non-permitted equipment and activities, and operational permitted equipment and activities (GAMAQI Section 8.3). Long-term emissions resulting from operational mobile, area, and energy sources for a housing development fall under non-permitted operational emissions. Therefore, Table 4-4 was titled “Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions” to reflect this categorization. No permitted equipment or activities (i.e., stationary source equipment) have been proposed by the Applicant.

Comment
The earlier MND for the smaller tract 6191 housing project on the same site listed operational emissions for the smaller project at 6.09 tons/year for ROG, 5.32 tons/year for NOx and 10.29 tons/year for PM, much larger values than those in the current Table 4-4. The City must account for the comparatively smaller values in Table 4-4.

Response
Trinity has not reviewed the MND for Tract 6191; however, based on the available information on CEQAnet the project was received 7/1/2003 (State Clearing House Number 2003071006). In early 2003, the emissions estimator available was the Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS) 2002 Version 8.7. Since then, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was introduced in 2011, with the most recent 2022 version being utilized for this project.

Emission modeling tools have significantly advanced over the years, improving the accuracy and comprehensiveness of emissions estimates. URBEMIS 2002 relied on older emissions factors and methodologies, while CalEEMod incorporates updated emissions factors, land use data, and calculation methodologies aligned with current regulatory standards. These improvements can result in notable differences in estimated emissions between older and newer models. The values in Table 4-4 reflect the best available data and methods provided by CalEEMod 2022, providing the most updated anticipated project emissions.

Cumulative Impact – Criteria Pollutants
Comment
The MND for this project is defective in that it has not computed or addressed the cumulative emissions from this and other planned projects, cumulative emissions which almost certainly would exceed air quality standards and should be considered significant.

Response
CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 permits the incorporation by reference of portions or all of other documents that provide information relevant to the Proposed Project and the environmental analysis. Documents incorporated by reference must be available for public review at an office of the Lead Agency or other public Planning Division - Page 3
January 29, 2025
building. The documents identified below are incorporated by reference, and where relevant, the information therein has been summarized in this Response to Comments.

The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report (Bakersfield 2002), provides relevant cumulative analysis in the proposed Project area, is a comprehensive document, and are hereby incorporated by references pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150. The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report can be reviewed at the City of Bakersfield’s Planning Division office:
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301-5210
Monday through Friday
8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The Proposed Project area is designated as an extreme nonattainment area for ozone and a nonattainment area for PM10 and PM2.5.

To provide an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts, a list approach is used, in accordance with Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. The list approach may utilize either (1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.

The potential cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project and other projects are discussed below. A cumulative project list was incorporated by reference above from the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Bakersfield, 2002). Because the Basin is currently designated as “nonattainment” for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, these projects could contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance, which would be a cumulative impact.

With regard to determining the significance of the contribution from the Proposed Project, the City of Bakersfield recommends that any given project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed using the same significance criteria as for project-specific impacts. Therefore, individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SJVAPCD’s recommended daily or annual thresholds for project-specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant adverse air quality impact. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s cumulative contribution is considered less-than-significant.

GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS
Cumulative Impact - GHG Emissions
Comment 1
The City must present an analysis of the project’s cumulative impact.

Comment 2
The MND is deficient in not having considered the cumulative impact of a list of area projects on climate change.

Planning Division - Page 4
January 29, 2025
Response (Comments 1 & 2)
CEQA does not require “perfection” but instead “adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure” (Section 15003 (i)); therefore, the analysis of the proposed Project’s anticipated GHG emissions and climate change impacts is based on methodologies and information available at the time that the technical report was prepared. Estimation of anticipated GHG emissions that would occur in the future does not account for changes in technology that may reduce such emissions; therefore, the estimates are based on past performance and represent a scenario that may be worse than that which may actually occur. Many uncertainties exist regarding the precise relationship between specific levels of GHG emissions and the ultimate impact on global climate; significant uncertainties also exist regarding the GHG reduction potential of mitigation strategies. Thus, while the information below is being presented to assist the public and the City’s decision makers in understanding the proposed Project’s potential contribution to global climate change impacts, the information available to the City is not sufficiently detailed to allow a direct comparison between particular characteristics of the proposed Project and particular climate change impacts, nor between any particular proposed mitigation measure and any reduction in climate change impacts.

While it is not possible to determine whether the proposed Project individually would have a significant impact on global warming or climate change, the proposed Project would potentially contribute to cumulative GHG emissions in California as well as related health effects. The proposed 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 proposed 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 AB 32, which states that global warming poses serious detrimental effects, and the requirements of CEQA for the lead agency to determine that a project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution, the effect of the proposed Project’s GHG contribution may be determined to be cumulatively considerable. This determination is speculative, given the lack of clear scientific evidence or other criteria for determining the significance of the proposed Project’s contribution of GHG to the air quality in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

Comment
On page 30, the MND states, “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.” This unfounded conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence. Table 4-7 only contains values for annual project GHG emissions, no arguments for consistency with any strategies whatsoever. The City must clearly describe its reasoning and identify substantial evidence that supports this conclusion.

Response
The purpose of Table 4-7 is to disclose the project’s quantified annual GHG emissions, which were calculated using industry-standard tools such as CalEEMod. These emissions estimates form the foundation for evaluating the project’s consistency with California’s regulatory programs and sectoral GHG reduction strategies under the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Specifically, the project’s GHG emissions are primarily attributed to electricity consumption and fuel combustion, both of which are regulated by statewide programs designed to achieve the state’s GHG reduction targets. These programs include:
► Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS): Ensures an increasing share of electricity is generated from renewable sources, directly addressing emissions from electricity use. ► Cap-and-Trade Program: Regulates fuel suppliers and other sectors to cap and reduce overall GHG emissions.

Planning Division - Page 5
January 29, 2025
► Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS): Reduces the carbon intensity of transportation fuels.

The project’s compliance with these upstream regulatory programs ensures that its GHG emissions are accounted for in the state’s GHG reduction strategy. For example, electricity for the project will be sourced from a utility that is subject to the RPS, which mandates a transition to renewable energy sources. Similarly, the carbon intensity of fuels consumed during project operations will be regulated under the Cap-and-Trade Program and LCFS. This approach aligns with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4, which allows GHG emissions to be evaluated in the context of compliance with statewide regulatory programs.

Comment
SB 32 requires that statewide greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030.

The MND is deficient in not having addressed this requirement.

Response
The 2022 AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality) includes the GHG reduction goals of SB 32, which requires reducing emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

The Scoping Plan provides a comprehensive framework for achieving both AB 32 and SB 32 targets through sector-specific strategies. By aligning with the Scoping Plan’s measures, the project supports the state's long-term GHG reduction goals outlined in SB 32.

If you have any questions or comments about the information presented in this letter, please do not hesitate to call 661.282.2200.

Sincerely,

TRINITY CONSULTANTS
cc: San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.

LGI Homes – California, LLC
McCORMICK
B I O L O G I C A L, I N C.

Biological Sciences – Inventory, Permitting, and Planning P.O. Box 80983, Bakersfield, California 933803600 Pegasus Drive, Suite 12, Bakersfield, California 93308 Office: (661) 589-4065E-mail: [email protected]
February 24, 2025
Mr. Hunter Troxel
Project Manager - Staff Civil Engineer
San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.
200 New Stine Road, Suite 175
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Subject: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased) Response to Comments Regarding Biological Resources
Mr. Troxel,
Please review the comment responses provided herein by McCormick Biological, Inc. (MBI) in reference to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Formally Tract 6191), a parcel measuring 83.96 acres (APNs: 437-010-41), located on the southwest corner of Morning Drive and Paladino Drive, Bakersfield, California. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared according to the California Environmental Quality Act with the City of Bakersfield as the Lead Agency. Two comment letters were received addressing the Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures proposed by MBI in a Biological Resource Evaluation dated August 2024 (BRE) and provided to LGI Homes – California, LLC: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), dated December 23, 2024 (Comment Letter 1) and Sierra Club Kern Kaweah Chapter (Sierra Club), undated (Comment Letter 2). We have provided comment responses to these two letters in the following paragraphs.

Comment Letter 1 (CDFW)
Response to Comment 1: Measure BIO-10 requires that if a blunt-nosed leopard lizard is found during protocol surveys, an avoidance plan must be submitted to CDFW that requires take avoidance in compliance with this species’ fully protected status. In effect, the 300-foot buffer could not be implemented if the bluntnosed leopard lizard avoidance plan allows for encroachment on the occupied area that could result in “take”.

Given that the recommended avoidance buffers would effectively have the same result, we recommend revising Table 4.1. However, the Project only measures approximately 84 acres, and the proponent would not have authority to exercise control beyond the Project boundaries. Therefore, we recommend revising the table as shown at the end of these response.

Response to Comment 2: Implementation of BIO-8 and BIO-9 will result in application for appropriate incidental take authorization should SJKF be found to occupy the Project.

Response to Comment 3: We acknowledge that the upgraded status of burrowing owl warrants Mr. Hunter Troxel
February 24, 2025

Page 2 ends

inclusion in BIO-8, which details species-specific surveys to be implemented prior to surface disturbance or site alteration. BIO-8 addresses notification and permitting should recommended buffers not be feasible. The following bullet should be added regarding burrowing owl:

Burrowing owl (agency protocol): In the survey season prior to commencement of construction, surveys described in Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) (Staff Report) should be implemented.

Should a burrowing owl or known burrowing owl den (active or inactive) be detected, either during preconstruction surveys or construction activities, no-disturbance buffers outlined in the Staff Report and included in Table 4.1 shall be implemented prior to and during any ground-disturbing activities. The table has been updated to include reference to active and inactive burrows. The portion of BIO-11 that refers to burrowing owl can be deleted.

Response to Comment 4: Implementation of BIO-8 captures the elements of CDFW’s Measures 4, 5, and 6 by incorporating the methods in CDFW Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species (June 6, 2023). All survey elements of the CDFW methodology should be implemented by following the publicly available survey methods referenced in BIO-8.

Federally Listed Species: the differences between federal and state take definitions were included in the BRE In addition, coordination with USFWS to determine whether take authorization under the Federal Endangered Species Act is required by that agency is included in BIO-8 and BIO-9.

Nesting Birds: The dates of nesting bird season in BIO-4 should be adjusted to reflect the CDFW recommendation (February 1 through September 15). Additionally, Measure BIO-4 should be adjusted to reflect conducting a survey 10-days prior to initial project activities (vegetation clearance, grading, heavy equipment mobilization, etc.) and further define the actions to be taken if active nests are found.

Recommended Revision to BIO-4: Nesting Bird Season. If initial ground disturbance occurs during nesting season (February 1 to September 15) 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 no disturbance buffers, as shown in Table 4.1. If the no disturbance buffers in Table 4.1 are not feasible, nests will be monitored by a qualified avian biologist who will establish a behavior baseline prior to activities. The qualified avian biologist will establish an avoidance buffer and continuously monitor during project activities, watching for behavioral changes. If any indication of nesting disturbance is observed, the avoidance buffer will be increased until the avian biologist determines that nesting behavior has returned to baseline. Nest monitoring will continue 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. Monitoring will be documented on standardized field forms and provided to the City of Bakersfield for verification of compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and applicable section of Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5 and 3513). CDFW may be contacted for guidance regarding alternative avoidance strategies.

Mr. Hunter Troxel
February 24, 2025

Page 3 ends

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 Work may not proceed until BIO-9 and BIO-10 have been completed
Swainson’s hawk active nest (March 15-September 15)
Swainson’s hawk documented nest tree (outside of nesting season)
¼-mile
50 feet
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 active or inactive 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
Non-listed nesting birds (non-raptors) 250 feet
Non-listed raptors 500 feet
Listed/protected raptors ½-mile
American badger occupied natal den
American badger occupied den
200 feet
50 feet
*Unless incidental take authority authorizes encroachment or appropriate agency concurrence for a reduced buffer is received.

Comment Letter 2 (Sierra Club)
See Attachment 1 for the portion of the Sierra Club comment letter (pages 4 and 5) showing biological resources comments annotated that are addressed here.

Response to Comment 1: Overall, this is a CEQA procedural question that should be addressed by the Lead Agency. Some context information is provided here regarding the surveys and impact analysis provided by MBI.

The reconnaissance surveys were conducted to provide context and explanation for the potential to occur and subsequent impact analysis for the potentially occurring species. Actionable mitigation measures in regard to those special-status resources are provided in the BRE and MND which demonstrate how the identified impacts will be reduced to a level of “less than significant” when implemented. Results of surveys required within the mitigation measures will result in implementation of procedures in the event of positive detections as described in the MND. This method allows for consideration of presence of multiple species that may not be observable via one or even series of surveys and provides a plan if addressed biological resources are detected prior to commencement of the Project or during construction activities. The measures account for changes in species composition between surveys conducted to support the MND and project commencement, not just those observed on the site at a given point in time.

Mr. Hunter Troxel
February 24, 2025

Page 4 ends

Response to Comment 2: We defer to the Lead Agency regarding the question of whether consultation must occur before Project approval.

Response to Comment 3: We defer to the Lead Agency regarding whether the impacts identified in the BRE and MND warrant preparation of a full EIR.

Response to Comment 4: We defer to the Lead Agency regarding landscaping policies applied to the Project and whether an EIR is required. No native vegetation communities or potential for rare plant occurrence were found during the surveys and the analysis found that no potential impacts were identified.

The BRE did not identify removal of any native vegetation that would justify mitigation via landscaping with native plants.

Response to Comment 5: The findings of the BRE were that the Project is unlikely to support Swainson’s hawk nesting and provides marginal foraging habitat, resulting in no significant impacts to this species with the implementation of the presented mitigation measures. Absent presentation of additional evidence or data demonstrating that the Project would have potentially significant impacts on this species, no further mitigation would be necessary.

Response to Comment 6: DNA testing of scat is not warranted to determine presence of this species.

The most applicable methods for determining San Joaquin kit fox use of habitat in the region are the 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), which were implemented during the surveys conducted to support the BRE. These are the standard accepted methods for identifying San Joaquin kit fox presence.

Based on observations during the surveys, the BRE assumed that San Joaquin kit fox forage on the Project and may use potential dens, although no evidence of use of these dens was documented at the time of the survey. The conclusion of the BRE was that San Joaquin kit fox were present and appropriate mitigation measures were proposed to reduce potential impacts to this species to less than significant.

Response to Comment 7: We defer to the Lead Agency regarding the planning issues and design standards that would result in implementation of this mitigation measure. It should be noted that the design provided in the MND includes a stormwater retention basin and the Mojave Pipeline easement through the northern portion of the parcel, which will be retained as a walking path landscaped with grass and plants.

Both of these feature types are identified in Cypher (2012) as supporting San Joaquin kit fox in the urban setting.

Response to Comment 8: Mitigation measures BIO-8 and BIO-9 require that the applicant seek incidental take authority from the appropriate agency prior to commencement of activities should any federal or state listed species be present on the Project. Given the marginal conditions and previously disturbed nature of the Project when the BRE was prepared and the findings at that time, habitat compensation was not deemed a necessary component of mitigation unless listed species are subsequently found to be occupying the Project. Mitigation measures BIO-8 and BIO-9 address that conclusion.

Mr. Hunter Troxel
February 24, 2025

Page 5 ends

Should you have any questions regarding these responses, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or by cellular phone at 661.343.1078.

Respectfully,
Randi McCormick
Principal Biologist
References cited:

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).

USFWS. (2011). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service standardized recommendations for protection of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance. Sacramento, CA: Author. 9 pp. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-ProtocolsGuidelines/Documents/kitfox_standard_rec_2011.pdf Attachment 1
Sierra Club comment letter (Pages 4 and 5)

S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\PC memo - correspondence_VTTM 7471 final.docx Page | 1

MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 1, 2025
TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J.Eng
SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 6.a. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased) Staff received the attached letter from the Sierra Club. Sierra Club disagrees with the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for this project. They ask for revision of the MND to address issues raised in their letter, such as cumulative impacts of greenhouse gases and biological resources.

Staff recommends adopting the MND and approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471.

Attachment: Sierra Club letter (April 30, 2025)
1 890 Monterey St
Suite H
SanLuis Obispo
California 93401
ph: 805-593-0926
fax: 805-593-0946
[email protected]
Law Offices of Babak Naficy
April 30, 2025
Via Email
Bakersfield Planning Commission,
[email protected]
Courtney Camps: [email protected]
Re: Vesting Ten t ative Tract Map 7471
Planning Commission May 1, 2025 Agenda
Item No. 6
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing on behalf of the Kern Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club. As explained in the Sierra Club’s December 30, 2024, letter to the Development Services Department, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this Vesting Tentative Map fails to adequately analyze the Project’s potential impacts on biological resources, particularly the impacts on the diverse group of protected species that have either been detected on the site or are expected to occur. The MND also fails to adequately assess the significance of the Project’s contribution to climate change, or to propose any mitigation to address those impacts.

1. Contrary to what is stated in the MND, the Project’s cumulative contribution to climate change is considerable and significant.

The MND claims “[t]he 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).” These claims, however, are neither explained nor supported by substantial evidence.

Typically, under CEQA, the lead agency applies a threshold of significance to assess the significance of a project’s potential impacts. “A threshold is an ‘identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant.’ [(CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7, subd (a).)]” Upland Cmty. First v. City of Upland, (20240 105 Cal. App. 5th 1, 16.
2 Here, the agency baldly asserts that the Project’s potential climate impacts are not significant without relying on any threshold of significance or even an explanation of its methodology or any other basis for reaching this conclusion.

Moreover, the MND’s conclusion in this regard is at odds with the report of its own expert, Trinity Consultant, who in their January 29, 2025, response to Sierra Club’s comments, admitted that “[g]iven the position of the legislature in AB 32, which states that global warming poses serious detrimental effects, and the requirements of CEQA for the lead agency to determine that a project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution, the effect of the proposed Project’s GHG contribution may be determined to be cumulatively considerable.” Ironically, the MND cites Trinity for the proposition that the Project’s contribution to climate change is NOT considerable or significant.

The MND also claims that “the project is consistent with [AB 32] strategies that are applicable to the project.” The MND then cites the 2017 Scoping Plan Update and explains that these 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.” This analysis, however, is inadequate and does not amount to substantial evidence supporting a conclusion the Project would not result in a significant impact associated with its greenhouse gas emissions. The fact that the State has in the past and will continue to adopt more stringent regulations does not support the conclusion that the Project’s emissions are consistent with or promote the State’s GHG reduction strategies. That argument makes no sense, because by that logic, every project is consistent with State climate goals because all projects rely on the same more efficient fuels, are subject to the same 3 increasingly more stringent regulations, and benefit from the state-sponsored GHG reductions in all sectors.

Moreover, the MND claims that Project “design features” are consistent with State GHG Plans and would further the State’s goals of reducing GHG emissions. The MND does not, however, identify or describe any such design features, leaving the public and the Planning Commissioners to guess what design features are intended to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions.

2. The MND improperly defers important protocol surveys and formulation mitigation measures.

The MND relies on a Biological Resource Evaluation based on a reconnaissance field study. The MND recognizes that the Project likely supports and/or is habitat for a number of protected species, including the blunt-nosed leopard lizard (BNLL), the San Joaquin kit fox, burrowing owl, nesting birds, American badger, Crotch’s bumble bee and Swainson’s hawk. Project consultant, McCormik explained that the “reconnaissance surveys were conducted to provide context and explanation for the potential to occur and subsequent impact analysis for the potentially occurring species.” McCormik, February 24, 2025, at 3.

It appears that because the applicant was not required to conduct protocol level surveys, in most instances the formulation of mitigation measures was deferred. With respect to the San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF), for example, the Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) explained that “if take cannot be avoided, acquisition of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) prior to any ground disturbing activities, pursuant Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b), would be required to comply with the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).” The MND concluded that even if take cannot be avoided, the acquisition of and ITP would necessarily reduce the Project impacts on SKKF to a less than significant level. This conclusion, however, is not explained or substantiated. There is no explanation to support this claim.

CDFW also pointed out that appropriate burrowing owl surveys had not been conducted. In its response to comments, McCormik admits that due to the upgraded status of the burrowing owl, “species-specific surveys” should be conducted, but defers these to after project approval. Again, it is assumed without any explanation that a feasible and effective mitigation strategy would simply present itself. In its comments, CDFW pointed out that the recommended buffers may not be feasible, in which case “consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the Project and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization …. Is necessary to comply with CESA.” This demonstrates that a discussion of potential mitigation strategies were 4 impermissibly deferred without any discussion of the feasibility and/or efficacy of potential mitigation measures, or any performance standards to ensure the mitigation measures will be effective in the long run.

Generally, “ ‘[i]t is improper to defer the formulation of mitigation measures until after project approval; instead, the determination of whether a project will have significant environmental impacts, and the formulation of measures to mitigate those impacts, must occur before the project is approved.’ [Citation.]” (Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906, 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 755; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B).) “[A]n exception to this general rule applies when the agency has committed itself to specific performance criteria for evaluating the efficacy of the measures to be implemented in the future, and the future mitigation measures are formulated and operational before the project activity that they regulate begins. [Citation.]
Save Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills (2020) 46 Cal. App. 5th 665, 686
Likewise, with respect to the Crotch’s Bumble Bee (CBB), a habitat assessment necessary to determine the likely presence of the CBB is deferred.

Focused surveys may be necessary if the requisite habitat features are present.

However, without this basic information, the public and the Planning Commissioners are not able to determine if the Project could potentially impact this protected species. Nor is there any discussion of whether mitigation of the impacts to the CBB is feasible.

For all of these reasons, the MND violates CEQA and must be revised as explained herein.
.

Sincerely,
Babak Naficy
Babak Naficy,
Counsel for the Kern Kaweah chapter of the Sierra Club
RESOLUTION NO .. 22-25

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION

TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7471 (PHASED)

LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MORNING DRIVE
AND PALADINO DRIVE.

WHEREAS, San Joaquin Engineering, Inc. representing LGI Homes - California, LLC, filed an application with the City of Bakersfield Planning Department requesting a Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased) (the "Project"), and a modification request to allow Double Frontage Lots, Reverse Corner Lots, Non-Radial Lot Lines, Block length to exceed 1,000 feet, Maximum Landscape Wall Height to exceed 9 feet, Use of Storm drain Easements and 300' Centerline Radius, consisting of 363 lots, 5 landscape lots, 5 private landscape lots, 1 retention basin, 1 private retention basin and 1 private park on 83.97 acres for single family residential development, as shown on attached Exhibit "C", located at the southwest corner of Morning Drive and Paladino Drive as shown on attached Exhibit "B"; and WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on October 10, 2024; and WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted that determined the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission, did set, Thursday, May 1, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to CEQA and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff and the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Department ( 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and
WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report, environmental review, and special studies (if any), and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings:
1 . All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a. local newspaper of general circulation, 10 days prior to the hearing.

Page 1 of 3 ends

2. The prov1s1ons of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff determined that the application is a project under CEQA and an initial study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared and duly noticed for public review between November 21, 2024 and December 23, 2024.

3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, staff prepared an initial study and indicated that because mitigation measures relating to biological resources, cultural resources and air quality analysis have been incorporated into the Project, the Project will have a less than significant impact on the physical environment.

4. Urban services are available for the proposed development. The Project is within an area to be served by all necessary utilities and waste disposal systems. Improvements proposed as part of the Project will deliver utilities to the individual lots or parcels to be created.

5. The application, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. {Subdivision Map Act Section 66473.5) The proposed density and intensity of development are consistent with the LR {Low Density Residential) land use classification on the property. Proposed road improvements are consistent with the Circulation Element. The overall design of the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of all elements of the General Plan.

6. Mineral right owners' signatures may be waived on the final map pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 A. l. The applicant has provided evidence with the Project application that it is appropriate to waive mineral right owners' signatures because in accordance with BMC Section 16.20.060 A. 1., the party's right of surface entry has been by recorded document prior to recordation of any final map.

7. In accordance with BMC 16.28.170 H, Paladino Drive and Morning Drive function as major streets as shown on the Project, therefore the abutting double frontage lots are reasonable due to controlling factors as traffic, safety, appearance, and setback, and are approved with construction of a 6-foot high masonry wall separating the residential lot and the major street.

8. The request for modification{s) is consistent with sound engineering practices or subdivision design features.

9. The conditions of approval are necessary for orderly development and to provide for the public health, welfare, and s0fety.

Page 2 of 3 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield as follows:
l. The recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby approved.

3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7 471, is hereby approved with conditions of approval and mitigation measures shown on Exhibit "A".

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on May l, 2025, on a motion by Commissioner Bittle and seconded by Commissioner Martin, by the following vote.

AYES:

NOES:

Bittle, Brandt Oliver, Cater, Kaur, Martin, Strickland
None
ABSENT: Neal
Exhibits (attached}:

Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B: Location Map
A7A~

DANIEL CATER, CHAIR
City of Bakersfield Planning Commission
Exhibit C: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased)
By CC S:\OS_Land Division\24-60000097 _ VTTM 7 471 _6220 Morning Drive\01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\ VTTM 7 471 _pc-Res.docx

Page 3 of 3 ends

EXHIBIT "A"
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 7471

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
NOTE to Subdivider/Applicant: It is important that you review and comply with requirements and deadlines listed in the "FOR YOUR INFORMATION" packet that is provided separately. This packet contains existing ordinance requirements, policies, and departmental operating procedures as they may apply to this subdivision.

PUBLIC WORKS

1. In letters dated January 25, 2024 & March 19, 2024, the applicant requested deviations from the following ordinance and policy requirements:

1.1. SOM 5.2.6.7 - Request Exception for the maximum length of a local street along Beauty Ave/Enchanted Dr. Recommendation: APPROVE.

1.2. SOM 5.4.2.1 - Request Exception from the minimum Local Street centerline Radius along the following streets: Thorner St, Happy Ct and Elated Ct.

Recommendation: APPROVE.

2. Approval of this tentative map does not indicate approval of grading, drainage lines and appurtenant facilities shown, or any variations from ordinance, standard, and policy requirements which have neither been requested nor specifically approved.

3. A Home Owners Association shall be established and it will be responsible for the landscaping maintenance for all lettered lots, paseo, private basin (Lot C), storm drain leading to the private basin (Phase 1 ), and walls adjacent to the private basin.

4. Prior to approval of any grading/improvement plan, developer shall provide consent for the portion of work which will be completed over the Mojave pipeline.

5. A common use agreement, or another mutually agreed-upon agreement regarding improvements within the Mojave pipeline right of way and City of Bakersfield right of way shall be recorded concurrently with the filing of the final map of the corresponding phase.

6. Prior to grading plan review submit the following for review and approval:

6.1. A drainage study for the entire subdivision, or a revision to the approved study.

The study shall be approved, any required retention shall be provided, and necessary easements shall be dedicated to the City. Lot C retention basin and any storm drain leading to the private basin shall be privately maintained.

6.2. A sewer study to include providing service to the entire subdivision and showing what surrounding areas may be served by the main line extensions.

6.3. If the tract is discharging storm water to a canal, a channel, or the Kern River: In order to meet the requirements of the City of Bakersfield's NPDES .permit, and to prevent the introduction of sediments from construction or frorn storm events to the waters of the US, all storm water systems that ultimately By CC S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097_ VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\VTTM 7471_Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

Page 2 of 19 ends

convey drainage to the river or a canal shall have a mechanical device in the storm drain system to remove or minimize the introduction of oil, grease, trash, and sediments. This device shall be reviewed and approved by the City · Engineer and shall provide the greatest benefit to the storm drain system with the least maintenance cost.

7. The following conditions must be reflected in the design of the improvement plans:

7.1. Final plan check fees shall be submitted with the first plan check submission.

7.2. Per Resolution l 08-2023 the area within the Tract shall implement and comply with the "complete streets" policy. Complete streets will require pedestrian and bicycle access to the Tract from existing sidewalks and bike lanes. If there is a gap less than ¼ mile then construction of asphalt sidewalks and bike lanes to the tract will be required.

7.3. Install traffic signal interconnect conduit and pull rope for the frontage in all arterials and collectors. Install conduit and pull ropes in future traffic signal locations.

7.4. In addition to other paving requirements, on and off-site road improvements may be required from any collector or arterial street to provide left turn and right turn channelization into each street (or access point) within the subdivision (or development), where warranted and as directed by the City Engineer. Said channelization shall be developed to provide necessary transitions and deceleration lanes to meet the current CalTrans standards for the design speed of the roadway in question.

7.5. Off-site pavement and striping construction will be required to transition from the proposed/ultimate on-site improvements to the existing conditions at the time construction commences. Transitions must be designed in accordance with City Standards and/or the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. If existing conditions change during the period of time between street improvement plan approval and construction commencement, the street improvement plans must be revised and approved by the City Engineer.

7.6. Right turn deceleration lanes are required on arterials at all streets and access points if the 85th percentile speed is less than 45 mph and the peak hour turning volume is over 200, or if the 85th percentile speed is 45 mph or greater and the peak hour turning volume is over 25.

8. The subdivider shall either construct the equivalent full width landscaped median island in Paladino Dr and Morning Dr for the site's frontage or pay$ 100 per Linear Feet (their proportionate share of the cost for the future construction of the median).

Median islands shall be designed by the first tract or development to be approved on a side.

9. The subdivide is responsible for implementing the following:

9.1. The phasing map as submitted may be unbalanced with respect to the required improvements along the tract frontages. Therefore, in order to promote orderly development, each phase shall be responsible for an equal dollar amount of frontage·improvement. f'>riorto recordation of each final map for any phase that does not construct its share of the improvements, the By CC S:\05_Land Division\24-60000097 _ vrrM 7 471 _6220 Morning Drive \01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\ vrrM 7471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

Page 3 of 19 ends

difference between the cost of the frontage improvements constructed and the phase share shall be placed into an escrow account. The money deposited in this account would be for the use of the developer of any future phase responsible for more than its share of improvements. The final per-lot share will be based upon an approved engineer's estimate. In lieu of the use of an escrow account, the developer may choose to construct with each phase its proportionate share of the frontage improvements, with approval of the City Engineer.
9 .2. The following conditions are based upon the premise that filing of Final Maps will occur in the order shown on the map with Phase 1 first, then Phase 2, then Phase 3, etc. If recordation does not occur in that normal progression, then, prior to recordation of each final map, the City Engineer shall determine the extent of improvements to be done with that particular phase. 9 .2.1 . The following shall occur with Phase 1 :

9.2.1.1. Construct Paladino Drive to full½ width arterial standards from Morning Dr to the western boundary of the tract.

9.2.1.2. Construct Morning Dr to full½ width arterial standards from the northern tract boundary to the phase 1 /2 boundary.
9 .2.2. The following shall occur with Phase 2:
9 .2.2.1 . Construct Morning Dr to full ½ width arterial standards from the phase 1 /2 boundary to the phase 2/3 boundary.

9.2.2.2. Construct Morning Dr to full½ width arterial standards, including asphalt pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk from the phase 2/3 boundary to the southern tract boundary
9 .2.2.3. A temporary turnaround shall be constructed on Enchanted Dr and phase 2/3 boundary.
9 .2.3. The following shall occur with Phase 3:
9 .2.3.1 . Construct the landscaping and wall along Morning Dr from the phase 2/3 boundary to the southern tract boundary.
9 .2.3.2. Construct Eagle Ridge Street.

If the number of phases or the boundaries of the phases are changed, the developer must submit to the City Engineer an exhibit showing the number and configuration of the proposed phases. The City Engineer will review the exhibit and determine the order and extent of improvements to be constructed with each new phase. The improvement plans may require revision to conform to the new conditions.
9 .3. The subdivider is responsible for verifying that existing streets within the boundary of the tract are constructed to city standards and he will reconstruct streets within the boundary if not to standard. 9 .4. Where streets do not have curb and gutter, construct a minimum section of 36 feet wide consisting of 2-12' lanes, 2-4' paved shoulders and 2 additional feet per side of either AC or other dust proof surface.
9 .5. The use of interim, non-standard drainage retention areas shall be in accordance with the drainage policy adopted by letter dated January 24; 1997.

By CC S:\0S_Land Division\24-60000097 _ VTTM 7 471 _6220 Morning Drive \01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\ VTTM 7 471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

Page 4 of 19 ends

9.6. To preserve the permeability of the sump and to prevent the introduction of sediments from construction or from storm events, Best Management Practices for complying with the requirements of the Clean Water Act are required. 9 .7. All lots with sumps and water well facilities will have wall and landscaping to the appropriate street standards, at the building setback with landscaping as approved by the Public Works and Parks Directors.

9.8. Drainage basins shall be reviewed and approved by both the Public Works Department and the Water Resources Department.

9.9. Install blue markers in the street at the fire hydrants per the Fire Department requirements.

10. The following must be reflected in the final map design:

10.1. A waiver of direct access shall be required for all lots abutting any arterials and collectors.

11. Prior to recordation of the first final map within this project site, subdivider shall make written notification to the City Engineer of any public improvements required to be financed or constructed outside the boundaries of the tentative map {i.e., "offsite improvements) as defined in BMC 116.16.080(E), and the cost of such offsite improvements. The notice shall include an engineer's estimate or other documentation as required by the City Engineer that outlines by line item the specific offsite improvements for purposes of verifying extension of time eligibility pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.6(a). The written notification and documentation are subject to approval by the City Engineer or his/her designee.

12. Prior to recording the first final map:

12.1. The City Council must have taken final action for the inclusion of this tract within the Consolidated Maintenance District.

12.2. The developer is required to construct an improvement which is on the facilities list for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Morning Dr and Paladino Dr. The developer shall receive credit against his traffic impact fees for constructing this project. The developer must submit an appraisal, to be approved by the City Engineer, verifying the cost of the rightof-way to be acquired. This credit is not available until the improvement has been constructed by the developer and accepted for maintenance by the City. Any building permit issued prior to this acceptance shall pay the full impact fee.

12.3. If it becomes necessary to obtain any off-site right of way and if the subdivider is unable to obtain the required right of way, then he shall pay to the City the up-front costs for eminent domain proceedings and enter into an agreement and post security for the purchase and improvement of said right of way.

13. Prior to recording each final map:

13.1. All facilities within the boundaries of this subdivision identified by the approved drainage studyshall be constructed in accordance with the plans approved by the City Engineer, and all easements required shall be provided.

By CC S:\0S_Lond Division\24-60000097 _ vrrM 7 471 _6220 Morning Drive \01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Droft\Temp/ates\ vrrM 7 471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

Page 5 of 19 ends

13.2. The subdivider shall submit an enforceable, recordable document approved by the City Attorney to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map which will prohibit occupancy of any lot until all improvements have been completed by the subdivider and accepted by the City.

13.3. The subdivider shall submit an enforceable, recordable document approved by the City Attorney to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map containing information with respect to the addition of this subdivision to the consolidated maintenance district. Said covenant shall also contain information pertaining to the maximum anticipated annual cost per single family dwelling for the maintenance of landscaping associated with this tract.

Said covenant shall be provided to each new property owner through escrow proceedings. If the parcel is already within a consolidated maintenance district, the owner shall update the maintenance district documents, including Proposition 218 Ballot and Covenant, which shall be signed and notarized.

13.4. This subdivision is located within the Breckenridge Planned Drainage Area per Resolution 136-05 and is subject to fees. Pay such fees prior to recordation of each Final Map.

13.5. All facilities within the boundaries of this subdivision identified by the approved Breckenridge drainage study shall be constructed in accordance with the plans approved by the City Engineer, and all easements required shall be provided.

14. Prior to Notice of Completion:

14.1. The storm drain system, including the sump, shall be inspected and any debris removed.

14.2. Street Name Signs (SNS):

14.2.1. Metro Size SNS shall be installed at the intersection of local streets with Arterial and collector streets.

14.2.2. Standard SNS shall be installed at all other locations.

FIRE SAFETY DIVISION

15. Pipeline Easements.

15.1 Concurrently with recordation of any phase that includes the pipeline easements or portions thereof, subdivider shall show the easements on the final map with a notation that structures including accessory buildings, habitable portion of a structure, garage, deck/patio, swimming pools or unoccupied permanent structure, are prohibited within the setback and record a corresponding covenant.

15.2 Prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase that includes the pipeline easements or portions thereof, subdivider shall show on the final map that no habitable portion of a structure, garage, deck/patio, swimming pools or unoccupied permanent structure may be built within 50 feet of a gas main, or transmission line, or refined liquid product line with 36 inches of cover and record a corresponding covenant.

15.3 No structure may be within 40 feet of a hazardous liquids pipeline bearing refined product, within 48 inches or more of cover. If a pipeline meets these criteria, the 40- foot setback line shall be shown in the final map and a corresponding covenant By CC S:\0S_Land Division\24-60000097 _VTTM 7471_6220 Morning Drive\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Templates\ VTTM 7 471 _Exh Con_updated.docx Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7471

Page 6 of 19 ends
← All documents from this meeting