Effective Date:
Insured Name:
Copyright CNA All Rights Reserved. Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission.
ABCDEFGHI
JKLMN
1. ADDITIONAL INSUREDS
a. WHO IS AN INSURED is amended to include as an Insured any person or organization described in paragraphs A. through K. below whom a Named Insured is required to add as an additional insured on this Coverage Part under a written contract or written agreement, provided such contract or agreement:
(1) is currently in effect or becomes effective during the term of this Coverage Part; and (2) was executed prior to:
(a) the bodily injury or property damage; or
(b) the offense that caused the personal and advertising injury, for which such additional insured seeks coverage.
b. However, subject always to the terms and conditions of this policy, including the limits of insurance, the Insurer will not provide such additional insured with:
(1) a higher limit of insurance than required by such contract or agreement; or (2) coverage broader than required by such contract or agreement, and in no event broader than that described by the applicable paragraph A. through K. below.
Any coverage granted by this endorsement shall apply only to the extent permissible by law.
A. Controlling Interest
Any person or organization with a controlling interest in a Named Insured, but only with respect to such person or organizations liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal and advertising injury arising out of:
1. such person or organizations financial control of a Named Insured; or
2. premises such person or organization owns, maintains or controls while a Named Insured leases or occupies such premises;
provided that the coverage granted by this paragraph does not apply to structural alterations, new construction or demolition operations performed by, on behalf of, or for such additional insured.
B. Co-owner of Insured Premises
A co-owner of a premises co-owned by a Named Insured and covered under this insurance but only with respect to such co-owners liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal and advertising injury as co-owner of such premises.
C. Grantor of Franchise
Any person or organization that has granted a franchise to a Named Insured, but only with respect to such person or organizations liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal and advertising injury as grantor of a franchise to the Named Insured.
D. Lessor of Equipment
Any person or organization from whom a Named Insured leases equipment, but only with respect to liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal and advertising injury caused, in whole or in part, by the Named Insureds maintenance, operation or use of such equipment, provided that the occurrence giving rise to such bodily injury, property damage or the offense giving rise to such personal and advertising injury takes place prior to the termination of such lease.
ª4" "9)AoT=M¥9K«¬¬¬20020002250933795229459
CNA PARAMOUNT
5093379522
3 Nat'l Fire Ins Co of Hartford 07/06/2025
HIGHSTREET IT SOLUTIONS, LLC
Technology General Liability Extension Endorsement
CNA74872XX (1-15) Policy No:
Effective Date:
Insured Name:
Copyright CNA All Rights Reserved. Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission.
ABCDEFGHI
JKLMN
E. Lessor of Land
Any person or organization from whom a Named Insured leases land but only with respect to liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal and advertising injury arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such land, provided that the occurrence giving rise to such bodily injury, property damage or the offense giving rise to such personal and advertising injury takes place prior to the termination of such lease. The coverage granted by this paragraph does not apply to structural alterations, new construction or demolition operations performed by, on behalf of, or for such additional insured.
F. Lessor of Premises
An owner or lessor of premises leased to the Named Insured, or such owner or lessors real estate manager, but only with respect to liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal and advertising injury arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such part of the premises leased to the Named Insured, and provided that the occurrence giving rise to such bodily injury or property damage, or the offense giving rise to such personal and advertising injury, takes place prior to the termination of such lease. The coverage granted by this paragraph does not apply to structural alterations, new construction or demolition operations performed by, on behalf of, or for such additional insured.
G. Mortgagee, Assignee or Receiver
A mortgagee, assignee or receiver of premises but only with respect to such mortgagee, assignee or receivers liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal and advertising injury arising out of the Named Insureds ownership, maintenance, or use of a premises by a Named Insured.
The coverage granted by this paragraph does not apply to structural alterations, new construction or demolition operations performed by, on behalf of, or for such additional insured.
H. State or Governmental Agency or Subdivision or Political Subdivisions Permits A state or governmental agency or subdivision or political subdivision that has issued a permit or authorization but only with respect to such state or governmental agency or subdivision or political subdivisions liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal and advertising injury arising out of:
1. the following hazards in connection with premises a Named Insured owns, rents, or controls and to which this insurance applies:
a. the existence, maintenance, repair, construction, erection, or removal of advertising signs, awnings, canopies, cellar entrances, coal holes, driveways, manholes, marquees, hoistaway openings, sidewalk vaults, street banners, or decorations and similar exposures; or b. the construction, erection, or removal of elevators; or c. the ownership, maintenance or use of any elevators covered by this insurance; or
2. the permitted or authorized operations performed by a Named Insured or on a Named Insureds behalf.
The coverage granted by this paragraph does not apply to:
a. Bodily injury, property damage or personal and advertising injury arising out of operations performed for the state or governmental agency or subdivision or political subdivision; or b. Bodily injury or property damage included within the products-completed operations hazard.
With respect to this provisions requirement that additional insured status must be requested under a written contract or agreement, the Insurer will treat as a written contract any governmental permit that requires the Named Insured to add the governmental entity as an additional insured.
CNA PARAMOUNT
5093379522
3 Nat'l Fire Ins Co of Hartford 07/06/2025
HIGHSTREET IT SOLUTIONS, LLC
Technology General Liability Extension Endorsement
CNA74872XX (1-15) Policy No:
Effective Date:
Insured Name:
Copyright CNA All Rights Reserved. Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission.
ABCDEFGHI
JKLMN
I. Trade Show Event Lessor
1. With respect to a Named Insureds participation in a trade show event as an exhibitor, presenter or displayer, any person or organization whom the Named Insured is required to include as an additional insured, but only with respect to such person or organizations liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal and advertising injury caused by:
a. the Named Insureds acts or omissions; or
b. the acts or omissions of those acting on the Named Insureds behalf, in the performance of the Named Insureds ongoing operations at the trade show event premises during the trade show event.
2. The coverage granted by this paragraph does not apply to bodily injury or property damage included within the products-completed operations hazard.
J. Vendor
Any person or organization but only with respect to such person or organizations liability for bodily injury or property damage arising out of your products which are distributed or sold in the regular course of such person or organization's business, provided that:
1. The coverage granted by this paragraph does not apply to:
a. bodily injury or property damage for which such person or organization is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or agreement unless such liability exists in the absence of the contract or agreement;
b. any express warranty unauthorized by the Named Insured; c. any physical or chemical change in any product made intentionally by such person or organization; d. repackaging, except when unpacked solely for the purpose of inspection, demonstration, testing, or the substitution of parts under instructions from the manufacturer, and then repackaged in the original container;
e. any failure to make any inspections, adjustments, tests or servicing that such person or organization has agreed to make or normally undertakes to make in the usual course of business, in connection with the distribution or sale of the products;
f. demonstration, installation, servicing or repair operations, except such operations performed at such person or organizations premises in connection with the sale of a product; g. products which, after distribution or sale by the Named Insured, have been labeled or relabeled or used as a container, part or ingredient of any other thing or substance by or for such person or organization; or h. bodily injury or property damage arising out of the sole negligence of such person or organization for its own acts or omissions or those of its employees or anyone else acting on its behalf. However, this exclusion does not apply to:
(1) the exceptions contained in Subparagraphs d. or f. above; or (2) such inspections, adjustments, tests or servicing as such person or organization has agreed with the Named Insured to make or normally undertakes to make in the usual course of business, in connection with the distribution or sale of the products.
2. This Paragraph J. does not apply to any insured person or organization, from whom the Named Insured has acquired such products, nor to any ingredient, part or container, entering into, accompanying or containing such products.
ª4" "9)AoT=N¥0H«¬¬¬20020002250933795229460
CNA PARAMOUNT
5093379522
3 Nat'l Fire Ins Co of Hartford 07/06/2025
HIGHSTREET IT SOLUTIONS, LLC
Technology General Liability Extension Endorsement
CNA74872XX (1-15) Policy No:
Effective Date:
Insured Name:
Copyright CNA All Rights Reserved. Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission.
ABCDEFGHI
JKLMN
3. This Paragraph J. also does not apply:
a. to any vendor specifically scheduled as an additional insured by endorsement to this Coverage Part; b. to any of your products for which coverage is excluded by endorsement to this Coverage Part; nor c. if bodily injury or property damage included within the products-completed operations hazard is excluded by endorsement to this Coverage Part.
K. Other Person Or Organization / Your Work
Any person or organization who is not an additional insured under Paragraphs A. through J. above. Such additional insured is an Insured solely for bodily injury, property damage or personal and advertising injury for which such additional insured is liable because of the Named Insureds acts or omissions.
The coverage granted by this paragraph does not apply to any person or organization:
1. who is specifically scheduled as an additional insured on another endorsement to this Coverage Part; nor
2. for bodily injury or property damage included within the products-completed operations hazard except to the extent all of the following apply:
a. this Coverage Part provides such coverage;
b. the written contract or agreement described in the opening paragraph of this ADDITIONAL INSUREDS Provision requires the Named Insured to provide the additional insured such coverage; and c. the bodily injury or property damage results from your work that is the subject of the written contract or agreement, and such work has not been excluded by endorsement to this Coverage Part.
2. ADDITIONAL INSURED - PRIMARY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY TO ADDITIONAL INSUREDS INSURANCE A. The Other Insurance Condition in the COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS Section is amended to add the following paragraph:
If the Named Insured has agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that this insurance is primary and noncontributory relative to an additional insured's own insurance, then this insurance is primary, and the Insurer will not seek contribution from that other insurance. For the purpose of this Provision 2., the additional insured's own insurance means insurance on which the additional insured is a named insured.
B. With respect to persons or organizations that qualify as additional insureds pursuant to paragraph 1.K. of this endorsement, the following sentence is added to the paragraph above:
Otherwise, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary elsewhere in this Condition, the insurance provided to such person or organization is excess of any other insurance available to such person or organization.
3. BODILY INJURY EXPANDED DEFINITION
Under DEFINITIONS, the definition of bodily injury is deleted and replaced by the following:
Bodily injury means physical injury, sickness or disease sustained by a person, including death, humiliation, shock, mental anguish or mental injury sustained by that person at any time which results as a consequence of the physical injury, sickness or disease.
4. BROAD KNOWLEDGE OF OCCURRENCE/ NOTICE OF OCCURRENCE
Under CONDITIONS, the condition entitled Duties in The Event of Occurrence, Offense, Claim or Suit Condition is amended to add the following provisions:
A. BROAD KNOWLEDGE OF OCCURRENCE
Workers Compensation And Employers Liability Insurance
Policy Endorsement
WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT
We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. This agreement applies only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.
This agreement shall not operate directly or indirectly to benefit anyone not named in the Schedule.
Any person or organization for which the employer has agreed by written contract, executed prior to loss, may execute a waiver of subrogation. However, for purposes of work performed by the employer in Missouri, this waiver of subrogation does not apply to any construction group of classifications as designated by the waiver of right to recover from others (subrogation) rule in our manual.
Schedule
Any Person or Organization on whose behalf you are required to obtain this waiver of our right to recover from under a written contract or agreement.
The premium charge for the endorsement is reflected in the Schedule of Operations.
All other terms and conditions of the policy remain unchanged.
This endorsement, which forms a part of and is for attachment to the policy issued by the designated Insurers, takes effect on the Policy Effective Date of said policy at the hour stated in said policy, unless another effective date (the Endorsement Effective Date) is shown below, and expires concurrently with said policy unless another expiration date is shown below.
WC 5 93379536
Endorsement No: 6; Page: 1 of 1 Policy Page: 209 of 354 Underwriting Company: American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, 151 N Franklin St, Chicago, IL 60606
Form No: WC 00 03 13 (04-1984)
Endorsement Effective Date:
Policy No:
Endorsement Expiration Date: Policy Effective Date: 07/06/2025 Copyright 1983 National Council on Compensation Insurance.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Randy McKeegan, Finance Director
DATE: February 25, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 5 to Agreement No. 2022-047 with San Joaquin Fence & Supply (increase compensation by $500,000; revised not to exceed $4,800,000 and extend the term by one year) to continue the supply of installed fencing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommend approval of the amendment.
BACKGROUND:
On March 16, 2022, the City Council approved the annual contract for the supply of installed fencing with San Joaquin Fence and Supply, in the amount of $1,200,000; renewable annually thereafter for four consecutive one-year periods.
The Annual Contract for installed fencing is used by the Recreation and Parks Department, Fire Department, Water Resources Department (including its Wastewater Division), and the Public Works Department’s Streets and Solid Waste Divisions. The services provided under this contract include re-fencing, site beautification, and ongoing security enhancements at various City locations.
Per the terms of the contract, amendments increasing the contract and/or extending the contract have been approved as follows:
Amendment 1 approved December 14, 2022; increased compensation by $150,000. Amendment 2 approved March 8, 2023; increased compensation by $1,350,000 and extended the term by one year to March 15, 2024.
Amendment 3 approved March 13, 2024; extended the term by one year to March 15, 2025. Amendment 4 approved March 12, 2025; increased compensation by $1,600,000 and extended the term by one year to March 15, 2026.
If approved, Amendment No. 5 will increase compensation by $500,000 for a revised not to exceed amount of $4,800,000 and extend the term by one year. This extension will allow the City to continue to meet the fencing needs for various departments to the final term date of March 15, 2027.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for this work will be from a variety of sources including General Fund, Refuse, Water, Park Improvement and Capital Outlay. This not all of the cost is born by the City General Fund.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:
Partially signed Amendment No. 5 to Agreement No. 2022-047
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Randy McKeegan, Finance Director
DATE: February 25, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 2023-077 with California Water Technologies, LLC (extend term by one year) to continue the supply of ferric chloride.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommend approval of the amendment.
BACKGROUND:
On March 22, 2023, the City Council approved the annual contract for the supply of ferric chloride with California Water Technologies, LLC, in the amount of $189,795.81; renewable annually thereafter for four consecutive one-year periods.
Per the terms of the contract, amendments increasing the contract and/or extending the contract have been approved as follows:
• Amendment 1 approved March 13, 2024; extend term by one year to March 22, 2025. • Amendment 2 approved March 12, 2025; extend term by one year to March 22, 2026 Wastewater Plant 3 uses ferric chloride in the digesters to reduce the concentration of hydrogen sulfide in order to maintain compliance with permit requirements issued by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Air Board.
Currently, there is $189,795.81 remaining on the contract. If approved, Amendment No. 3 will extend the term by one year to allow the City to continue to meet the demand for the supply of ferric chloride to the term date of March 22, 2027.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds are budgeted in the Sewer Enterprise fund for this contract.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:
Signed Amendment No.3
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: 3/11/2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent – Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: 2/9/2026
SUBJECT: Contract Change Order No. 99 to Agreement No. 18-176 with Security Paving Company (increasing compensation by $30,000.00; revised not to exceed $52,042,387.03), for the Bakersfield Freeway Connector Project. (Wards 1 & 2)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the change order.
BACKGROUND:
The Bakersfield Freeway Connector Project will construct improvements along westbound State Route (SR) 58 and southbound SR-99. The improvements include an additional auxiliary lane on westbound SR58, realignment of the westbound SR-58 to southbound SR-99 connector, construction of a branch connector for SR-58 to southbound SR-99 and construction of a collector distributor along southbound SR-99 for the Ming Avenue off-ramps.
Contract Change Order (CCO) No. 99 provides additional funds for CCO 94, which was approved on June 26, 2024, to perform additional traffic control. The estimated funds under CCO 94 were depleted. This change order compensates the contractor for the work more specifically described under CCO 94 and results in a net increase of $30,000.00.
The Contractor has refused to sign CCO No. 99 alleging additional time and money. However, the Contractor needs to substantiate the request for time and money. In a good faith effort to make payments to the Contractor, staff recommends unilateral approval of this change order using the engineer's calculated quantities and without the Contractor's signature. If the Contractor later submits acceptable justification for revisions to this change order, staff will review the additional information and, if changes are warranted, a supplemental change order may be in place on a future City Council Agenda.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The sum of all change orders to date on this project reflects a total cost increase of $3,455,992.03 which results in a 7.11% increase of the original contract amount as illustrated below:
Original Contract Amount = $48,586,395.00
Previous Change Orders = $3,425,992.03
Current Change Order = $30,000.00
Amended Contract Agreement after CCO = $52,042,387.03
Net Increase to date = $3,455,992.03
There is no General Fund impact associated with this change order.
Funding for this change order is available in project TRCC22 Bakersfield Freeway Connector Project.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Reliable infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:
Contract Change Order
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Thomas Roads Improvement Program
SHEET 1 OF 1
CONTRACT NO. P.O. NO.
PROJECT: Bakersfield Freeway Connector Project
FEDERAL NO. (S)
CONTRACTOR: Security Paving Company
ADDRESS: 2915 Fairhaven Drive
Bakersfield, CA 93309
YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO MAKE THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CHANGES FROM THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS OR DO THE FOLLOWING WORK DESCRIBED NOT INCLUDED IN THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ON THIS CONTRACT.
NOTE: This change order is not effective until approved by City Council or City Engineer CHANGE SUBMITTED BY: Arturo Infante, Construction Manager DATE: 2/9/2026 CHANGE REQUESTED BY: Arturo Infante, Construction Manager DATE: 2/9/2026 ACCOUNT NO (S) 122-4021-825-8041 TRCC22 - (144)
126-4021-825-8041 TRCC22 - (245)
151-4021-825-8041 TRCC22 - (245) INCREASE $30,000.00
335-4021-825-8041 TRCC22 - (245) DECREASE $0.00
By reason of this order the time of City Council Approval Required YES x completion will be adjusted as follows: NO ADJUSTMENT NO Approved As to Form: CITY ATTORNEY Approved by the Council of City of Bakersfield Approval Recommended: City Engineer Mayor
Countersigned: Finance Director Date
Accepted, Date: Contractor: Title:
We, the undersigned contractor, have given careful consideration to the change proposed and hereby agree, if this proposal is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all services necessary for the work above specified, and will accept as full payment therefore the prices shown above.
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
Description of work to be done, estimate of quantities, and prices to be paid. Segregate between additional work of contract price, agreed price and force account. Unless otherwise stated, rates for rental of equipment cover only such time as equipment is actually used and no allowance will be made for idle time. 18-176 99
PRNSL-5109(245)
CHANGE ORDER NO.
EXTRA WORK AT FORCE ACCOUNT:
This change order provides additional funds for Change Order No. 94, which was approved on June 26, 2024 to perform Traffic Control work. The estimated funds under CCO 94 were depleted. CCO #99 increases the funding by $30,000 to compensate the contractor for the work described under CCO 94.
Extra Work at Force Account: $30,000.00
TIME ADJUSTMENT:
There shall be no time associated with this change order.
UNILATERAL
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: February 19, 2026
SUBJECT: Contract Change Order No.1 to Agreement No. 2023-206 with Crosstown Electric and Data Inc. ($28,755.70; revised not-to-exceed $2,328,755.70) for the Advanced Traffic Management System. Signal Coordination Part 1 (T1K304/CML 5109 (268), Traffic Signal Communications on Arterials (T1K305) CML 5109 (269)). (Wards 2,3,4,6)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the change order.
BACKGROUND:
The work to be performed consists, in general, installation of new signal controller equipment and software along the street corridor segment of:
Truxtun Avenue between Coffee Road and S Street.
H Street between White Lane and Truxtun Avenue.
Oak Street between Palm Street and 24th Steet.
Ming Avenue between Scarlet Oak Drive and Valley Plaza. Hageman Road between Old Farm Road and Fruitvale Avenue. Coffee Road between White Lane and Jayme Avenue.
23rd Street between F Street and M Street.
24th between Oak Street and M Street.
Project T1K304 and Project T1K305 were combined and bid together. Change Order No. 1 provides for the replacement of the existing CAT-5 cable. During construction, it was discovered that the new Iteris cameras were not compatible with the existing CAT-5 cabling system. To ensure proper system performance, the existing CAT-5 cable must be replaced with new CAT-6 cable. The contractor agrees to do the above-mentioned work for the lump sum price of $28,755.70.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Project T1K304 and T1K305 are funded with State and Federal funds. Sufficient funds are budgeted to cover the cost of this Contract Change Order.
The total cost increase for contract change order number one is $28,755.70. This is the final change order for the project, and the project has been completed. This final change order reflects a total cost increase of $28,755.70 (1.25% increase to the original contract amount) as illustrated below:
Original Contract Amount = $2,300,000.00
Total of Previous Change order approved by council
contingency = $0
Current Contract Change Order = $28,755.70
Amended Contract Amount after Change order = $2,328,755.70 Net Increase to Date = $28,755.70
COUNCIL GOAL:
Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:
Contract Change Order
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Bids TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: January 15, 2026
SUBJECT: Carbon Media Change-Out Services for Bakersfield Sanitary Landfill Accept Proposal and Approve Contract with Carbon Supply Inc ($300,000) for providing granular activated carbon, associated equipment and change-out services for Bakersfield Sanitary Landfill (Ward 3).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of proposal and approval of agreement.
BACKGROUND:
The City has maintained an agreement for the supply and replacement of granular activated carbon (GAC) used in air quality control systems at the Bakersfield Sanitary Landfill, 4200 Panorama Drive. The GAC is necessary to ensure compliance with applicable emissions regulations and to support the continued operation of the landfill’s environmental control systems.
Due to recent regulatory changes implemented by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the City is required to increase the frequency of carbon media change-outs and utilize upgraded equipment to remain in full compliance. These updated regulations have significantly increased the cost of providing the required granular activated carbon, associated equipment, and change-out services beyond the limits of prior agreements.
To address these requirements, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued to solicit bids from qualified contractors to provide granular activated carbon, the associated equipment, and change-out services for the Bakersfield Sanitary Landfill. Responses to the RFP were received from four (4) companies, as listed below:
1. Carbon Activated Corporation $21,900.00
2. Karbonous, Inc $19,559.25
3. Pacific Petroleum California $43,310.03
4. Carbon Supply Inc $18,725.15
Following a thorough evaluation of relevant experience, reliability, and cost proposals, Carbon Supply Inc was determined to be the most responsive and responsible bidder and to offer the best overall value to the City. Carbon Supply Inc is among a limited number of vendors capable of supplying the specific activated carbon pellet media required to meet CARB standards and is the only nearby supplier able to provide timely and reliable change-out services.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total contract amount will be funded through the Refuse Enterprise Fund. There will be no impact on the City’s General Fund.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Safety and Resilience
ATTACHMENTS:
Agreement
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT – CARBON SUPPLY INC Page 1 Updated – February 20, 2026
AGREEMENT NO. ___________________
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT
[Over $100,000]
This INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on _______________________, by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation (referred to herein as “CITY”), and CARBON SUPPLY INC., a corporation authorized to do business in California (referred to herein as “CONTRACTOR”).
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2026, CITY posted a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Carbon Change-out Services at the Bakersfield Sanitary Landfill located at 4200 Panorama Drive, Bakersfield, Ca 93306; and
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR submitted a response to the RFP, representing CONTRACTOR is experienced, well qualified and a specialist in the field of environmental services, chemicals, petrochemicals, glass & gases and manufacturing.
NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and CONTRACTOR mutually agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF WORK. In exchange for the Compensation (defined below), CONTRACTOR shall perform the following:
CONTRACTOR to provide granular activated carbon, equipment and change out services at the City’s Landfill located at 4200 Panorama Drive, Bakersfield, CA as set forth in more detail in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein. (“Scope of Work”). The Scope of Work shall include all items and procedures necessary to properly complete the task CONTRACTOR has been hired to perform, whether specifically included in the Scope of Work or not.
2. COMPENSATION/PAYMENT PROCEDURE. Subject to the conditions of this section, CITY will pay CONTRACTOR as follows for performing the Scope of Work (“Compensation”):
Docusign Envelope ID: 7A11CC54-8831-43C3-BA7D-09AD81EC351F INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT – CARBON SUPPLY INC Page 2 Updated – February 20, 2026
Compensation for all work, services or products called for under this agreement shall consist of a total payment not to exceed THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($300,000) as set forth attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference herein.
CITY will pay CONTRACTOR within thirty (30) days after CONTRACTOR submits an itemized invoice for the portions of the Scope of Work completed and that invoice is approved by CITY. The Compensation will be the total amount paid to CONTRACTOR for performing the Scope of Work and includes, but is not limited to, all out-of-pocket costs and taxes.
CITY will pay no other compensation to CONTRACTOR. In no case will CITY compensate CONTRACTOR more than THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($300,000) for performing the Scope of Work.
3. TERM. Unless terminated sooner, as set forth herein, this Agreement shall terminate three years from the effective date of the Agreement and may be extended for two (2) one (1) year increments under the same terms and conditions upon the mutual, written consent of CITY and CONTRACTOR.
4. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement after giving the other party written notice, as provided herein, ten (10) days before the termination is effective.
5. ACCOUNTING RECORDS. CONTRACTOR shall maintain accurate accounting records and other written documentation pertaining to all costs incurred in performance of this Agreement. Such records and documentation shall be kept at CONTRACTOR's office during the term of this Agreement, and for a period of three (3) years from the date of the final payment hereunder, and made available to CITY representatives upon request at any time during regular business hours.
6. ASSIGNMENT. Neither this Agreement nor any rights, interests, duties, liabilities, obligations or responsibilities arising out of, concerning or related in any way to this Agreement (including, but not limited to, accounts, actions, causes of action, claims, damages, demands, liabilities, losses, obligations, or reckonings of any kind or nature whatsoever, for compensatory or exemplary and punitive damages, or declaratory, equitable or injunctive relief, whether based on contract, equity, tort or other theories of recovery provided for by the common or statutory law) may be assigned or transferred by any party. Any such assignment is prohibited, and shall be unenforceable and otherwise null and void without the need for further action by the non-assigning party or parties.
Docusign Envelope ID: 7A11CC54-8831-43C3-BA7D-09AD81EC351F INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT – CARBON SUPPLY INC Page 3 Updated – February 20, 2026
7. BINDING EFFECT. The rights and obligations of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties to the Agreement and their heirs, administrators, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns.
8. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall, at CONTRACTOR’s sole cost, comply with all of the requirements of municipal, state, and federal authorities now in force, or which may hereafter be in force, pertaining to this Agreement, and shall faithfully observe in all activities relating to or growing out of this Agreement all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes, rules or regulations, and permitting requirements now in force or which may hereafter be in force including, without limitation, obtaining a City of Bakersfield business tax certificate (Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 5.02) where required.
9. CORPORATE AUTHORITY. Each individual signing this Agreement on behalf of entities represents and warrants that they are, respectively, duly authorized to sign on behalf of the entities and to bind the entities fully to each and all of the obligations set forth in this Agreement.
10. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered as an original and be effective as such.
11. DIRECTION. CONTRACTOR retains the right to control or direct the manner in which the services described herein are performed.
12. EQUIPMENT. CONTRACTOR will supply all equipment, tools, materials and supplies necessary to perform the services under this Agreement.
13. EXECUTION. This Agreement is effective upon the date first written above and is the product of negotiation and all parties are equally responsible for authorship of this Agreement. Section 1654 of the California Civil Code shall not apply to the interpretation of this Agreement.
14. EXHIBITS. In the event of a conflict between the terms, conditions or specifications set forth in this Agreement and those in exhibits attached hereto, the terms, conditions, or specifications set forth in this Agreement shall prevail. All exhibits to which reference is made in this Agreement are deemed incorporated in this Agreement, whether or not actually attached.
15. FURTHER ASSURANCES. Each party shall execute and deliver such papers, documents, and instruments, and perform such acts as are necessary or Docusign Envelope ID: 7A11CC54-8831-43C3-BA7D-09AD81EC351F INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT – CARBON SUPPLY INC Page 4 Updated – February 20, 2026
appropriate, to implement the terms of this Agreement and the intent of the parties to this Agreement.
16. GOVERNING LAW. The laws of the State of California will govern the validity of this Agreement and its interpretation and performance. Any litigation arising in any way from this Agreement shall be brought in Kern County, California.
17. INCLUDED DOCUMENTS. Any bid documents, including, without limitation, special provisions and standard specifications and any Request for Proposals, Request for Qualifications and responses thereto relating to this Agreement are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
18. INDEMNITY. CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY and CITY’s officers, agents and employees against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, arising out of, connected with, or caused by CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR’s employees, agents, independent contractors, companies, or subcontractors in the performance of, or in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this Agreement whether or not caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct.
19. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. This Agreement calls for CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Scope of Work as an independent contractor.
CONTRACTOR is not an agent or employee of CITY for any purpose and is not entitled to any of the benefits provided by CITY to its employees. This Agreement shall not be construed as forming a partnership or any other association with CONTRACTOR other than that of an independent contractor.
20. INSURANCE.
20.1 Types and Limits of Insurance. In addition to any other insurance or security required under this Agreement, CONTRACTOR must procure and maintain, for the duration of this Agreement, the types and limits of insurance below ("Basic Insurance Requirements").
20.1.1 Automobile liability insurance, providing coverage for owned, non-owned, and hired autos on an occurrence
basis for bodily injury, including death, of one or more persons, property damage, and personal injury, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Docusign Envelope ID: 7A11CC54-8831-43C3-BA7D-09AD81EC351F INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT – CARBON SUPPLY INC Page 5 Updated – February 20, 2026
20.1.2 Commercial general liability insurance, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Risk Manager, providing coverage on
an occurrence basis for bodily injury, including death, of one or more persons, property damage, and personal
injury, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.
The policy must:
20.1.2.1 Provide contractual liability coverage for the terms of this Agreement;
20.1.2.2 Provide products and completed operations
coverage;
20.1.2.3 Provide premises, operations, and mobile
equipment coverage; and
20.1.2.4 Contain an additional insured endorsement in
favor of CITY and its mayor, council, officers,
agents, employees, and designated volunteers.
20.1.3 Workers' compensation insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. In accordance with the
provisions of Labor Code Section 3700, every contractor will be required to secure the payment of compensation to his employees. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861,
CONTRACTOR must submit to CITY the following
certification before beginning any work on the
Improvements:
I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the
Labor Code which require every employer to be
insured against liability for worker’s compensation or
to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that code, and I will comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of
the work of this contract.
By executing this Agreement, CONTRACTOR is submitting the certification required above.
The policy must contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of CITY and its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees, and designated volunteers.
Docusign Envelope ID: 7A11CC54-8831-43C3-BA7D-09AD81EC351F INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT – CARBON SUPPLY INC Page 6 Updated – February 20, 2026
20.2 General Provisions Applying to All Insurance Types.
20.2.1 All policies required of CONTRACTOR must be written on a first-dollar coverage basis, or contain a deductible
provision. Subject to CITY’s advance approval,
CONTRACTOR may utilize a self-insured retention in any or all of the policies provided, but the policy or policies may not contain language, whether added by endorsement or
contained in the policy conditions, that prohibits
satisfaction of any self-insured provision or requirement by anyone other than the named insured or by any means
including other insurance or which is intended to defeat the intent or protection of an additional insured.
20.2.2 All policies required of CONTRACTOR must be primary insurance as to CITY and its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees, or designated volunteers and any insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY and its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees, and designated volunteers
must be excess of CONTRACTOR’s insurance and must not
contribute with it.
20.2.3 The insurance required above, except for workers’ compensation insurance, must be placed with insurers with a Best’s rating as approved by CITY’s Risk Manager, but in no event less than A-:VII. Any deductibles, self-insured retentions, or insurance in lesser amounts, or lack of certain types of insurance otherwise required by this Agreement, or insurance rated below Best’s A-:VII, must be declared prior to execution of this Agreement and approved by CITY in
writing.
20.2.4 The insurance required in this section must be maintained until the Scope of Work is satisfactorily completed as
evidenced by CITY’s written acceptance. All policies must provide that there will be continuing liability thereon, notwithstanding any recovery on any policy.
20.2.5 Full compensation for all premiums which CONTRACTOR is required to pay to satisfy the Basic Insurance Requirements shall be considered as included in the prices paid for the performance of the Scope of Work, and no additional
allowance will be made therefor or for additional premiums Docusign Envelope ID: 7A11CC54-8831-43C3-BA7D-09AD81EC351F INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT – CARBON SUPPLY INC Page 7 Updated – February 20, 2026
which may be required by extensions of the policies of
insurance.
20.2.6 It is further understood and agreed by CONTRACTOR that its liability to CITY will not in any way be limited to or affected by the amount of insurance obtained and carried by
CONTRACTOR in connection with this Agreement.
20.2.7 Unless otherwise approved by CITY, if any part of the Scope of Work is subcontracted, the Basic Insurance Requirements must be provided by, or on behalf of, all subcontractors even if CITY has approved lesser insurance requirements for CONTRACTOR, and all subcontractors must agree in writing to be bound by the provisions of this section.
21. INTERPRETATION. Whenever the context so requires, the masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter, and the singular number includes the plural.
22. KEY PERSONNEL. At request of CITY, CONTRACTOR shall name all key personnel to be assigned to the work set forth herein. CITY reserves the right to approve key personnel, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Once the key personnel are approved CONTRACTOR shall not change such personnel without the approval of CITY.
23. LICENSES. CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits and approvals which are legally required for CONTRACTOR to practice its profession and perform the Scope of Work. If CONTRACTOR is a corporation, at least one (1) officer or key employee shall hold the required licenses or professional degrees. If CONTRACTOR is a partnership, at least one (1) partner shall hold the required licensees or professional degrees.
24. MERGER AND MODIFICATION. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all other oral or written representations. This Agreement may be modified only in a writing approved by the City Council and signed by all the parties.
25. NO WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The failure of any party to enforce against another party any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that party's right to enforce such a provision at a later time and shall not serve to vary the terms of this Agreement.
Docusign Envelope ID: 7A11CC54-8831-43C3-BA7D-09AD81EC351F INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT – CARBON SUPPLY INC Page 8 Updated – February 20, 2026
26. NON-INTEREST. No CITY officer or employee shall hold any interest in this Agreement (California Government Code section 1090).
27. NOTICES. All notices relative to this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be personally served or sent by certified or registered mail and be effective upon actual personal service or depositing in the United States mail. The parties shall be addressed as follows, or at any other address designated by notice:
CITY: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
CITY HALL
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
CONTRACTOR: CARBON SUPPLY INC.
8429 Eastern Avenue
Belle Gardens, California 90201
28. RESOURCE ALLOCATION. All CITY obligations under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation and allocation of resources by the City Council.
29. SB 854 COMPLIANCE. To the extent Labor Code Section 1771.1 applies to this Agreement, a contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, be subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of Labor Code Section 1771.1 for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded. The prime contractor is required to post job site notices in compliance with California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16451. This project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the California Department of Industrial Relations.
30. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. The Scope of Work shall be performed in conformity with all legal requirements and industry standards observed by a specialist of CONTRACTOR’s profession in California.
31. STARTING WORK. CONTRACTOR shall not begin work until authorized to do so in writing by CITY. No work will be authorized before the date first written above.
Docusign Envelope ID: 7A11CC54-8831-43C3-BA7D-09AD81EC351F INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT – CARBON SUPPLY INC Page 9 Updated – February 20, 2026
32. TAX NUMBERS.
CONTRACTOR’s Federal Tax ID Number
CONTRACTOR is a corporation? Yes No
(Please check one.)
33. THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS. In the case of public works contracts, CITY will timely notify CONTRACTOR of third-party claims relating to this Agreement. CITY shall be allowed to recover from CONTRACTOR, and CONTRACTOR shall pay on demand, all costs of notification.
34. TITLE TO DOCUMENTS. All documents, plans, and drawings, maps, photographs, and other papers, or copies thereof prepared by CONTRACTOR pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, shall, upon preparation, become CITY property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date first written above.
"CITY" “CONTRACTOR”
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CARBON SUPPLY INC.
By:________________________________ By:_________________________________ KAREN GOH Print Name:
Mayor Title:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
By:_______________________________
ZACHARY MEYER
Public Works Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTERSIGNED:
Deputy City Attorney II: ______________________ Finance Director: _____________________
ASHLEY ZAMBRANO RANDY MCKEEGAN
Insurance: ____________
AEZ/pt
Attachment(s): Exhibit A
S:\Public Works\Agrs\25-26\2026.02.20_Carbon Supply Inc_Carbon Change Out Services.docx Docusign Envelope ID: 7A11CC54-8831-43C3-BA7D-09AD81EC351F
SAM YEARBY
Chief Operations Officer
EXHIBIT A
Docusign Envelope ID: 7A11CC54-8831-43C3-BA7D-09AD81EC351F Docusign Envelope ID: 7A11CC54-8831-43C3-BA7D-09AD81EC351F Docusign Envelope ID: 7A11CC54-8831-43C3-BA7D-09AD81EC351F 02/24/2026
LBW Insurance
28055 Smyth Drive
Valencia CA 91355
Rachelle Antonio
(661) 702-6031
[email protected]
Carbon Supply Inc
8429 Eastern Ave
Bell Gardens CA 90201
ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY 24856
UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY 11770
25-26 GL UMB AUTO
A Y Y FEIPPL5504401 10/25/2025 10/25/2026
1,000,000
100,000
10,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
Employee Benefits
Liability
1,000,000
B Y Y 993108227 02/14/2026 08/14/2026
1,000,000
A Y Y FEIEXS4568801 10/25/2025 10/25/2026
5,000,000
5,000,000
A
Pollution Liability
Retro Date: 10/25/2022 FEIPPL5504401 10/25/2025 10/25/2026 Aggregate Limit $2,000,000
Per Claim $1,000,000
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT, 1600 TRUXTUN AVE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301, The City Bakersfield, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and volunteers are named as additional insured, but only as respects to the liability arising out the work performed by the named insured. Provisions for additional insured are outlined in the attached additional insured endorsement and only apply when required by written contract.
Coverage evidenced by this certificate is primary and non contributory per provisions in attached endorsement(s). A Waiver of subrogation applies in favor of additional insureds where indicated on certificate above. Provisions for waiver are outlined in attached endorsement forms. Cancellation, subject to each carrier's policy provisions, is between 30 to 60 days except 10 day notice for non-payment of premium.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT
1600 TRUXTUN AVE
BAKERSFIELD CA 93301
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE
THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.
INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURER F :
INSURER E :
INSURER D :
INSURER C :
INSURER B :
INSURER A :
NAIC #
NAME:
CONTACT
(A/C, No):
FAX
E-MAIL
ADDRESS:
PRODUCER
(A/C, No, Ext):
PHONE
INSURED
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:
IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.
If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS
CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.
OTHER:
(Per accident)
(Ea accident)
$
$
N / A
SUBR
WVD
ADDL
INSD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $
$
$
$
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY (Per accident)
BODILY INJURY (Per person)
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
AUTOS ONLY
AUTOS ONLY AUTOS
NON-OWNED
OWNED SCHEDULED
ANY AUTO
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Y / N
WORKERS COMPENSATION
AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
(Mandatory in NH)
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
If yes, describe under
ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
$
$
$
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
ER
OTHSTATUTEPER
(MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS
POLICY EXP
(MM/DD/YYYY)
POLICY EFF
LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER
INSR
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)
EXCESS LIAB
UMBRELLA LIAB EACH OCCURRENCE $
AGGREGATE $
$
OCCUR
CLAIMS-MADE
DED RETENTION $
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $
GENERAL AGGREGATE $
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $
MED EXP (Any one person) $
EACH OCCURRENCE $
DAMAGE TO RENTED
PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:
POLICY
PROJECT LOC
CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)
CANCELLATION
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
ACORD 25 (2016/03)
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.
CERTIFICATE HOLDER
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
HIRED
AUTOS ONLY
POLICY NUMBER: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CG 20 10 12 19
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
CG 20 10 12 19 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2018 Page 1 of 2 ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSEES OR
CONTRACTORS – SCHEDULED PERSON OR
ORGANIZATION
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
SCHEDULE
Name Of Additional Insured Person(s)
Or Organization(s) Location(s) Of Covered Operations
Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations.
A. Section II – Who Is An Insured is amended to
include as an additional insured the person(s) or
organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only
with respect to liability for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury"
caused, in whole or in part, by:
1. Your acts or omissions; or
2. The acts or omissions of those acting on your
behalf;
in the performance of your ongoing operations for
the additional insured(s) at the location(s)
designated above.
However:
1. The insurance afforded to such additional
insured only applies to the extent permitted by
law; and
2. If coverage provided to the additional insured is
required by a contract or agreement, the
insurance afforded to such additional insured
will not be broader than that which you are
required by the contract or agreement to
provide for such additional insured.
B. With respect to the insurance afforded to these
additional insureds, the following additional
exclusions apply:
This insurance does not apply to "bodily injury" or
"property damage" occurring after:
1. All work, including materials, parts or
equipment furnished in connection with such
work, on the project (other than service,
maintenance or repairs) to be performed by or
on behalf of the additional insured(s) at the
location of the covered operations has been
completed; or
2. That portion of "your work" out of which the
injury or damage arises has been put to its
intended use by any person or organization
other than another contractor or subcontractor
engaged in performing operations for a
principal as a part of the same project.
FEI-PPL-55044-01
Any person(s) or organization(s) whom the Named
Insured agrees, in a written contract, to name as an
additional insured. However, this status exists only
for the project specified in that contract.
C. With respect to the insurance afforded to these
additional insureds, the following is added to
Section III – Limits Of Insurance:
If coverage provided to the additional insured is
required by a contract or agreement, the most we
will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the
amount of insurance:
1. Required by the contract or agreement; or
2. Available under the applicable limits of
insurance;
whichever is less.
This endorsement shall not increase the
applicable limits of insurance.
POLICY NUMBER: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CG 20 37 12 19
CG 20 37 12 19 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2018 Page 1 of 1 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSEES OR
CONTRACTORS – COMPLETED OPERATION
BLANKET
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
SCHEDULE
Name Of Additional Insured Person(s)
Or Organization(s) Location And Description Of Completed Operations Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations.
A. Section II – Who Is An Insured is amended to
include as an additional insured the person(s) or
organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only
with respect to liability for "bodily injury" or
"property damage" caused, in whole or in part, by
"your work" at the location designated and
described in the Schedule of this endorsement
performed for that additional insured and included
in the "products-completed operations hazard".
However:
1. The insurance afforded to such additional
insured only applies to the extent permitted by
law; and
2. If coverage provided to the additional insured is
required by a contract or agreement, the
insurance afforded to such additional insured
will not be broader than that which you are
required by the contract or agreement to
provide for such additional insured.
B. With respect to the insurance afforded to these
additional insureds, the following is added to
Section III – Limits Of Insurance:
If coverage provided to the additional insured is
required by a contract or agreement, the most we
will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the
amount of insurance:
1. Required by the contract or agreement; or
2. Available under the applicable limits of
insurance;
whichever is less.
This endorsement shall not increase the
applicable limits of insurance.
FEI-PPL-55044-01
Any person(s) or organization(s) whom the Named
Insured agrees, in a written contract, to name as
an additional insured. However, this status exists
only for the project specified in that contract.
ECC-319-0712
AUTOMATIC ADDITIONAL INSURED –
OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
CONTRACTORS POLLUTION LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
SCHEDULE
Name of Person or Organization:
Any person(s) or organization(s) whom the Named Insured agrees, in a written contract, to name as an additional insured. However, this status exists only for the project specified in that contract.
The person or organization shown in this Schedule is included as an insured, but only with respect to that person’s or organization’s vicarious liability arising out of your ongoing operations performed for that insured.
This endorsement, effective attaches to and forms a part of Policy Number . This endorsement changes the Policy. Please read it carefully. 10/25/24
FEI-PPL-55044-01
ECC-320-0712
AUTOMATIC WAIVER OF SUBROGATION ENDORSEMENT
This endorsement, effective
. This endorsement changes the Policy. Please read it carefully.
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
CONTRACTORS POLLUTION LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
SCHEDULE
Name of Person or Organization:
Any person(s) or organization(s) to whom the Named Insured agrees, in a written contract, to provide a waiver of subrogation. However, this status exists only for the project specified in that contract.
The Company waives any right of recovery it may have against the person or organization shown in the above Schedule because of payments the Company makes for injury or damage arising out of the insured’s work done under a contract with that person or organization. The waiver applies only to the person or organization in the above Schedule.
Under no circumstances shall this endorsement act to extend the policy period, change the scope of coverage or increase the Aggregate Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations.
FEI-PPL-55044-01
10/25/2024 attaches to and forms a part of Policy Number ECC-548-0317
Automatic Primary and Non-Contributory
Insurance Endorsement
Designated Work Or Project(s)
This endorsement, effective attaches to and forms a part of Policy Number . This endorsement changes the Policy. Please read it carefully.
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the Coverage Part(s) indicated below:
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE
CONTRACTORS POLLUTION LIABILITY COVERAGE
SCHEDULE
Name of Person or Organization:
Any person(s) or organization(s) whom the Named Insured agrees, in a written contract, to provide Primary and/or Non-contributory status of this insurance.
However, this status exists only for the project specified in that contract.
In consideration of an additional premium of $applied and notwithstanding anything contained in this policy to the contrary, it is hereby agreed that this policy shall be considered primary to any similar insurance held by third parties in respect to work performed by you under any written contractual agreement with such third party. It is further agreed that any other insurance which the person(s) or organization(s) named in the schedule may have is excess and noncontributory to this insurance. 10/25/24
FEI-PPL-55044-01
POLICY NUMBER:993108227 COMMERCIAL AUTO
CA 04 44 10 13
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
CA 04 44 10 13 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2011 Page 1 of 1
WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY
AGAINST OTHERS TO US (WAIVER OF SUBROGATION)
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:
AUTO DEALERS COVERAGE FORM
BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM
MOTOR CARRIER COVERAGE FORM
With respect to coverage provided by this endorsement, the provisions of the Coverage Form apply unless modified by the endorsement.
This endorsement changes the policy effective on the inception date of the policy unless another date is indicated below.
Named Insured: Carbon Supply Inc
Endorsement Effective Date: 8/14/2025
SCHEDULE
Name(s) Of Person(s) Or Organization(s):
Any person or organization whom you have agreed to include as an additional insured under a fully executed written contract or written agreement, provided that such was executed prior to an “accident”, occurrence, loss, injury or damage
Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations.
The Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against
Others To Us condition does not apply to the
person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule,
but only to the extent that subrogation is waived prior to the "accident" or the "loss" under a contract with
that person or organization.
COMMERCIAL AUTO
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
ADDITIONAL INSURED – WHERE REQUIRED UNDER
CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT - SCHEDULE
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:
BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM
SECTION II – LIABILITY COVERAGE, Paragraph A. Coverage, Subparagraph 1. Who Is An Insured is amended to include the following additional provision:
The person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule below is an additional “insured”, but solely to the extent that you become obligated to include such person(s) or organization(s) as an additional “insured” under this policy as a result of any written contract or written agreement you enter into which requires you to furnish insurance to that person or organization of the type provided by this policy, and solely with respect to liability arising out of the use of a covered “auto”. However, the insurance provided will not exceed the lesser of:
a. The coverage and/or limits of this policy;or
b. The coverage and/or limits required by said written contract or writtenagreement.
Schedule:
Person(s) or Organization(s):
Any person or organization whom you have agreed to include as an additional insured under a fully executed written contract or written agreement, provided that such was executed prior to an “accident”, occurrence, loss, injury or damage
SA 00009 00 (10/17) Includes material copyrighted by ISO Properties, Inc., with its permission Page 1 of 1 Policy Number: 993108227
02/24/2026
LBW Insurance
28055 Smyth Drive
Valencia CA 91355
Rachelle Antonio
(661) 702-6031
[email protected]
Carbon Supply Inc
8429 Eastern Ave
Bell Gardens CA 90201
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London
26-27 EO
A
Professional Liability
Errors & Omission (E&O) E&O18016A26 01/08/2026 01/08/2027 Aggregate Limit $1,000,000
Per Claim $1,000,000
Retro Date 01/08/2014
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT
1600 TRUXTUN AVE
BAKERSFIELD CA 93301
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE
THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.
INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURER F :
INSURER E :
INSURER D :
INSURER C :
INSURER B :
INSURER A :
NAIC #
NAME:
CONTACT
(A/C, No):
FAX
E-MAIL
ADDRESS:
PRODUCER
(A/C, No, Ext):
PHONE
INSURED
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:
IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.
If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS
CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.
OTHER:
(Per accident)
(Ea accident)
$
$
N / A
SUBR
WVD
ADDL
INSD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $
$
$
$
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY (Per accident)
BODILY INJURY (Per person)
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
AUTOS ONLY
AUTOS ONLY AUTOS
NON-OWNED
OWNED SCHEDULED
ANY AUTO
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Y / N
WORKERS COMPENSATION
AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
(Mandatory in NH)
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
If yes, describe under
ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
$
$
$
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
ER
OTHSTATUTEPER
(MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS
POLICY EXP
(MM/DD/YYYY)
POLICY EFF
LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER
INSR
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)
EXCESS LIAB
UMBRELLA LIAB EACH OCCURRENCE $
AGGREGATE $
$
OCCUR
CLAIMS-MADE
DED RETENTION $
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $
GENERAL AGGREGATE $
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $
MED EXP (Any one person) $
EACH OCCURRENCE $
DAMAGE TO RENTED
PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:
POLICY
PROJECT LOC
CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)
CANCELLATION
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
ACORD 25 (2016/03)
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.
CERTIFICATE HOLDER
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
HIRED
AUTOS ONLY
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 7A11CC54-8831-43C3-BA7D-09AD81EC351F Status: Completed Subject: Complete with Docusign: Carbon Supply Inc_Carbon Change Out Services.pdf Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 12 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 4 Initials: 0 City Clerk's Office
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
[email protected]
IP Address: 174.46.226.5
Record Tracking
Status: Original
2/24/2026 2:14:19 PM
Holder: City Clerk's Office
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal
Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Bakersfield Location: Docusign Signer Events Signature Timestamp
SAM YEARBY
[email protected]
Chief Operations Officer
CSI
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address:
2600:1010:a112:1e17:3ddd:27cd:a66e:758c
Sent: 2/24/2026 2:17:28 PM
Viewed: 2/24/2026 2:35:46 PM
Signed: 2/24/2026 2:36:24 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 2/24/2026 2:35:46 PM
ID: 92f2154b-7064-4c01-88fd-f3fd413cb542
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 2/24/2026 2:17:28 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 2/24/2026 2:35:46 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 2/24/2026 2:36:24 PM
Completed Security Checked 2/24/2026 2:36:24 PM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure
ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE
From time to time, City of Bakersfield (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through the DocuSign system.
Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure (ERSD), please confirm your agreement by selecting the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’ before clicking ‘CONTINUE’ within the DocuSign system.
Getting paper copies
At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. You will have the ability to download and print documents we send to you through the DocuSign system during and immediately after the signing session and, if you elect to create a DocuSign account, you may access the documents for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below.
Withdrawing your consent
If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below.
Consequences of changing your mind
If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. Further, you will no longer be able to use the DocuSign system to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us.
All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 6/28/2022 10:51:05 AM Parties agreed to: SAM YEARBY
Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through the DocuSign system all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us.
How to contact City of Bakersfield:
You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows:
To contact us by email send messages to: [email protected] To advise City of Bakersfield of your new email address To let us know of a change in your email address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state: your previous email address, your new email address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.
If you created a DocuSign account, you may update it with your new email address through your account preferences.
To request paper copies from City of Bakersfield
To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an email to [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state your email address, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any.
To withdraw your consent with City of Bakersfield
To inform us that you no longer wish to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may:
i. decline to sign a document from within your signing session, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an email to [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state your email, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process..
Required hardware and software
The minimum system requirements for using the DocuSign system may change over time. The current system requirements are found here: https://support.docusign.com/guides/signer-guidesigning-system-requirements.
Acknowledging your access and consent to receive and sign documents electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please confirm that you have read this ERSD, and (i) that you are able to print on paper or electronically save this ERSD for your future reference and access; or (ii) that you are able to email this ERSD to an email address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format as described herein, then select the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’ before clicking ‘CONTINUE’ within the DocuSign system.
By selecting the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’, you confirm that:
You can access and read this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure; and You can print on paper this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure, or save or send this Electronic Record and Disclosure to a location where you can print it, for future reference and access; and
Until or unless you notify City of Bakersfield as described above, you consent to receive exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you by City of Bakersfield during the course of your relationship with City of Bakersfield.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Public Hearings TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: March 6, 2026
SUBJECT: Public hearing to consider Planning Commission’s approval of General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24- 0001 (Ward 5) and its proposed mitigated negative declaration.
KSI Engineering, representing APVJ, LLC is proposing a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change on approximately 3.67 gross acres located at 5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road in southwest Bakersfield. (Ward 5) The request includes:
1. Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2. Resolution adopting General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to OS-P (Parks).
3. First Reading of an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code by changing the official zoning classification from A-20A (Agricultural – 20-acre minimum) to RE (Recreation) zone.
RECOMMENDATION:
City staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolutions and first reading of the ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
The project is a request for an amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Element and the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance on approximately 3.67 gross acres, located at 5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road in southwest Bakersfield. The applicant proposes to change the land use designation from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to OS-P (Parks); and to change the zone classification from A20A (Agricultural – 20-acre minimum) to RE (Recreation) zone.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The proposed project seeks the above approvals to facilitate the future development of a 31,500 square foot indoor recreational facility, a parking lot, and an on-site retention basin. Site development plans have been submitted for formal review.
SITE HISTORY:
August 11, 1992 - The project site was annexed into the City as part of the Buena Vista No. 5 annexation (Annexation No. 355).
January 13, 2010 – City Council approved the pre-zoning classification of A-20A (Agricultural – 20-acre minimum) for these parcels as part of a larger pre-zoning (Ordinance 3384).
June 17, 2025 – The applicant submitted an application for a Site Plan Review to construct an indoor recreational facility (PP-SPR-25-0200).
PROPOSED PROJECT:
A site development plan has been submitted for formal review pursuant to the Bakersfield Municipal Code to ensure compliance with all adopted City regulations and applicable development standards (PPSPR-25-0200). The indoor recreational facility will be equipped with a lobby, check-in desk, restrooms, snack bar, storage rooms, sitting area for parents, lockers, and 6 indoor volleyball courts. These 6 indoor volleyball courts could be transformed into 3 basketball courts or other sport courts as desired. Private groups (e.g., local schools and recreational sports teams) will utilize the facilities for practice facilities, club play, traveling club play, and tournaments for volleyball, pickle ball, and basketball. When not being utilized by private groups, the public can rent the facilities for open play. Staff will be on site during the proposed hours of operation from 8:00 AM - 10:00 PM seven days a week. There will be 2 employees per 8-hour shift with a maximum of 4 employees during the busiest shift of the day.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Staff prepared an Initial Study to review the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Initial Study determined that compliance with recommended mitigation measures, local ordinances, state laws, and construction to the standards of the Uniform Building Codes would reduce impacts to a less-than- significant level. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with CEQA. The MND was circulated for a 30-day public and agency review period starting on December 5, 2025, through January 5, 2026 (SCH No. 2025120029).
CEQA Comments Received.
No comments have been received in response to the Initial Study.
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 Hall North, 1600 Truxtun 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.
Tribal Consultation.
In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 18, a letter was sent by staff on November 3, 2025, to inform the American Indian Tribes about the proposed project and its site location. This notification marks the initiation of the 90-day consultation period mandated by SB 18. At present, no request for tribal consultation has been received.
Compatibility with Land Use Element.
Staff has reviewed the proposal for compatibility with the applicable goals and policies contained within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Element and finds the following:
Goal 1: Accommodate new development which captures the economic demands generated by the marketplace and establishes Bakersfield’s role as the capital of the southern San Joaquin Valley.
The project is consistent with this goal because it responds to an identified market demand for indoor recreational and athletic facilities within the City of Bakersfield. The proposed indoor sports complex will support local recreational activities, thereby contributing to the City’s economic vitality. Goal 2: Accommodate new development which provides a full mix of uses to support its population.
The project is consistent with this goal as it introduces a recreational use that complements existing residential and agricultural uses in the surrounding area. The proposed indoor recreational facility will provide opportunities for organized sports, youth activities, and public recreation, supporting the needs of the City’s growing population and enhancing the overall mix of land uses. Goal 3: Accommodate new development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses.
The project is consistent with this goal because the proposed recreational use is compatible with surrounding land uses and is designed to minimize potential land use conflicts. The facility, on-site parking, and retention basins will be reviewed as part of the site plan review process to ensure that the project is consistent with all adopted City regulations and applicable development standards. Goal 4: Accommodate new development which channels land uses in a phased, orderly manner and is coordinated with the provision of infrastructure and public improvements.
The project is consistent with this goal because it will be developed in coordination with existing City infrastructure and services. The project will utilize City water and sewer services, provide on-site stormwater retention, and comply with applicable development standards. Required public improvements and infrastructure needs will be addressed through the City’s review process and payment of applicable development impact fees.
Policy 80: Assure that General Plan Amendment proposals for the conversion of designated agricultural lands to urban development occur in an orderly and logical manner giving full consideration to the effect on existing agricultural areas.
The project is consistent with this policy because an agricultural conversion study was prepared for the project site to evaluate the proposed conversion of designated agricultural land and to inform consideration of potential effects on existing agricultural areas.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
This project was considered by the Planning Commission on January 15, 2026. No individuals or agencies were present at the hearing that opposed the request. The project was considered as a consent public hearing and the Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor, with two Commissioners absent, of the project and recommended approval to the City Council. The Planning Commission's findings are contained in Resolution Nos. 03-26,04-26, and 05-26.
Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
The proposal is consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan related to recreational development, as described above. Any future development proposed on the project site will be required to undergo a Site Plan Review to ensure consistency with City development standards as put forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT:
If this site develops to its full land use economic potential it will have a positive impact on generating revenue for the City General Fund.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Community Character & Quality of Life
Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution (Mitigated Negative Declaration)
2. Resolution (General Plan Amendment)
3. Ordinance (Zone Change)
4. Map Set
5. Mitigated Negative Declaration
6. Planning Commission Resolutions
a. Adopt MND with Attachments
b. Approve GPA with Attachments
c. Approve ZC with Attachments
7. Planning Commission Staff Report
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE
LAND USE MAP AND ZONE CHANGE, LOCATED AT 5525 AND 5543
BUENA VISTA ROAD (GPA/ZC NO. PP-CGPA-24-0001)
WHEREAS, KSI Engineering, Inc. (applicant), on behalf of APVJ, LLC (property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to OSP (Parks); and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from A-20A (Agricultural – 20-acre minimum) to RE (Recreation) on 3.67 acres located at 5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road in southwest Bakersfield (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a public review period from December 5, 2025, to January 5, 2026, in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 15, 2026, and with no one wishing to speak in support or opposition, approved Resolution No. 03- 26, which recommended that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, March 11, 2026, at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the proposed Negative Declaration as required by Government Code Section 65355, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by City staff and the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s deliberation, and action.
WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings:
1. All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation, 20 days prior to the hearing.
2. The provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff determined that the proposal is a project under CEQA.
3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval as the Project will not significantly impact the physical environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield City Council as follows:
1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission’s findings as contained in its Resolution No. 03-26 are hereby adopted.
3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is hereby adopted subject to the mitigation measures found in Exhibit A for the Project located on the map as shown in Exhibit B, both of which are incorporatedherein. o0o
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of March 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: _Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Bashirtash, Koman, Kaur NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: ___________________________________________________ ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: ___________________________________________________
JULIE DRIMAKIS, CMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED:
By
KAREN GOH
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:
VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit: A Mitigation Measures
B Location Map
1 of 2
EXHIBIT “A”
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE NO. PP-CGPA-24-0001
Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:
AQ-1 During construction, exposed surfaces will be watered at least twice daily.
AQ-2 During construction, vehicle travel speeds will be limited on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less.
Agriculture Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
AG-1 To ensure compatibility between the proposed recreational facility and any existing or future agricultural operations in the surrounding area, the project applicant shall incorporate appropriate buffer and transitional design features into the site plan.
1. Vegetative-Landscape Buffers: Installation of tree-lined berms, hedgerows, or landscaped strips along shared boundaries to provide physical and visual separation, reduce noise and dust, and minimize potential pesticide drift from nearby agricultural uses. Drought-tolerant species should be utilized to reduce maintenance and water demand.
2. Farming Activities Disclosures: Record a covenant disclosing nearby agricultural activities are allowed by zoning.
Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
BIO-1 A biological resource pre-activity survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30-days before the start of construction activities.
BIO-2 There will be biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance.
BIO-3 Compliance reporting shall be provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted.
BIO-4 A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special-status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented.
BIO-5 If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or during Ground 2 of 2
Disturbance (2011) shall be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.
BIO-6 Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet.
BIO-7 Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped shall be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.
BIO-8 Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater in diameter shall be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.
BIO-9 If ground-disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance should occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist.
Appropriate avoidance should be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests should be implemented as follows:
1. Ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters),
2. Burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW may be warranted,
3. Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers),
4. Other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters).
Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
CUL-1 During construction, if cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work shall immediately cease, and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Project is subject to any recommendations of the qualified specialist.
CUL-2 During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99.
Exhibit B
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF THE
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN, R-IA (RESOURCE – INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE) TO OS-P (PARKS), LOCATED AT 5525 AND 5543 BUENA VISTA ROAD (GPA/ZC NO. PP-CGPA-24-0001)
WHEREAS, KSI Engineering, Inc. (applicant), on behalf of APVJ, LLC (property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to OS-P (Parks); and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from A-20A (Agricultural – 20-acre minimum) to RE (Recreation) on 3.67 acres located at 5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road in southwest Bakersfield (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 15, 2026, and with no one wishing to speak in support or opposition, approved Resolution No. 04-26, which recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, March 11, 2026, at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the approval of the amendment as required by Government Code Section 65355, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code;and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s deliberation, and action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield City Council as follows:
1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission's findings as contained in its Resolution No. 04-26 are hereby adopted.
3. The Project is hereby approved located on the map as shown in Exhibit A, of which is incorporated herein.
4. The Project approved herein is hereby made part of the 1st amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for calendar year 2026 in accordance with Government Code Section 65358 (b). o0o
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of March 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: _Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Bashirtash, Koman, Kaur NOES: COUNCILMEMBER:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER:
JULIE DRIMAKIS, MMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED:
By
KAREN GOH
Mayor of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:
VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment Map
Exhibit A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 OF THE BAKERSFIELD
MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION
FROM A-20A (AGRICULTURAL – 20-ACRE MINIMUM) TO RE
(RECREATION), LOCATED AT 5525 AND 5543 BUENA VISTA ROAD (GPA/ZC NO. PP-CGPA-24-0001)
WHEREAS, KSI Engineering, Inc. (applicant), on behalf of APVJ, LLC (property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to OSP (Parks); and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from A-20A (Agricultural – 20-acre minimum) to RE (Recreation) on 3.67 acres located at 5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road in southwest Bakersfield (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 15, 2026, and with no one wishing to speak in support or opposition, approved Resolution No. 05- 26 which recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, March 11, 2026, at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the approval of the amendment as required by Government Code Section 65355, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the Project, including the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s deliberation, and action; and
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.
SECTION 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Bakersfield City Council as follows:
1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission's findings as contained in its Resolution No. 05-26 are hereby adopted.
3. The Project is hereby approved incorporating the change into the official zoning map as described in Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.06.020 as specifically described in Exhibit A and located on the map as shown in Exhibit B, all of which are incorporated herein.
SECTION 2.
This ordinance must be posted in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code and will become effective not less than 30 days from and after the date of itspassage. o0o
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of _________ 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Bashirtash, Koman, Kaur NOES: COUNCILMEMBER:_________________________________________________ ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBER:
JULIE DRIMAKIS, MMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED:
By
KAREN GOH
Mayor of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:
VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibits: A Legal Description
B Zone Change Map
EXHIBIT “A”
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
APNs: 535-020-05 AND -10
LOT 1 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 12-0174 PER CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 PER DOCUMENT NO. 000212125583 IN THE OFFICE OF THE KERN COUNTY RECORDER.
TOGETHER WITH
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 16 IN SECTION 24, T30S, R26E, MDBM, ACCORDING
TO THE SALES MAP OF LANDS OF KERN COUNTY LAND COMPANY RECORDED AUGUST 27, 1892 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 16, SAID POINT BEING 552.50 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 16; THENCE WESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 16, 230 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 16, 71.50 FEET; THENCE
EASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 16, 230 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 16; THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE 71.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 3.67 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
10-03-2024
0'
GRAPHIC SCALE
80' 40' 40' 80'
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 80 ft.
VICINTY MAP
NTS
MAP SET
MITIGATED
NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakersfield Community Development Department has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures.
PROJECT NO. (or Title): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change PP-CGPA-24-0001 COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: December 5, 2025
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: January 5, 2026
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):
Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:
AQ-1 During construction, exposed surfaces will be watered at least twice daily.
AQ-2 During construction, vehicle travel speeds will be limited on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less.
Agriculture Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
AG-1 To ensure compatibility between the proposed recreational facility and any existing or future agricultural operations in the surrounding area, the project applicant shall incorporate appropriate buffer and transitional design features into the site plan.
1. Vegetative-Landscape Buffers: Installation of tree-lined berms, hedgerows, or landscaped strips along shared boundaries to provide physical and visual separation, reduce noise and dust, and minimize potential pesticide drift from nearby agricultural uses. Drought-tolerant species should be utilized to reduce maintenance and water demand.
2. Farming Activities Disclosures: Record a covenant disclosing nearby agricultural activities are allowed by zoning.
Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
BIO-1 A biological resource pre-activity survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30-days before the start of construction activities.
BIO-2 There will be biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance.
IEJ
BAKERSFIELD THE SOUND OF z;,"'1dJrilfl/ 8d(e,-
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx
BIO-3 Compliance reporting shall be provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted.
BIO-4 A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special-status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented.
BIO-5 If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or during Ground Disturbance (2011) shall be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.
BIO-6 Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet.
BIO-7 Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped shall be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.
BIO-8 Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater in diameter shall be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.
BIO-9 If ground-disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance should occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist.
Appropriate avoidance should be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests should be implemented as follows:
1. Ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters),
2. Burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW may be warranted,
3. Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers),
4. Other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters).
Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
CUL-1 During construction, if cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work shall immediately cease, and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Project is subject to any recommendations of the qualified specialist.
CUL-2 During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99.
PLANNING
COMMISSION
RESOLUTIONS
PLANNING
COMMISSION
STAFF
REPORT
NT:RN:JE/\\sandevsvs\devsvs\pln\SHARED\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\01_Hearing Documents & Noticing Documents
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 15, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: 5.d
TO: Chair Strickland and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J. Eng
DATE: January 9, 2026
FILE: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change No. 24-0001 STAFF PLANNER: Noeli Topete, Associate Planner
REQUEST: (1) General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to OS-P (Parks); and (2) Zone Change to amend the zone classification from A-20A (Agricultural – 20-acre minimum) to RE (Recreation) zone on approximately 3.67 acres (Ward 5).
APPLICANT: KSI Engineering, Inc. OWNER: APVJ, LLC
6205 District Blvd 12810 Margate Ct
Bakersfield, CA 93313 Bakersfield, CA 93311
PROJECT LOCATION: 5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road in southwest Bakersfield.
APNs: 535-020-10 and -05
PROJECT SIZE: 3.67 acres CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: A-20A (Agricultural – 20-acre minimum) STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
(1) Adopt Resolution ADOPTING Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) adopt Resolution APPROVING the general plan amendment to change the land use designation from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to OS-P (Parks); and (3) adopt Resolution APPROVING change in zone classification from A-20A (Agricultural – 20-acre minimum) to RE (Recreation), and recommend the same to City Council.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The proposed project site is currently undeveloped vacant land. Surrounding properties are primarily developed as: north – Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses church; east – multifamily residential; south - undeveloped vacant land - agricultural land GPA/ZC 24-0001
BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:
• August 11, 1992 - The project site was annexed into the City as part of the Buena Vista No. 5 annexation (Annexation No. 355).
• January 13, 2010 – City Council approved the pre-zoning classification of A-20A (Agricultural – 20- acre minimum) for these parcels as part of a larger pre-zoning (Ordinance 3384). • June 17, 2025 – The applicant submitted an application for a Site Plan Review to construct an indoor recreational facility (PP-SPR-25-0200).
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (“GPA/ZC”). The proposed request is a General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to OS-P (Parks), and a zone change from A-20A (Agricultural – 20-acre minimum) to RE (Recreation) on approximately 3.67 acres.
According to the applicant, the request is intended to facilitate future development of a 31,500 square foot indoor recreational facility, a parking lot, and an on-site retention basin located at 5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road.
Proposed Site Development. A site development plan has been submitted for formal review pursuant to the Bakersfield Municipal Code to ensure compliance with all adopted City regulations and applicable development standards (PP-SPR-25-0200).The indoor recreational facility will be equipped with a lobby, check-in desk, restrooms, snack bar, storage rooms, sitting area for parents, lockers, and 6 indoor volleyball courts. These 6 indoor volleyball courts could be transformed into 3 basketball courts or other sport courts as desired. Private groups (e.g., local schools and recreational sports teams) will utilize the facilities for practice facilities, club play, traveling club play, and tournaments for volleyball, pickle ball, and basketball. When not being utilized by private groups, the public can rent the facilities for open play.
The hours of operation will be 8:00 AM - 10:00 PM seven days a week. There will be 2 employees per 8- hour shift with a maximum of 4 employees during the busiest shift of the day. Project will utilize city sewer and water. Solid waste will be stored in bins within a city standard trash enclosure and will be picked up by the local service provider. All on-site and street frontage storm water drainage will be conveyed to onsite retention basins.
Compatibility with Land Use Element. Staff has reviewed the proposal for compatibility with the applicable goals and policies contained within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Element and finds the following:
• Goal 1: Accommodate new development which captures the economic demands generated by the marketplace and establishes Bakersfield’s role as the capital of the southern San Joaquin Valley.
The project is consistent with this goal because it responds to an identified market demand for indoor recreational and athletic facilities within the City of Bakersfield. The proposed indoor sports complex will support local recreational activities, thereby contributing to the City’s economic vitality.
• Goal 2: Accommodate new development which provides a full mix of uses to support its population.
The project is consistent with this goal as it introduces a recreational use that complements existing GPA/ZC 24-0001
residential and agricultural uses in the surrounding area. The proposed indoor recreational facility will provide opportunities for organized sports, youth activities, and public recreation, supporting the needs of the City’s growing population and enhancing the overall mix of land uses.. • Goal 3: Accommodate new development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses.
The project is consistent with this goal because the proposed recreational use is compatible with surrounding land uses and is designed to minimize potential land use conflicts. The facility, on-site parking, and retention basins will be reviewed as part of the site plan review process to ensure that the project is consistent with all adopted City regulations and applicable development standards. • Goal 4: Accommodate new development which channels land uses in a phased, orderly manner and is coordinated with the provision of infrastructure and public improvements.
The project is consistent with this goal because it will be developed in coordination with existing City infrastructure and services. The project will utilize City water and sewer services, provide onsite stormwater retention, and comply with applicable development standards. Required public improvements and infrastructure needs will be addressed through the City’s review process and payment of applicable development impact fees.
• Policy 80: Assure that General Plan Amendment proposals for the conversion of designated agricultural lands to urban development occur in an orderly and logical manner giving full consideration to the effect on existing agricultural areas.
The project is consistent with this policy because an agricultural conversion study was prepared for the project site to evaluate the proposed conversion of designated agricultural land and to inform consideration of potential effects on existing agricultural areas.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Staff prepared an initial study to review the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Initial Study was based on the following project-specific analysis and technical studies: Small Project Analysis Level Assessment; Agricultural Conversion Study; Biological Resources Evaluation; Cultural Resource Report; and Trip Generation & Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis.
The Initial Study determined that compliance with recommended mitigation measures, local ordinances, state laws, and construction to the standards of the Uniform Building Codes will reduce impacts to a lessthan- significant level. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with CEQA. The MND was circulated for a 30-day public and agency review period from December 5, 2025, to January 5, 2026 (SCH No. 2025120029) Comments Received. As of this writing, no comments have been received in response to the Initial Study.
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 GPA/ZC 24-0001
notified by United States Postal Service mail regarding this public hearing in accordance with city ordinance and state law. Signs are required as part of the public notification process and must be posted between 20 to 60 days before the public hearing date. Photographs of the posted signage and the Declaration of Posting Public Hearing Notice signed by the applicant are on file at the Planning Division.
Comments Received. As of this writing, no comments have been received in response to the public hearing notice.
Tribal Consultation. In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 18, a letter was sent by staff on November 3, 2025, to inform the American Indian Tribes about the proposed project and its site location. This notification marks the initiation of the 90-day consultation period mandated by SB 18. At present, no request for tribal consultation has been received.
CONCLUSIONS:
Consistency with General Plan/Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan related to recreational development, as noted above. The recreational facility is currently undergoing site plan review to ensure compliance with requirements and regulations as set forth in the Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) and City Development Standards.
Recommendation. Staff finds that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area, land use designation, and zoning ordinance.
Therefore, staff recommends your Commission: (1) Adopt Resolution ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) adopt Resolution APPROVING general plan amendment to change the land use designation from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to OS-P (Parks); and (3) adopt Resolution APPROVING change in zone classification from A-20A (Agricultural – 20-acre minimum) to RE (Recreation).
ATTACHMENTS:
Map Set
• GPA/ZC Aerial
• GPA/ZC Zone Classification
• GPA/ZC General Plan Designation
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Technical Reports
• Small Project Analysis Level Assessment
• Agricultural Conversion Study
• Biological Resources Evaluation
• Cultural Resource Report
• Trip Generation & Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
• Verification of Water Service
Planning Commission Draft Resolutions
• Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Approve the General Plan Amendment
• Approve the Zone Change
MAP SET
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakersfield Community Development Department has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures.
PROJECT NO. (or Title): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change PP-CGPA-24-0001 COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: December 5, 2025
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: January 5, 2026
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):
Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:
AQ-1 During construction, exposed surfaces will be watered at least twice daily.
AQ-2 During construction, vehicle travel speeds will be limited on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less.
Agriculture Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
AG-1 To ensure compatibility between the proposed recreational facility and any existing or future agricultural operations in the surrounding area, the project applicant shall incorporate appropriate buffer and transitional design features into the site plan.
1. Vegetative-Landscape Buffers: Installation of tree-lined berms, hedgerows, or landscaped strips along shared boundaries to provide physical and visual separation, reduce noise and dust, and minimize potential pesticide drift from nearby agricultural uses. Drought-tolerant species should be utilized to reduce maintenance and water demand.
2. Farming Activities Disclosures: Record a covenant disclosing nearby agricultural activities are allowed by zoning.
Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
BIO-1 A biological resource pre-activity survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30-days before the start of construction activities.
BIO-2 There will be biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance.
IEJ
BAKERSFIELD THE SOUND OF z;,"'1dJrilfl/ 8d(e,-
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx
BIO-3 Compliance reporting shall be provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted.
BIO-4 A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special-status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented.
BIO-5 If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or during Ground Disturbance (2011) shall be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.
BIO-6 Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet.
BIO-7 Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped shall be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.
BIO-8 Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater in diameter shall be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.
BIO-9 If ground-disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance should occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist.
Appropriate avoidance should be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests should be implemented as follows:
1. Ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters),
2. Burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW may be warranted,
3. Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers),
4. Other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters).
Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
CUL-1 During construction, if cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work shall immediately cease, and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Project is subject to any recommendations of the qualified specialist.
CUL-2 During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99.
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 3 of 41
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1. Project (Title & No.): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change PP-CGPA-24-0001
2. Lead Agency (name and address): City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
3. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Noeli Topete
(661) 326-3165
4. Project Location: The project is located at 5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road, generally northwest of Buena Vista Road and Pensinger Road in southwest Bakersfield (Accessor Parcel Numbers 535-020-10 and 535-020-05)
5. Applicant (name and address): KSI Engineering, Inc.
Attn: Melissa Snyder
6205 District Blvd
Bakersfield, CA 93313
6. Existing General Plan Designation: R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture)
7. Existing Zoning: A-20A (Agricultural - 20 acre minimum)
8. Description of Project (describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.):
KSI Engineering, Inc., (Applicant) representing APVJ LLC (Property Owner), is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designation from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to OS-P (Parks), and a Zone Change to amend the existing zoning from A-20A (Agricultural – 20-acre minimum) to RE (Recreation). The proposed project includes construction of a 31,500 square foot indoor recreational facility, a parking lot, and an on-site retention basin located at 5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road. The project area would be approximately 3.67 acres [Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 535-020-05 and 535-020-10] and constructed in a single phase.
The indoor recreational facility will be equipped with a lobby, check-in desk, restrooms, snack bar, storage rooms, sitting area for parents, lockers, and 6 indoor volleyball courts. These 6 indoor volleyball courts could be transformed into 3 basketball courts or other sport courts as desired.
Private groups (e.g., local schools and recreational sports teams) will utilize the facilities for practice facilities, club play, traveling club play, and tournaments for volleyball, pickle ball, and basketball.
When not being utilized by private groups, the public can rent the facilities for open play.
The hours of operation will be 8:00 AM - 10:00 PM seven days a week. There will be 2 employees per 8-hour shift with a maximum of 4 employees during the busiest shift of the day. Project will utilize city sewer and water. Solid waste will be stored in bins within a city standard trash enclosure and will be picked up by the local service provider. All on-site and street frontage storm water drainage will be conveyed to on-site retention basins.
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 4 of 41
9. Environmental setting (briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses):
The proposed project site is currently undeveloped vacant land. The project site is bounded by a church to the north, undeveloped vacant land to the south, agricultural land to the west, and multifamily residential units to the east.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement):
• City of Bakersfield – Mitigated Negative Declaration consideration and adoption • City of Bakersfield – Improvement Plans
• City of Bakersfield – Building permits
• City of Bakersfield – Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program and Local Mitigation • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – Indirect Source Rule compliance • State Water Resources Control Board – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General permit
General Plan Amendment/
Zone Change
24-000 l
0 AERIAL
l:J
BAKERSFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
t
150 300
US Feet
10/9/2025
General Plan Amendment/
Zone Change
24-000 l
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PP-CGPA- 24-0001
GPA: R-IA to OS-P
ZC: A-20A to RE
PENSINGER RD
II
l:a-T,-r---;-,---------------, ;
< ,1,--"'I""-------...
R-1 ,,,-, \---:R:,:h-,r-r-,-"T--r---J i I--JiR~-1;---fn'---oll HOLABIRD AVE "\ ~ B]ito----1
GOODHUE ST
tz _____ __, ~ .___R_-1_.1 ... z
r-.---,-• .,..--r-r--.-~---.--...--- g ----- ~ s .__ _ _.,
ZANCARA DR
0 <
to---1 :
... t-HH-+-+4--1---1--'-_,_-L-.LJ
R-1
OCREZA WAY
V1 I
'
\
\
R-2
HARRIS RD
'\-,._._R-~ I >- RANCHO CORDOVA ST
/ RZoning
Resource Zone Designations
[illIIITI A-20A Agri~ultural -
20 acre minimum
Residential Zone Designations
Cl R-1 One Family
Dwelling
R-2 Limited Multiple
D Family Dwelling Zone
- 1 unit/2,500 sq. ft.
l:J
BAKERSFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
t
0 150 300
US Feet
10/9/2025
General Plan Amendment/
Zone Change
24-000 l
OCREZA WAY
HARRIS RD
Land Use
RESIDENTIAL
HMR - High Medium
Density Residential:
- > 7.26 units but:;;;
17.42 dwelling
units/net acre
LR - Low Density
Residential: :;;; 7.26
dwelling units/net
acre
RESOURCE
R-IA - Resource -
Intensive
- Agriculture: 20 acre
minimum parcel
size
l:J
BAKERSFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
t
0 150 300
US Feet
10/9/2025
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 8 of 41
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
As indicated by the checklist on the following pages, the project would result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the environmental factors checked below (Impacts reduced to a less than significant level through the incorporation of mitigation are not considered potentially significant.):
□ Aesthetics □ Agricultural Resources □ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Geology / Soils □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions □ Hazards & Hazardous Materials □ Hydrology / Water Quality □ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise
□ Population / Housing □ Public Services □ Recreation
□ Transportation / Traffic □ Utilities / Service Systems □ Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration will be prepared.
■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A mitigated negative declaration will be prepared. □ I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental impact report is required.
□ I find that the proposed project may have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect has been (1) adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An environmental impact report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been (1) analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
January 5, 2026
Signature Date
____________Noeli Topete___________
Printed name
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 9 of 41
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 10 of 41
Environmental Checklist and Analysis Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project;
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project site is located within the City limits, generally northwest of Buena Vista Road and Pensinger Road in southwest Bakersfield. The surrounding visual environment is primarily developed, though some vacant and open space areas remain.
Parcels to the east are developed or planned for residential and recreational uses, the parcel to the north is occupied by a church, and the land to the south is currently undeveloped. The project does not conflict with any applicable vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements or design criteria of federal, state, or local agencies. The project site is located within an area having slopes from 0 to 2 %. The area is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as visually important or “scenic.” The proposed development of a 31,500-square-foot indoor recreational facility, associated parking, and an on-site retention basin would be compatible with surrounding urban land uses and serves as a logical continuation of existing development patterns in the area. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts are less than significant. b. No impact. There are no trees, rock outcrops, or historic buildings located at the project site.
Additionally, the project is not located adjacent to or near any officially designated or potentially eligible scenic highways to be listed on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System (Caltrans, n.d.). The closest section of highway eligible for state scenic highway designation is State Route (SR) 14 located in Kern County over 60 miles to the southeast of the project area. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
c. Less than significant impact. Please refer to responses I.a, I.b and I.d. The project does not conflict with any applicable vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements or design criteria of federal, state, or local agencies and, the project would be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) designations and Zoning Ordinance classifications for the project area. The area is not regarded or designated within the MBGP as 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 11 of 41
visually important or “scenic.” Therefore, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, and impacts are less than significant. d. Less than significant impact. This project involves incremental urban growth within the City of Bakersfield’s jurisdiction. This project would have to comply with City development standards, including Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance), Title 15 (buildings and construction), as well as California Code of Regulations Title 24. Together, these local and state requirements oblige project compliance with current lighting and signage standards that minimize unwanted light or glare to spill over into neighboring properties. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project;
a. Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. An Agricultural Conversion Study was prepared for the project by Envirotech (2025). As part of the study, a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) model was applied to assess land use characteristics and agricultural 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 12 of 41
potential. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (CDOC, 2022), the project site is designated as Rural Residential Land.
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the 3.67-acre site located at 5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road would facilitate a transition from agricultural to urban recreational use. The project involves construction of a 31,500-square-foot indoor recreational facility with associated parking and an on-site retention basin, serving local schools, club teams, and the public.
The site is not classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance and has no recent history of agricultural production. Although two wells are present, the site is now served by municipal water. The LESA analysis yielded a total score of 115 out of 260, indicating limited agricultural value. The surrounding area is increasingly urbanized, containing residential subdivisions, a church, and arterial roadway access (Envirotech, 2025a).
The project is consistent with the City of Bakersfield’s General Plan Agricultural Conversion Policy 14 and supports Goals 2.2 and 3.3 of the City’s Recreation and Parks Master Plan, which encourage public-private partnerships and the development of regional recreational facilities.
Furthermore, Map 4-1 of the Master Plan identifies the project area as located within a recreational service gap (Envirotech, 2025a).
Although not formal components of the site plan, design features such as setbacks, landscaping, and open space areas are recommended as mitigation measure AG-1 to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. Overall, the proposed conversion is consistent with regional growth patterns and supports the long-term development vision for southwest Bakersfield (Envirotech, 2025a). Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use. b. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project site is zoned A-20A (Agricultural - 20 acre minimum) and is not under a Williamson Act contract (KernGIS, 2025). The proposed zone change from A‑20A (Agricultural, 20‑acre minimum) to RE (Recreation) aligns with the City of Bakersfield’s long‑term planning vision and supports the development of indoor recreational facilities. This rezoning is consistent with Policy 5.1.2 of the City of Bakersfield Recreation & Parks Master Plan, which encourages partnerships with the private sector to support a broad range of recreation facilities, including indoor uses. Specifically, Policy 5.1.2 states the City will ‘encourage and support private sector recreation development as a means to provide additional recreational services and opportunities to the community (Envirotech, 2025a). Mitigation measure AG-1 would be incorporated to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to the existing zoning for agricultural use and Williamson Act contract. c. No impact. Please refer to response II.b. The project site is zoned A-20A (Agricultural - 20 acre minimum) however the proposed zoning would not conflict with the intended use of the site.
There are no forest lands located on the site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
d. No impact. There are no forestlands within the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land into non-forest. 1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 13 of 41
e. Less than significant impact. . Please refer to responses II.a through II.d. This project proposes commercial development in an area designated for urban development by the General Plan.
There are no agricultural or forestlands in proximity to the project that would experience conflicts in operation due to the proposed development. Therefore, the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY:
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Memorandum was prepared for the project (Envirotech, 2025b). The project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) jurisdiction, in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for ozone, particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The SJVAPCD has identified quantitative emission thresholds to determine whether the potential air quality impacts of a project require analysis in an Environmental Impact Report. The SJVAPCD air quality thresholds from the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) are presented in Table 1. The SJVAPCD separates construction emissions from operational emissions for determining significance thresholds for air pollutant emissions (Envirotech, 2025b). 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 14 of 41
Table 1 SJVAPCD Air Quality Thresholds of Significance - Criteria Pollutants Pollutant /
Precursor
Construction
Emissions
Operational Emissions
Permitted Equipment
and Activities
Non-Permitted Equipment
and Activities
Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy)
CO 100 100 100
NOx 10 10 10
ROG 10 10 10
SOx 27 27 27
PM10 15 15 15
PM2.5 15 15 15
Source: (Envirotech, 2025b)
Criteria pollutant emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2. The analysis evaluated both short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed project. Table 2 presents the estimated construction emission levels, which were calculated using default CalEEMod factors for construction of a 31,500-square-foot recreational facility, except that the project site acreage was adjusted to reflect the actual site size.
Table 2 Construction Emission Levels
Emissions Source
(Unmitigated)
Pollutant
(tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2026 Construction
Emissions 0.17 1.49 1.9 0.005 0.12 0.08
2027 Construction
Emissions 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.005 0.01 0.005
Total Construction
Emissions 0.26 1.58 2.03 0.01 0.13 0.09
SJVAPCD Construction
Emissions Thresholds
10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: (Envirotech, 2025b)
Construction emission estimates also incorporate the SJVAPCD required dust control measures applicable to all projects AQ-1 and AQ-2. With incorporation of AQ-1 and AQ-2, project-related construction emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD’s applicable thresholds of significance (see Table 1).
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 15 of 41
Table 3 Total Project Operational Emissions
Emissions Source
(Mitigated)
Pollutant
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
(tons/year)
Operational Emissions –
2027 Worst Case 0.54 0.76 3.98 0.01 1.04 0.28
SJVAPCD Operational
Emissions Thresholds –
non-permitted sources
10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: (Envirotech, 2025b)
Table 3 summarizes the project’s long-term operational emissions generated from mobile, energy, and area sources, as well as from water use and waste generation. The majority of operational emissions would result from vehicle trips to and from the project site. Based on the CalEEMod modeling results, long-term operational (mobile) emissions associated with the proposed project would be below the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) significance thresholds and, therefore, would not result in a significant impact to criteria air pollutants. This conclusion is consistent with the Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL) screening thresholds established by SJVAPCD. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. 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 (Envirotech, 2025b). Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c. Less than significant impact. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved that expose sensitive receptors to sustained exposure to any pollutants present. The proposed project is located near the northwestern corner of Buena Vista Road and Pensinger Road. Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where individuals who are more susceptible to air quality effects, such as children, the elderly, and people with chronic illnesses, spend extended periods of time. Typical sensitive receptor sites include residences, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare facilities.
The nearest identified sensitive receptor is the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses, located approximately 100 feet north of the proposed development. Based on the predicted operational emissions and the nature of project activities, the proposed project would not result in substantial air quality impacts on nearby sensitive receptors and would not expose sensitive populations to significant pollutant concentrations (Envirotech, 2025b). Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less than significant impact. The project is a recreational facility near residential or multi-family developments. Recreational facility developments are not known to include activities that would be a source to create objectionable nuisance odors. Therefore, the project would not 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 16 of 41
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project;
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. A Biological Resource Evaluation was prepared by Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc. (PruettBio) for the project (PruettBio, 2025). As part of the study, PruettBio reviewed existing data to identify known and potential occurrences of special-status species within 10 miles (16 kilometers) of the site. A reconnaissance-level field survey was conducted by Jared Pratt on March 31, 2025. The site was surveyed on foot along the perimeter and through random transects to assess habitat conditions. The survey provided full visual coverage of the project area, and field notes recorded all observed plant and wildlife species.
The literature review and database queries identified 23 special-status plant species with the potential to occur within the vicinity of the project site. Forty special-status animal species were identified as potentially occurring in the region. No evidence of any listed, locally rare, or 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 17 of 41
otherwise special-status plant or animal species, nor any animal sign, was observed during the field survey (PruettBio, 2025).
The project site is located within the historic range of the Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides). However, the site is not included in the southwest focus area for this species as delineated in the previous habitat conservation plan. Additionally, recent habitat suitability modeling (Cypher, 2021) does not include the project site within any of the four designated suitability tiers. Trapping would be required to confirm the presence of small mammal species currently occupying the site. Direct or indirect impacts, including incidental take of any threatened, endangered, or otherwise protected species, are not anticipated to occur as a result of project development. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would ensure protection of biological resources and avoidance or minimization of potential impacts to general wildlife. Therefore, with implementation of the miitigation measures the project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensiive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS, and impacts are less-thansignificant with mitigation incorporated. b. No impact. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service exists on the project site (PruettBio, 2025). Therefore, the project would result in no impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. c. No impact. No features, identified in wetland categories, appear on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory mapping (USFWS 2025) on the proposed, project site. No federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act were identified during the field study conducted (PruettBio, 2025). Therefore, the project would result in no impact on federally-protected wetlands.
d. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No evidence of nursery sites was observed during the site survey. In addition, the project site is not within an essential habitat connectivity area (CDFW, 2010). However, measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would be implemented to avoid the probability of take during project activities. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
e. Less than significant impact. The project site does not include biological resources that are protected by local policies or ordinances protecting any biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and impacts are less than significant. f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to responses IV.a, IV.d, and IV.e.
With implementation of measure BIO-1 through BIO-9, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 18 of 41
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project;
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
a. No impact. A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey was prepared for the project (Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates, 2025). A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was completed for the project and included both a pedestrian field survey and a cultural resource records search. A residence that had recently been demolished in preparation for the project was observed; however, it did not meet the minimum 45-year age threshold for potential eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. A records search was conducted which covered the project site and a one-half-mile radius and was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Information Center. The search identified seventeen previous cultural resource surveys within one-half mile of the project area; however, none of these surveys addressed the project area specifically. Four cultural resources have been recorded within one-half mile of the site, including the Southern Pacific rail line, a historic trash scatter, a historic residence, and a prehistoric flake. No previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the project area. A pedestrian survey of the entire project area was also conducted to identify any surface cultural resources. No cultural resources were identified during the field. However, in the event that any unknown resources are encountered, measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would be implemented. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. There are no known human remains on the site, and it is neither located within nor adjacent to a former cemetery. The project could inadvertently uncover, or damage previously unknown human remains. Measure CUL-2 requires that if any human remains are found at the site during construction, work would cease, and the remains would be handled pursuant to applicable law. With implementation of measure CUL-2, the project would not significantly disturb any human remains, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□ □
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 19 of 41
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY: Would the project;
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. Project construction would require temporary energy demands typical of other recreation projects that occur throughout the state and this development’s construction would not result in inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources beyond typical commercial construction. All new construction within the City of Bakersfield must adhere to adopted building standards, including California Code of Regulations Title 24, which outlines energy efficiency standards for new commercial buildings to ensure that they do not wastefully, inefficiently, or unnecessarily consume energy. Therefore, the project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. There is no adopted plan by the City of Bakersfield for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As mentioned above, all new development projects within the City are required to adhere to modern building standards related to energy efficiency. Additionally, the City encourages applicants and developers to go beyond the required standards and make their developments even more efficient through programs such as LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, which is a green building rating system that provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings. Other encouraged programs available to applicants and developers are Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards and 2005 building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts are less than significant.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 20 of 41
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project;
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion
a. The following discusses the potential for the project to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects because of various geologic hazards. The City is within a seismically active area.
According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these major active fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge-Kern County, Garlock, Pond Poso, and White Wolf faults. There are numerous additional smaller faults suspected to occur within the Bakersfield area, which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge-Kern County) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides. i. No Impact. Ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of a fault during an earthquake. According to the California Department of Conservation’s (CDOC) Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map, the project area is not located within an earthquake fault zone (CDOC, n.d.). Therefore, the project would not expose 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
~
□
~
□
□
□
□
□
~
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 21 of 41
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii. Less than significant impact. The City is within a seismically active area. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (specifically Seismic Zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake construction standards. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking, and impacts are less than significant. iii. Less than significant impact. The most common seismic-related ground failure is liquefaction and lateral spreading. In both cases, during periods of ground motion caused by an event such as an earthquake, loose materials are transformed from a solid state to near-liquid state as a result of increased pore water pressure. Such ground failure generally requires a high-water table and poorly draining soils in order for such ground failure to occur.
Soils underlain the project site include Kimberlina fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 17 (USDA, n.d.). The potential for liquefaction at the project site is low. The site is not within an area with a high ground water. In addition, future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and impacts are less than significant.
iv. No impact. In Kern County, the common types of landslides induced by earthquake occur on steeper slopes found in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon; in these areas, landslides are generally associated with bluff and stream bank failure, rockslide, and slope slip on steep slopes. The project site is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides. b. Less than significant impact. The relatively low precipitation in the project area [on average about 6 inches/year results in surface runoff that is intermittent and temporary in nature (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2025).The erosion potential at the site and the fact that the soils are well drained coupled with low average rainfall in the area does not make the project site likely to have substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The project site’s soils have low-to-moderate susceptibility to erosion by rainfall (USDA, n.d.).
Construction of the site would temporarily disturb soils, which could loosen soil, and the removal of vegetation could contribute to future soil loss and erosion by wind and storm water runoff. The project would have to request coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (No. 2012-0006-DWQ) (General Permit) because the project would result in 1 or more acres of ground disturbance. To conform to the requirements of the General Permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would need to be prepared that specifies best management (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants, including eroded soils (such as topsoil), from moving offsite. Implementation of the General Permit and BMPs requirements would mitigate erosion of soil during construction activities. 1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 22 of 41
During operation, the soils would be sufficiently compacted to required engineered specifications, revegetated in compliance with City requirements, or paved over with impervious surfaces such that the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the project site’s soils would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides.
Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low-density materials that collapse and compact under the addition of water or excessive loading. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, and impacts are less than significant. d. No impact. The soil identified on site, Kimberlina fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 17, does not have a high potential to be expansive (USDA, n.d.). Additionally, future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics.
Therefore, the project would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property.
e. No impact. The project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because the project would connect to existing City sewer services in the area.
Therefore, there would be no impacts related to soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.
f. No impact. According to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the MCGP, the city has a very low potential to contain paleontological resources. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on unique paleontological resources, sites or unique geologic features.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project;
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Memorandum was prepared for the project (Envirotech, 2025b). The Project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are primarily from mobile source activities. Not all GHGs exhibit the same ability to induce climate change; as a result, GHG contributions are commonly quantified as carbon dioxide equivalents 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 23 of 41
(CO2e). The proposed Project’s operational CO2e emissions were estimated using CalEEMod.
These emissions are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4 Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CO2 Emissions
metric tons
CH4 Emissions
metric tons
N2O Emissions
metric tons
CO2e
Emissions
metric tons
2027 Project
Operations
1,295 1.74 0.07 1,360
Source: (Envirotech, 2025b)
The project would generate approximately 1,360 metric tons of CO₂e annually from operational activities. The SJVAPCD has not established quantitative GHG thresholds of significance, and the project’s emissions are minor relative to state reduction targets under AB 32 and SB 32.
California’s total emissions were approximately 418 million MT CO₂e in 2021, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The project’s emissions of 1,360 MT CO₂e/year therefore represent only about 0.0005 percent (five ten-thousandths of one percent) of the state’s total emissions and less than 0.001 percent of the 2030 reduction target. This magnitude of contribution is considered de minimis and would not measurably affect the state’s progress toward achieving its legislatively mandated goals (Envirotech, 2025b).
The project would be constructed consistently with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen requirements, and current energy-efficiency codes that directly reduce operational GHG emissions. Mobile-source emissions would be consistent with the Kern Council of Governments Sustainable Communities Strategy and statewide transportation emissionreduction programs. The project does not propose any industrial processes or other highemission uses and would not conflict with any adopted regional or local GHG-reduction strategy (Envirotech, 2025b).
Given the small scale of the project’s GHG emissions relative to statewide totals, and its consistency with applicable state and regional reduction strategies, the project would not conflict with the State’s ability to meet the reduction targets established in AB 32 and SB 32, nor would it result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. Therefore, the project greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change would result in a less than significant impact.
b. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response VII.a. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of GHG, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project; a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 24 of 41
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. Construction activities would require the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials such as fuels and greases for the fueling/servicing of construction equipment and fuel tanks, and there is the potential for upset and accident conditions that could release such material into the environment. Such substances would be stored in temporary storage tanks/sheds that would be located at the site. Although these types of materials are not acutely hazardous, they are classified as hazardous materials and create the potential for accidental spillage, which could expose construction workers. All transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials used in the construction of the project would be in strict accordance with federal and state laws and regulations. During construction of the project, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all applicable materials present at the site would be made readily available to on-site personnel. During construction, non-hazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of at approved facilities for handling such waste. Also, during construction, waste disposal would be managed using portable toilets located at reasonably accessible on-site locations.
Day-to-day operational activities may involve routine transport, use of, and/or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act, namely gasoline transport and storage. The routine transport of gasoline to the project site would have to comply with all laws and regulations related to hazardous material routes and the proper transfer of gasoline to the site. Users should also read product labels for disposal directions to reduce the risk of products exploding, igniting, leaking, mixing with other chemicals, or posing other hazards on the way to a disposal facility. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts are less than significant. b. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response VIX.a. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 25 of 41
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment and impacts would be less than significant.
c. No impact. The closest school is St. Johns Lutheran School located approximately 0.5 mile northeast from the project site. Therefore, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school.
d. No impact. The EnviroStor (DTSC, 2025) and Cortese lists (DTSC, n.d.) pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65962.5 were reviewed. No portion of the project site is identified on either list, which provides the location of known hazardous waste concerns. Therefore, the project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to GC Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
e. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area (Kern County, 2011). The closest airport to the project site is the Bakersfield Municipal Airport which is located approximately 6 miles east of the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The project is not located within a distance an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted.
f. Less than significant impact. Access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period, and appropriate detours would be provided in the event of potential temporary road closures. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in a substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield, and is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (City of Bakersfield, 1996). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts are less than significant. g. Less than significant impact. The project site is not located within a “very high,” “high,” or “moderate” fire hazard severity zone (City of Bakersfield, 2025). The site is surrounded by extensively developed land, and its vicinity is agricultural and urban and does not possess high fuel loads that have a high potential to cause a wildland fire. The project site would be developed with hardscapes and irrigated landscaping, which would further reduce fire potential at the site. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands, and impacts are less than significant.
1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 26 of 41
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project;
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
d. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? e. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? f. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
g. Impede or redirect flood flows?
h. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
i. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. Construction would include ground-disturbing activities that would temporarily disturb and potentially loosen soils. However, during operation, the soils would be paved over with impervious surfaces such that the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion.
The City owns and maintains a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). The project’s operational urban stormwater discharges are covered under the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board (“CVRWQCB”) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Order No. R5-2016-0040; NPDES No. CAS0085324) (MS4 Permit) (CVRWQCB 2016). The MS4 Permit mandates the implementation of a stormwater management framework to ensure that water quality is maintained despite operational stormwater discharges throughout the City, including the project site. Therefore, by complying with the MS4 Permit, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts are less than significant.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 27 of 41
b. Less than significant impact. Currently, there are no irrigation water rights from a local water district associated with the project site. Potable water for the site would be supplied by the City of Bakersfield which has provided a Verification of Water Service letter for the project, which receives at least a portion of its supplies from groundwater sources. Also, by state law, the current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) does not need to address the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) or sustainable groundwater management at this time.
It was concluded that the District has sufficient existing capacity to service the project.
Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, and impacts are less than significant. c. The following discusses whether the project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces.
i. Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain any blue-line streams or other surface water features and therefore, the project would not alter the course of a river or stream. The project site would be graded and, as a result, the internal drainage pattern at the site would be altered from the baseline condition. Additionally, the project would result in increased impervious surfaces (i.e., building pads, sidewalks, asphalt parking area, etc.) at the site, which would reduce percolation to ground and result in greater amounts of storm water runoff concentrations at the site. If uncontrolled, differences in drainage patterns and increased impervious surfaces could result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. However, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit during construction and MS4 permit during operation. In order to comply with the MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with adopted building codes, including complying with an approved drainage plan, which avoids on- and offsite flooding, erosion, and siltation problems. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite, and impacts are less than significant. ii. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.c.i. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite, and impacts are less than significant.
iii. Less than significant impact. In order to comply with the City’s MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with an approved drainage plan that would avoid on- and offsite flooding thus, the project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and impacts are less than significant. iv. Less than significant impact. A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Maps, shows the project site is located in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain (FEMA, n.d.). Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less than significant impact. The City of Bakersfield is located within Central California and is not near a coastal environment that risks flood inundation. In addition, the City is not located within 1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 28 of 41
a tsunami zone as identified by the California Department of Conservation’s Tsunami Map. As mentioned above, the project site is located in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1- percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain. The project site, like most of the City, is located within the Lake Isabella flood inundation area (USACE, n.d), which is the area that would experience flooding in the event that there was a catastrophic failure of the Lake Isabella Dam. There is an approved Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan (Kern County Fire Department, 2009)) that establishes a process and procedures for the mass evacuation and short-term support of populations at risk below the Lake Isabella Dam. The City would utilize the Evacuation Plan to support its Emergency Operations Plans. Due to the project’s location and implementation of related emergency safety plans, the project would not likely risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, and impacts are less than significant.
e. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.c.i. There is currently no adopted groundwater management plan for the project site or its vicinity. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project;
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern of the City.
The project does not include a long and linear feature, such as a freeway, railroad track, block wall, etc., that would have the potential to divide a community. The project consists of the GPA/ZC and development of a finite, 3.67-acre infill site that does not impede existing or future movement or development of the City.
b. Less than significant impact. The project requires a GPA/ZC to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and MBGP. The project includes a zone change from A‑20A (Agricultural, 20‑acre minimum) to RE (Recreation) and general plan amendment from R-IA (Resource - Intensive Agriculture) to OS-P (Parks) which would align with the City of Bakersfield’s long‑term planning vision and supports the development of indoor recreational facilities. This project is consistent with Policy 5.1.2 of the City of Bakersfield Recreation & Parks Master Plan, which encourages partnerships with the private sector to support a broad range of recreation facilities, including indoor uses. Specifically, Policy 5.1.2 states the City will ‘encourage and support private sector recreation development as a means to provide additional recreational services and opportunities to the community (Envirotech, 2025a). Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project, and impacts are less than significant.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 29 of 41
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project;
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project site is not within the administrative boundaries of an oilfield and there are no oil wells found on the site (CDOC, n.d.). Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
b. No impact. The project site is currently designated from A‑20A (Agricultural, 20‑acre minimum).
No portion of the site is designated for a potential mineral resource extraction use such as R-MP (Mineral and Petroleum). Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project would generate both short-term construction noise and operational noise. The first type of short-term construction noise would result from transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site, and construction worker commutes.
These transportation activities would incrementally raise noise levels on access roads leading to 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 30 of 41
the site. A one-time trip to move pieces of heavy equipment for grading and construction activities would result in single-event noise at a distance of 50 feet from a sensitive noise receptor that would reach a maximum level of 84 A-weighted decibels (dBA). Because the equipment would be left onsite for the duration of project construction, the one-time trip would not add to the daily traffic noise in the project vicinity. The total daily vehicle trips resulting from construction worker commutes would be minimal when compared to existing traffic volumes on the affected streets, and the long-term noise level change would not be perceptible.
The second type of short-term construction noise is related to noise generated during project construction. The site preparation and grading phase, which includes excavation and grading, tends to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving equipment is the noisiest construction equipment. Construction noise levels during grading would be less than 70 dBA, which would not exceed the hourly noise level standard at the nearest sensitive uses.
Construction noise would cease to occur once project construction is completed. The project will also be required to comply with the construction hours specified in the City Noise Ordinance, which states that construction activities are limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekends.
Project operations would generate sound levels typical of residential land uses, which would have to comply with Bakersfield Municipal Code regarding noise. Stationary operational noise levels at all points around the project site would experience noise level impacts that would be less than the daytime and nighttime hourly noise level standards of 55 dBA and 50 dBA, respectively. Project-related operational traffic would have very small noise level increases along roadway segments in the project vicinity. Residential noise, including engine sounds, car doors slamming, car alarms, loud music, and people conversing, would also occur at the project site would experience noise level impacts that would be less than the city’ daytime and nighttime maximum noise level standards of 75dBA and 70 dBA.
Therefore, the project would not generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. Some ground-borne vibration and noise would originate from earth movement and building activities during the project’s construction phase. Ground-borne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low to moderate. The operation of typical construction equipment would generate ground-borne vibrations that would not exceed guidelines that are considered unsafe for any type of buildings. Operation of the proposed recreation use would not generate ground-borne vibration. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels and impacts would be less than significant.
c. No impact. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to an airport land use plan. 1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 31 of 41
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project result in:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project is a recreation project and therefore, does not induce direct growth. The project would provide additional employment opportunities in Metropolitan Bakersfield, which accommodates the projected increase in Bakersfield’s population by providing such opportunities for existing and future residents in Bakersfield. The project would not remove a barrier to growth, such as the development of a new road or other infrastructure that would open up an area previously inaccessible to development. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, and impacts are less than significant.
b. No impact. The project site consists of vacant land. Therefore, the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 32 of 41
Discussion
a. The following discusses whether the project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts to public services. The need for additional public service is generally directly correlated to population growth and the resultant additional population’s need for services beyond what is currently available.
i. Less than significant impact. Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County of Kern. Potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, and impacts are less than significant.
ii. Less than significant impact. Police protection for the project would be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department. Potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection, and impacts are less than significant. iii. No impact. The project is not growth inducing and therefore, is a not driver for population growth, including the need for additional schools. However, the need for additional schools could be proportionately paid for by an increased property tax revenue as a result of the project. Therefore, the project would result in no impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools. iv. No impact. The project is not growth inducing and therefore, is a not driver for population growth, including the need for additional recreational opportunities. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks.
v. Less than significant impact. The project is located in a developed area and would not result in a significant increase in maintenance responsibilities for the City. Though the project may necessitate some increased maintenance for other public facilities, this potential increase can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development.
Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, 1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 33 of 41
response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION: Would the project result in:
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion
a. No impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to recreational facilities.
b. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. The project is the development of a recreational facility which would be consistent within the RE zone. However, the project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to recreational facilities.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project result in:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project would result in temporary construction-related traffic impacts. Construction workers traveling to and from the project site as well as construction 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
181
181
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 34 of 41
material delivery would result in additional vehicle trips to the area’s roadway system.
Construction material delivery may require a number of trips for oversized vehicles that may travel at slower speeds than existing traffic and, due to their size, may intrude into adjacent travel lanes. These trips may temporarily degrade level of service on area roadways and at intersections. Additionally, the total number of vehicle trips associated with all constructionrelated traffic, including construction worker trips, could temporarily increase daily traffic volumes on local roadways and intersections. The project may require temporary lane closures or the need for flagmen to safely direct traffic on roadways near the project site. However, once the project is built, it would not result in any permanent traffic-related effects.
A Trip Generation & Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis was prepared for the project (Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers, 2025). Trip generation and design-hour volumes are summarized in Table
5. The facility will accommodate up to 72 youth players, six coaches, and four staff members during operating hours. For analysis purposes, it was assumed that one practice session would occur per evening during after-school hours. Weekend tournaments would occur occasionally, with traffic dispersed throughout the day and not expected to reach City thresholds requiring a detailed traffic study.
Approximately 25 percent of players are expected to carpool, and all others are anticipated to be dropped off and picked up by a parent or guardian. Average daily traffic (ADT) estimates assume parents depart after drop-off and return during the evening peak hour. Spectators are expected to accompany players, and half of the coaches and staff are assumed to arrive during the PM peak hour, with the remainder traveling during off-peak times.
Table 5 Trip Generation
General Information Daily Trips PM Peak Hours
Development
Type
Variable ADT Rate ADT In Out
% Split/
Trips
% Split/
Trips
Athletic
Facility
54 Players
4 216 50%
27 50%
27 Athletic
Facility
4 Staff 2 8 50%
2 50%
2 Athletic
Facility
6 Coaches
2 12 50%
3 50%
3 Total 236 32 32
Source: (Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers, 2025)
Based on the trip generation summarized in Table 5, the project is estimated to generate approximately 236 average daily trips, including 64 trips during the PM peak hour. Review of nearby population centers and roadway access indicates that project-related traffic would result in fewer than 50 peak-hour trips at any adjacent intersection. Therefore, no further intersection-level traffic analysis was required. The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system and impacts would be less than significant. b. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response XVII.a. The project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Therefore the project would result in a less than significant impact.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 35 of 41
c. Less than significant impact. The project would have to comply with all conditions placed on it by the City Traffic Engineering Division in order to comply with accepted traffic engineering standards intended to reduce traffic hazards, including designing the roads so that they do not result in design feature hazards. The project is with the City limits and surrounded by compatible existing and planned land uses and land use designations. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less than significant impact. There is the potential that, during the construction phase, the project would impede emergency access. For projects that require minor impediments of a short duration (e.g., pouring a new driveway entrance), the project would be required to obtain a street permit from City Public Works. If a project requires lane closures and/or the diversion of traffic, then a Traffic Control Plan, subject to Public Works approval, would be required. During operations, the project would have to comply with all applicable City policies and requirements to ensure adequate emergency access. The need for such permits is determined by the Public Works Department during the permitting and construction phases of their permitting process. In addition, the site plans have been designed in accordance with all City development standards. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project result in:
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project requires a GPA and therefore, request for consultation letters were sent to a list of tribal contacts received from the Native American Heritage Commission in compliance with Senate Bill 18 (“SB 18”). In the letters, the City stated that the applicable tribes may request consultation with the City regarding the preservation of, and/or mitigation of impacts to, California Native American cultural places in connection with the project. To date, none of the tribes have responded to the request. Therefore, the project would 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 36 of 41
not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. There are no tribal cultural resources determined by the lead agency to be of significance on-site. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project result in:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project would require the construction of new water, storm water drainage, sewer facilities; above and/or belowground electrical facilities, natural gas facilities, and telecommunications (e.g., cable, fiber optics, phone, etc.) typical of a indoor recreational facility development. Water, storm water, and sewer structures would have to be designed to meet the City’s Current Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual (City of Bakersfield, 1989). Compliance with the Design Manual would ensure that such facilities would not result in significant environmental effects. Electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities would be placed by the individual serving utilities; these entities already have in place safety and siting protocols to ensure that placement of new utilities to serve new construction would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 37 of 41
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. The City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department has provided a Verification of Water Service letter stating that water service can be supplied to the development. The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Therefore, the project would have sufficient water supplies available from existing entitlements and resources, and new or expanded entitlements would not be needed, and impacts are less than significant. c. Less than significant impact. Wastewater produced as a result of the project would be treated at the Waste Water Treatment Plant (“WWTP”) No. 3, which is owned and operated by the City.
WWTP No. 3 has an overall capacity of 32 million gallons per day (MGD) and a current available capacity of 17.3 MGD (CIty of Bakersfield, 2025). WWTP No. 3 has sufficient capacity to serve the project. Therefore, it has been determined that the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments, and impacts are less than significant. d. Less than significant impact. It is assumed that solid waste generated as a result of the project would be disposed at the Bena Landfill located at 2951 Neumarkel Road, Bakersfield, CA 93307.
In accordance with city standards which are designed to achieve State waste stream reduction and recycling goals, the Solid Waste Division of Public Works will conduct a detailed review of the facility at the time of development to incorporate appropriate on-site trash facilities, subject to city approval. Therefore, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs, and impacts are less than significant.
e. Less than significant impact. By law, the project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, including those relating to waste reduction, litter control, and solid waste disposal, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRES: Would the project result in:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 38 of 41
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The project is located in an urbanized area and access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield, and is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Bakersfield, 1996). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. As mentioned above, the project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Additionally, the project site is relatively flat, not near wildlands, the site and its surrounding do not possess high fuel loads (i.e., lots of vegetation and other burnable material) to exacerbate wildfire risks and therefore, fire-related pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfires and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors and impacts would be less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The project is located within the Bakersfield city limits and the site, as well as the surrounding area, is extensively developed with existing infrastructure such as roads, power lines, utilities etc., to support the development of this project. Therefore, the project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment and impacts would be less than significant.
d. Less than significant impact. The project site is relatively flat, is not within a floodplain, and is not in a moderate- to high-risk area for wildfires. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes and impacts would be less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Would the project result in:
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of life of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 39 of 41
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project must comply with listed plant and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), as directed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, respectively. In addition, measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would be implemented to avoid any impacts to special status species. There are no important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory found at the site.
However, measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 would be implemented to avoid any potential impacts to cultural or historical resources. Therefore, with the implementation of measures, the project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b. Less than significant impact. Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” This section further states that cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”
Past, present, and future projects in proximity to the project were considered and evaluated as part of this Initial Study. Also, in addition to project specific impacts, this Initial Study considered the projects potential for incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable. As described in the responses above, there is no substantial evidence that there are cumulative effects associated with this project. In addition, any future development projects not identified above would be required to undergo a separate environmental analysis and mitigate any project- or site-specific potential impacts, as necessary. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described in the responses above, the project, with mitigation, would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 40 of 41
References
Caltrans. (n.d.). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Retrieved from California Department of Transportation:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa
CDOC. (2022). California Important Farmland Finder. Retrieved from California Department of Conservation: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ CDOC. (n.d.). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Retrieved from Department of Conservation California Geological Survey:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/ CDOC. (n.d.). Well Finder. Retrieved from California Department of Conservation:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/
City of Bakersfield. (1996). Hazardous Materials Area Plan. Bakersfield.
City of Bakersfield. (2022, July 26). Historic Buildings and Sites in Bakersfield. Retrieved from https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/eb1b154414724e1d8b39ef7ff1ee46a2 City of Bakersfield. (2025). Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area. Bakersfield. Retrieved from https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/1cb624df-5c64-473b-95e4- c6b51c7537ea?cache=1800
CIty of Bakersfield. (2025). Wastewater Treatment Plants. Bakersfield, California, United States. Retrieved from https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/679/Wastewater-Treatment-Plants DTSC. (2025). Envirostor. Retrieved from California Department of Toxic Substances Control:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
DTSC. (n.d.). Department of Toxic Substances Control. Retrieved from DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List): https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/ Envirotech. (2025a). Agricultural Conversion Study. Bakersfield.
Envirotech. (2025b). Small Project Analysis Level Assessment.
ESA. (2025). NORSD Wster Resource Recovery Facility Project. Retrieved from https://www.norsd.com/files/3133b4f0d/NORSD+WRRF+Project.pdf FEMA. (n.d.). FEMA Flood Map Service Center. United Stataes. Retrieved from https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home
Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates. (2025). Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for a Proposed Sports Facility, City of Bakersfield, California.
Kern County. (2011). Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. California, Kern County. Retrieved from https://docs.bakersfieldcity.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=932206&page=1&cr=1 Kern County Fire Department. (2009, December). Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan. California, Kern County. Retrieved from https://kerncountyfire.org/wp-content/uploads/Isabella-DamFailure-Plan.pdf KernGIS. (2025, March 17). ArcGIS. Retrieved from Kern COunty WIlliamson Act- Active:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=49aeef8ba48e4159a64923306820a c69
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2025). NOW Data. Retrieved from National Weather Service: https://www.weather.gov/wrh/Climate?wfo=hnx 1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\PP-CGPA-24-0001_5543 Buena Vista Rd\03_CEQA\Draft_IS_MND_PP_CGPA-24-0001 Indoor Rec Facility.docx Page 41 of 41
PruettBio. (2025). Biological Resource Evaluation. Bakersfield.
SJVAPCD. (2015, March 19). Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Retrieved from https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf
Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. (2014). Cultural Resources Records Search. Bakersfield.
USACE. (n.d). Anticipated areas to flood in unlikely failure of Isabella Dam. Californa, Kern County.
Retrieved from
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/bakersfield.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/edit orial/8/04/804257c6-3a0c-54aa-a8b0-c8feb01b5631/594469881bd09.pdf.pdf USDA. (n.d.). United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service.
Retrieved from Web Soil Survey: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx USFWS. (2023, April 25). National Wetlands Inventory Surface Waters and Wetlands. Retrieved from United States Fish and Wildlife Service:
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ 1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
661.377.0073 | 5400 Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93308 | www.envirotechteam.com Small Project Analysis Level Assessment
Project Title
GPA/ZC No. TBD
Project Location
Mann Recreational Facility
5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road
City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California
APN: 535-020-05/10
July 3, 2025
Submitted to:
APVJ LLC
1280 Margate CT
Bakersfield, CA 93311
PDA Architects
1330 22nd Street, Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................. 1
1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................. 1
1.2 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS........................................................................................ 1
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION.............................................................................................. 2
2.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 2
2.2 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................... 2
3.0 SMALL PROJECT ANALYSIS LEVEL (SPAL) QUALIFICATION .................................... 3
4.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS AND EVALUATION.................................................................. 5
5.0 PROJECT RELATED EMISSIONS.................................................................................. 7
5.1. SHORT-TERM EMISSIONS ........................................................................................... 7
5.2. LONG-TERM EMISSIONS.............................................................................................. 7
5.3. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................. 8 Table 5-3: Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions………………………………...8
5.4. POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SENSITIVE RECEPTORS..................................................... 8
5.5. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO VISIBILITY TO NEARBY CLASS 1 AREAS ......................... 9
5.6. POTENTIAL ODOR IMPACTS........................................................................................ 9
5.7. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ................................................................................ 9
5.8. TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT (TAC) IMPACTS................................................................ 9
6.0 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................ 10
7.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 11 TABLES
Table 2-1: Assessor’s Parcel Numbers and Area for Project Site.................................... 2 Table 3-1: Small Project Analysis Level for Recreational Construction Projects .............. 3 Table 3-2: Small Project Analysis Level in Recreational Development Vehicle Trips....... 4 Table 4-1: SJVAPCD Air Quality Thresholds of Significance - Criteria Pollutants............ 5 Table 5-1: Construction Emission Levels ........................................................................ 7 Table 5-2: Total Project Operational Emissions............................................................... 7 Table 5-3: Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................. 8
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A Location Map
Exhibit B Project Location Map
Exhibit C Project Site Plan
Exhibit D Assessor’s Parcel Maps
Exhibit E CalEEMod® Emission Model
1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Envirotech Consultants, Inc., has prepared a limited air quality assessment for a recreational development to identify the potential impacts on air quality resulting from the project. The development consists of a indoor recreation building located on APN: 535-020-05/10. The proposed project occupies 3.67 gross acres and 3.46 net acres.
The project site is located in the southwest portion of the City of Bakersfield (County of Kern) and is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB is under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).
This limited air quality assessment uses SJVAPCD’s screening tool ‘Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL)’ (SJVAPCD 2017). The SPAL uses the methodology described in the SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (March 19, 2015 Revision), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(Public Resources Code 21000 to 21177) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387).
1.2 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
Based on the criteria established by the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, the emissions estimates prepared pursuant to this SPAL assessment do not exceed the SJVAPCD’s established emissions and significance thresholds for all CEQA air quality determinations. The project would therefore not pose a significant impact to the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and would have a less than significant air quality impact.
2 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Project site occupies 3.46 net acre and is currently zoned A-20A (Agricultural - 20 acre minimum with a land use of R-IA (resource-intensive agriculture). The project proposes a GPA from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to OS-P (Parks and Recreation), and a Zone Change from A-20A (Agricultural - 20 acre minimum) to RE (Recreation). The proposed development is limited to one 31,500 sq. ft. recreation facility.
The Project site is located northwest of the Buena Vista Road and Harris Road intersection in southwest Bakersfield. The Project was assessed as if it were developed in one phase. This assessment examines the projected gross impacts to air quality posed by this Project and to the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin to determine whether the Project remains below established air quality thresholds of significance.
Table 2-1: Assessor’s Parcel Numbers and Area for Project Site Assessor’s Parcel Number Acreage
535-020-05 0.30
535-020-10 3.16
Total Net
Acreage 3.46
2.2 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is located in the southwest portion of the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California northwest of the Pensinger Road and Buena Vista Road intersection. Figure 2-1 depicts the project location.
3 Figure 2-1 Project Location
3.0 SMALL PROJECT ANALYSIS LEVEL (SPAL) QUALIFICATION
This assessment was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI (March 19, 2015 Revision), CEQA (Public Resources Code 21000 to 21177) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387). The SJVAPCD created the screening tool, SPAL (November 13, 2020), to streamline air quality assessments of commonly encountered projects. According to GAMAQI, the SJVAPCD ‘pre-calculated the emissions on a large number and types of projects to identify the level at which they have no possibility of exceeding emissions thresholds”1. The proposed Mann recreational facility is comparable to a Racquet Club project in terms of project scale and utility.
The SJVAPCD SPAL process established the review parameters to determine whether a project qualifies as a ‘small project’. A project that is found to be ‘less than’ the established parameters, according to the SPAL review parameters, has ‘no possibility of exceeding criteria pollutant emissions thresholds’. Table 3-1 presents the SPAL size parameters for recreational projects.
Table 3-1: Small Project Analysis Level for Recreational Construction Projects Land Use Category Project Size
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 16,800 sq. ft.
Quality Restaurant 24,800
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 4,500
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 2,950
1 SJVAPCD GAMAQI, Section 8.3.4, p. 85.
4 Hotel 228 room
Motel 300 room
Arena 168,000 sq. ft.
City Park 256 acres
Golf Course 368 acres
Health Club 64,000 sq. ft.
Racquet Club 124,000 sq. ft.
Recreational Swimming Pool 70,400 sq. ft.
Movie Theater (No Matinee) 23,200 sq. ft.
Proposed Project – Racquet Club 35,100 sq. ft.
SPAL Exceeded? No
Notes:
Project size based on SPAL Table (November 13,2020), as posted on SJVAPCD webpage:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/GAMAQI-SPAL.PDF As shown in Table 3-1, the proposed project would not exceed the established SPAL limits for a ‘Racquet Club’ type project. The project would construct one 31,500 sq. ft. recreational facility, which is below the allowable project size of 124,000 sq. ft. Based on the above information, the project qualifies for a limited air quality analysis applying the SPAL guidance to determine the air quality impacts.
Table 3-2 presents the SPAL vehicle trip parameters for recreational projects.
Table 3-2: Small Project Analysis Level in Recreational Development Vehicle Trips Recreational
Projects
Average Daily One-way Trips for
all fleet Types (except HHDT)
Average Daily One-way for
HHDT Trips only (50-mile
trip length)
Threshold of
Significance 1,500 25
Proposed Project 683 15
SPAL Exceeded? No No
Notes:
Project size based on SPAL Table (November 13,2020), as posted on SJVAPCD webpage:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/GAMAQISPAL.PDF As shown in Table 3-2, the proposed project would not exceed the established SPAL vehicle trip limits for Recreational Developments. The project would generate 683 average daily trips compared to the allowable project vehicle trips for racquet club projects, which is 1,500 average daily trips. The HHDT is based on the CalEEMOD default HHD rates of about 2.6% of total vehicles. Based on the above information, this project qualifies for a limited air quality analysis applying the SPAL guidance to determine the air quality impacts. 31,500
5 4.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS AND EVALUATION
Significance thresholds are based on the CEQA Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form (not included herein) and SJVAPCD air quality thresholds listed in the GAMAQI (March 19, 2015 Revision). A potentially significant impact to air quality, as defined by the CEQA Checklist, would occur if the project caused one or more of the following to occur:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality standard;
• A cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is designated non-attainment under an applicable Federal or state ambient air quality standard (including emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);
• Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and/or • The creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
The SJVAPCD has identified quantitative emission thresholds to determine whether the potential air quality impacts of a project require analysis in an Environmental Impact Report. The SJVAPCD air quality thresholds from the GAMAQI are presented in Table 4-1 (March 19, 2015 Revision). The SJVAPCD separates construction emissions from operational emissions for determining significance thresholds for air pollutant emissions.
Table 4-1: SJVAPCD Air Quality Thresholds of Significance - Criteria Pollutants Pollutant/Precursor
Construction
Emissions
Operational Emissions
Permitted Equipment
and Activities
Non-Permitted
Equipment and
Activities
Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy)
CO 100 100 100
NOx 10 10 10
ROG 10 10 10
SOx 27 27 27
PM10 15 15 15
PM2.5 15 15 15
Source: GAMAQI (March 19, 2015 Revision)
Criteria pollutant) emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2 (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2016). This project would generate short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions.
An air quality evaluation also considers: 1) exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and 2) the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The criteria for this evaluation are based on the Lead Agency’s determination of the proximity of the proposed Project and the sensitive receptors. A sensitive receptor is a location where human populations, especially children, senior citizens and sick persons, are present, and where there is a reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure to 6 pollutants, according to the averaging period for ambient air quality standards, i.e. the 24-hour, 8-hour or 1-hour standards. Commercial and industrial sources are not considered sensitive receptors.
7 5.0 PROJECT RELATED EMISSIONS
This document was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI and SPAL guidelines and provides a cursory review of the Project emissions to demonstrate that it would not exceed established air quality emissions thresholds.
5.1. SHORT-TERM EMISSIONS
Table 5-1 shows the construction emission levels using default CalEEMod factors for construction of a 31,500 sq. ft. recreational facility (see Exhibit E) except for the following:
• Project site acres was changed from the default to the actual acreage of the Project site.
Construction emission estimates also included the following SJVAPCD’s required measures for all projects:
• Water exposed area 2 times per day; and
• Reduce vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour.
Based on these anticipated activity levels, the Project construction activities would not exceed construction thresholds (Table 4-1). Construction emissions therefore were found to be less than significant and no further evaluation is required.
Table 5-1: Construction Emission Levels
Emissions
Source
(Unmitigated)
Pollutant
(tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2026 Construction Emissions 0.17 1.49 1.9 0.005 0.12 0.08 2027 Construction Emissions 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.005 0.01 0.005 Total Construction Emissions 0.26 1.58 2.03 0.01 0.13 0.09 SJVAPCD Construction Emissions Thresholds 10 10 100 27 15 15 Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
5.2. LONG-TERM EMISSIONS
Table 5-2 presents the Project’s long-term operations emissions generated from mobile, energy, and area sources as well as from water use and waste generation emissions. Most of these emissions impacts are from mobile sources traveling to and from the Project area.
Table 5-2: Total Project Operational Emissions
Emissions
Source
(Mitigated)
Pollutant
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
(tons/year)
Operational Emissions – 2027 Worst Case 0.54 0.76 3.98 0.01 1.04 0.28 SJVAPCD Operational Emissions Thresholds –
non-permitted sources 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
8 As calculated (see Exhibit E), the long-term operational (mobile) emissions associated with the proposed Project would be less than SJVAPCD significance threshold levels and would, therefore, not pose a significant impact to criteria air pollutants. This finding is consistent with the SPAL screening thresholds.
5.3. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The Project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are primarily from mobile source activities. Not all GHGs exhibit the same ability to induce climate change; as a result, GHG contributions are commonly quantified as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) (see Exhibit E). The proposed Project’s operational CO2e emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. These emissions are summarized in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3: Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CO2 Emissions CH4 Emissions N2O Emissions CO2e Emissions metric tons metric tons metric tons metric tons
2027 Project Operations 1,295 1.74 0.07 1,360
There are no thresholds of significance that have been established by the SJVUAPCD for GHG emissions and global climate change. Based on the March 2010 amendments to the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines), the proposed project could potentially have a significant impact related to GHG and global climate change if it would:
• Generate GHGs, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
• Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of GHGs.
In order to determine whether or not a proposed project would cause an incremental contribution resulting in a significant effect on global climate change, the incremental contribution of the proposed project must be determined quantitatively and qualitatively by examining the types and levels of GHG emissions that would be generated directly and indirectly and address whether the proposed project would comply with the provisions of an adopted greenhouse reduction plan or strategy. If no such plan or strategy is applicable or has been adopted, the analysis must determine if the proposed project would significantly hinder or delay California’s ability to meet the reduction targets contained in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). The 2017 AB 32 update sets target emissions and requires that GHG emitted in California be reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by the year 2030, which is 256 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e).
5.4. POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The proposed Project is located near the northwestern corner of Buena Vista Road and Pensinger Road. Sensitive receptors are defined as areas where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside.
Schools, hospitals, nursing homes and daycare centers are locations where sensitive receptors would likely reside. The closest church is Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is 100 feet north of the proposed development.
Based on the predicted operational emissions and activity types, the proposed Project is not expected to affect sensitive receptors and is not expected to have any adverse impacts on any known sensitive receptor.
9 5.5. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO VISIBILITY TO NEARBY CLASS 1 AREAS It should be noted that visibility impact analyses are not usually conducted for area sources.
The recommended analysis methodology was initially intended for stationary sources of emissions which were subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements in 40 CFR Part 60. Since the Project’s emissions are predicted to be significantly less than the PSD threshold levels, an impact at either the Dome Land Wilderness or the Sequoia National Park Areas (the two nearest Class 1 areas to the Project) is extremely unlikely. Therefore, based on the Project’s predicted emissions, the Project is not expected to have any adverse impact to visibility at any Class 1 Area.
5.6. POTENTIAL ODOR IMPACTS
The proposed Project is a recreational facility near residential or multi-family developments.
Recreational facility developments are not known to be a source of nuisance odors. The Project is therefore not anticipated to have substantial odor impacts. The Project is therefore anticipated to have a less than significant odor impact.
5.7. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Table 4 of GAMAQI (2015, p 96), SJVAPCD has developed SPAL screening thresholds for Ambient Air Quality Analyses (AAQA). The proposed Mann recreational facility is comparable to a Racquet Club project in terms of project scale and utility. With fewer than 1,100 non-heavy heavy-duty truck (non-HHDT) trips and 20 heavy heavy-duty truck (HHDT) trips per day, the traffic impact falls within the screening threshold, indicating that a detailed AAQA is not required (SJVAPCD 2015 with updated Table dated November 13, 2020). Because the proposed Project consists of one 31,500 sq. ft. building footprint and 683 daily vehicle trips of non-HHDT/13 HHDT, the proposed Project meets the SPAL screening threshold for an AAQA. This screening threshold level represents the activity levels which would not exceed AAQA significance criteria.
The proposed Project’s AAQA impacts would therefore be less than significant and no further impact analysis is required.
5.8. TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT (TAC) IMPACTS
TACs, as defined by the California Health & Safety Code (CH&SC) §44321, are listed in Appendices AI and AII in AB 2588 Air Toxic “Hot Spots” and Assessment Act’s Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guideline Regulation document. SJVAPCD’s risk management objectives for permitting and CEQA are as follows:
• Minimize health risks from new and modified sources of air pollution. • Health risks from new and modified sources shall not be significant relative to the background risk levels and other risk levels that are typically accepted throughout the community.
• Avoid unreasonable restrictions on permitting.
The proposed Project is a 31,500 sq. ft. recreational club Project and not expected to generate any TAC emissions. The Project would therefore not generate a health risk impact due to TAC emissions. The potential health risk impacts would therefore be considered less than significant and no further health risk assessment is required.
10 6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the criteria established by the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI and SPAL guidelines, the proposed Project does not meet the minimum standards to require a full Air Quality Impact Analysis. Furthermore, the Project as proposed would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s criteria air pollutant emission levels and would generate less than significant air quality impacts. 11 7.0 REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (CARB), website for background information, http://www.arb.ca.gov/
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, December 1997.
Caltrans, Caltrans Interim Guidance: Project-Level PM10 Hot-Spot Analysis, February 2000.
County of Kern, Planning Department, County of Kern Housing Element 2002-2007, Adopted September 10, 2002.
Kern Council of Governments (KernCOG), Final Conformity Analysis for the 2006 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), July 20, 2006
KernCOG, 2000 Regional Housing Allocation Plan, Adopted May 17, 2001 San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, July 1, 1999 SJVUAPCD, Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, March 19, 2015.
SJVUAPCD, Small Project Analysis Levels (SPAL), November 13, 2020.
EXHIBIT A
LOCATION MAP
Mann Recreational Facility
Buena Vista Rd. & Harris Rd.
Legend
Mann Recreational Facility
4 mi
N
➤
Image © 2025 Airbus
Image © 2025 Airbs
Image © 2025 Airbus
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Mann Recreational Facility
Buena Vista Rd. & Harris Rd.
Legend
APN No. 535-020-05
APN No. 535-020-10
700 ft
N
➤
EXHIBIT C
PROJECT SITE PLAN
SITE PLAN 30'
N
PROPOSED SPORTS COMPLEX
LANDSCAPE AREA
BUENA VISTA ROAD
PARKING
OUTDOORPATIO
COPY RIGHT
PDA, INC expressly reserves its copyright
and other property rights in these documents
which are not to be reproduced, changed or
copied in any written, graphic or electronic
form, nor assigned to any third party without
the expressed written consent of PDA, INC.
NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS
Written dimensions on these drawings shall
take precedence over scaled dimsensions.
Contractors shall verify and be responsible
for confirming all dimensions and shall notify
the achitect immediatly of any discrepancies
or field variations discovered.
DATE ISSUED FOR
NO REVISIONS
SHEET
FILE NAME:
1 3 3 0 2 2 N D S T, S U I T E 1 0 0
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
T E L E P H O N E : ( 6 6 1 ) 3 2 6 - 8 9 3 6
INCOR PORATED
ARCH ITECTS
#
A-1.0
SITE PLAN
MANN SPORTS-
RECREATION FACILITY
5525 & 5543 BUENA VISTA RD.
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93311
4331
WH
350' - 0"
90' - 0"
STORAGE
ROOM
COURT 1 COURT 2 COURT 3 COURT 4 COURT 5 COURT 6
FLOOR PLAN 1/16"
OFFICE
DINING
31' - 2" 25' - 2" 12' - 0"
10' - 2"
30' - 3"
19' - 11" 10' - 0" 10' - 2"
21' - 8"
20' - 0"
LOBBY
KITCHEN
MENS
JAN.
ELEC.
WOMENS
10' - 0" 29' - 6" 10' - 3"
33' - 4"
10' - 3"
10' - 6" 59' - 0" 10' - 6" 10' - 0"
20' - 0" 20' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" 25' - 0"
OUTDOOR
PATIO
F.F.
0' - 0"
E. H.
24' - 0"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
SOUTH
16 17
F.F.
0' - 0"
E. H.
24' - 0"
C B A
WEST
CANOPY
15' - 0"
F.F.
0' - 0"
E. H.
24' - 0"
A B C
EAST
F.F.
0' - 0"
E. H.
24' - 0"
15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
NORTH
CANOPY
15' - 0"
17 16
COPY RIGHT
PDA, INC expressly reserves its copyright
and other property rights in these documents
which are not to be reproduced, changed or
copied in any written, graphic or electronic
form, nor assigned to any third party without
the expressed written consent of PDA, INC.
NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS
Written dimensions on these drawings shall
take precedence over scaled dimsensions.
Contractors shall verify and be responsible
for confirming all dimensions and shall notify
the achitect immediatly of any discrepancies
or field variations discovered.
DATE ISSUED FOR
NO REVISIONS
SHEET
FILE NAME:
1 3 3 0 2 2 N D S T, S U I T E 1 0 0
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
T E L E P H O N E : ( 6 6 1 ) 3 2 6 - 8 9 3 6
INCOR PORATED
ARCH ITECTS
#
A-2.0
FLOOR PLAN/
EXT ELEVS
MANN SPORTS-
RECREATION FACILITY
5525 & 5543 BUENA VISTA RD.
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93311
4331
10-24-24 OWNER REVIEW
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/16"
EXHIBIT D
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL MAP
EXHIBIT E
CALEEMOD EMISSION MODELING
- CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (2026-2027)
- OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (2027)
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 1 / 46
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 2 / 46
3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 3 / 46
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 4 / 46
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 5 / 46
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 6 / 46
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 7 / 46
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 18.0
Location 35.304864250585666, -119.12910844252508
County Kern-San Joaquin
City Bakersfield
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2890
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Racquet Club 32.0 1000sqft 3.50 35,100 0.30 0.00 — —
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 8 / 46
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.36 1.14 10.1 14.1 0.02 0.38 0.23 0.61 0.35 0.06 0.41 — 2,777 2,777 0.10 0.05 1.12 2,796 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9.19 9.16 29.2 29.6 0.05 1.24 7.88 9.12 1.14 3.99 5.13 — 5,501 5,501 0.22 0.06 0.03 5,521 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.09 0.91 8.14 10.4 0.02 0.31 0.34 0.65 0.29 0.12 0.41 — 2,058 2,058 0.08 0.04 0.34 2,072 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.20 0.17 1.49 1.90 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.08 — 341 341 0.01 0.01 0.06 343
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.36 1.14 10.1 14.1 0.02 0.38 0.23 0.61 0.35 0.06 0.41 — 2,777 2,777 0.10 0.05 1.12 2,796 Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 9 / 46
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.82 3.21 29.2 29.6 0.05 1.24 7.88 9.12 1.14 3.99 5.13 — 5,501 5,501 0.22 0.06 0.03 5,521 2027 9.19 9.16 9.66 13.6 0.02 0.34 0.24 0.57 0.31 0.06 0.37 — 2,745 2,745 0.10 0.05 0.03 2,764 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.09 0.91 8.14 10.4 0.02 0.31 0.34 0.65 0.29 0.12 0.41 — 2,058 2,058 0.08 0.04 0.34 2,072 2027 0.51 0.50 0.48 0.73 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 — 124 124 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 125 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.20 0.17 1.49 1.90 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.08 — 341 341 0.01 0.01 0.06 343 2027 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.6 20.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 20.7
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. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.48 4.12 5.24 37.2 0.10 0.12 7.75 7.87 0.11 1.97 2.08 102 10,946 11,048 10.6 0.54 34.2 11,506 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.88 3.54 5.87 27.5 0.09 0.12 7.75 7.87 0.11 1.97 2.08 102 10,097 10,199 10.6 0.56 1.05 10,632 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.22 2.95 4.18 21.8 0.07 0.09 5.58 5.68 0.09 1.42 1.51 102 7,720 7,822 10.5 0.40 10.9 8,215 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.59 0.54 0.76 3.98 0.01 0.02 1.02 1.04 0.02 0.26 0.28 16.9 1,278 1,295 1.74 0.07 1.80 1,360 Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 10 / 46
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.37 3.05 4.84 35.3 0.10 0.09 7.75 7.84 0.08 1.97 2.05 — 10,242 10,242 0.28 0.52 34.0 10,439 Area 1.07 1.05 0.01 1.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.28 6.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.30 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 694 694 0.08 0.01 — 697 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 3.63 4.17 7.79 0.37 0.01 — 19.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 98.3 0.00 98.3 9.82 0.00 — 344 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
Total 4.48 4.12 5.24 37.2 0.10 0.12 7.75 7.87 0.11 1.97 2.08 102 10,946 11,048 10.6 0.54 34.2 11,506 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.04 2.72 5.48 27.2 0.09 0.09 7.75 7.84 0.08 1.97 2.05 — 9,400 9,400 0.30 0.55 0.88 9,571 Area 0.80 0.80 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 694 694 0.08 0.01 — 697 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 3.63 4.17 7.79 0.37 0.01 — 19.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 98.3 0.00 98.3 9.82 0.00 — 344 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
Total 3.88 3.54 5.87 27.5 0.09 0.12 7.75 7.87 0.11 1.97 2.08 102 10,097 10,199 10.6 0.56 1.05 10,632 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.24 2.01 3.79 20.7 0.07 0.06 5.58 5.65 0.06 1.42 1.48 — 7,019 7,019 0.21 0.39 10.7 7,151 Area 0.93 0.92 0.01 0.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.10 3.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.11 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 694 694 0.08 0.01 — 697 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 3.63 4.17 7.79 0.37 0.01 — 19.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 98.3 0.00 98.3 9.82 0.00 — 344 Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 11 / 46
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
Total 3.22 2.95 4.18 21.8 0.07 0.09 5.58 5.68 0.09 1.42 1.51 102 7,720 7,822 10.5 0.40 10.9 8,215 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.41 0.37 0.69 3.78 0.01 0.01 1.02 1.03 0.01 0.26 0.27 — 1,162 1,162 0.03 0.06 1.77 1,184 Area 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.51 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 115 115 0.01 < 0.005 — 115 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.60 0.69 1.29 0.06 < 0.005 — 3.27 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 16.3 0.00 16.3 1.63 0.00 — 56.9 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total 0.59 0.54 0.76 3.98 0.01 0.02 1.02 1.04 0.02 0.26 0.28 16.9 1,278 1,295 1.74 0.07 1.80 1,360
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
2.72 2.29 20.7 19.0 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.78 — 0.78 — 3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 — 3,438 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.23 0.23 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 12 / 46
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.15 0.13 1.13 1.04 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.03 0.02 0.21 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 174 174 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 176 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.22 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 180 180 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 188 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.89 9.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.83 9.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.3 Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 13 / 46
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.64 1.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.63 1.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.71
3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.74 3.14 29.2 28.8 0.05 1.24 — 1.24 1.14 — 1.14 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.05 0.04 0.40 0.39 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 72.6 72.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 72.8 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 14 / 46
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.0 12.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 203 203 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 205 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.88 2.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.92 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.48 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.48 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 15 / 46
3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.96 1.65 15.0 17.4 0.03 0.65 — 0.65 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,960 2,960 0.12 0.02 — 2,970 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.76 2.76 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.04 0.04 0.33 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 64.9 64.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 65.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 16 / 46
Off-Roa 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 d
Equipm
ent
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 174 174 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 176 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.95 3.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.01 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.65 0.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 17 / 46
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.79 0.66 6.09 8.02 0.01 0.23 — 0.23 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,482 1,482 0.06 0.01 — 1,488 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.12 1.11 1.46 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 245 245 0.01 < 0.005 — 246 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 18 / 46
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.06 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 195 195 < 0.005 0.01 0.64 197 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 185 185 < 0.005 0.03 0.48 194 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 171 171 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 173 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 185 185 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 193 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 110 110 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 111 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 114 114 < 0.005 0.02 0.13 120 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.2 18.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 18.4 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.0 19.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 19.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. 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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 19 / 46
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.01 0.13 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 32.8 32.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.9 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.44 5.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.46 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 167 167 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 169 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 181 181 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 189 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 20 / 46
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 2.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.41 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.48 2.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.59 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.41 0.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.79 0.66 6.09 8.83 0.01 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,350 1,350 0.05 0.01 — 1,355 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.04 0.03 0.30 0.44 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 66.6 66.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 66.8 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 21 / 46
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.05 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.0 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.1 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 227 227 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 230 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.6 11.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.8 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 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.92 1.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.95 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 22 / 46
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
9.04 9.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.58 6.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.61 Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.45 0.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.09 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.09 Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 23 / 46
Architect 0.08 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 33.5 33.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 33.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.71 1.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.74 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 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 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 24 / 46
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Racquet
Club
3.37 3.05 4.84 35.3 0.10 0.09 7.75 7.84 0.08 1.97 2.05 — 10,242 10,242 0.28 0.52 34.0 10,439 Total 3.37 3.05 4.84 35.3 0.10 0.09 7.75 7.84 0.08 1.97 2.05 — 10,242 10,242 0.28 0.52 34.0 10,439 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Racquet
Club
3.04 2.72 5.48 27.2 0.09 0.09 7.75 7.84 0.08 1.97 2.05 — 9,400 9,400 0.30 0.55 0.88 9,571 Total 3.04 2.72 5.48 27.2 0.09 0.09 7.75 7.84 0.08 1.97 2.05 — 9,400 9,400 0.30 0.55 0.88 9,571 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Racquet
Club
0.41 0.37 0.69 3.78 0.01 0.01 1.02 1.03 0.01 0.26 0.27 — 1,162 1,162 0.03 0.06 1.77 1,184 Total 0.41 0.37 0.69 3.78 0.01 0.01 1.02 1.03 0.01 0.26 0.27 — 1,162 1,162 0.03 0.06 1.77 1,184
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — 233 233 0.04 < 0.005 — 235
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 233 233 0.04 < 0.005 — 235 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 25 / 46
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — 233 233 0.04 < 0.005 — 235
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 233 233 0.04 < 0.005 — 235 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — 38.5 38.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 38.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 38.5 38.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 38.9
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Racquet
Club
0.04 0.02 0.39 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 461 461 0.04 < 0.005 — 462 Total 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 461 461 0.04 < 0.005 — 462 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Racquet
Club
0.04 0.02 0.39 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 461 461 0.04 < 0.005 — 462 Total 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 461 461 0.04 < 0.005 — 462 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Racquet
Club
0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 76.3 76.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 76.5 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 76.3 76.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 76.5
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 26 / 46
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
0.75 0.75 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.04 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.27 0.25 0.01 1.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.28 6.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.30 Total 1.07 1.05 0.01 1.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.28 6.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.30 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
0.75 0.75 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.04 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.80 0.80 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
0.14 0.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 27 / 46
Architect 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.51 Total 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.51
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.63 4.17 7.79 0.37 0.01 — 19.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.63 4.17 7.79 0.37 0.01 — 19.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.63 4.17 7.79 0.37 0.01 — 19.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.63 4.17 7.79 0.37 0.01 — 19.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.60 0.69 1.29 0.06 < 0.005 — 3.27 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.60 0.69 1.29 0.06 < 0.005 — 3.27
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 28 / 46
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 98.3 0.00 98.3 9.82 0.00 — 344
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 98.3 0.00 98.3 9.82 0.00 — 344 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 98.3 0.00 98.3 9.82 0.00 — 344
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 98.3 0.00 98.3 9.82 0.00 — 344 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 16.3 0.00 16.3 1.63 0.00 — 56.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 16.3 0.00 16.3 1.63 0.00 — 56.9
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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 29 / 46
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 30 / 46
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 31 / 46
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 32 / 46
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 33 / 46
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2026 1/29/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/30/2026 2/6/2026 5.00 5.00 — Grading Grading 2/7/2026 2/18/2026 5.00 8.00 —
Building Construction Building Construction 2/19/2026 1/7/2027 5.00 230 — Paving Paving 1/8/2027 2/2/2027 5.00 18.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/3/2027 2/28/2027 5.00 18.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 34 / 46
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 hoes
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
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 Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 89.0 0.36 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 35 / 46
Demolition Hauling 2.65 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck—— HHDT
Site Preparation————
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 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 15.0 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 14.7 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 5.75 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 2.95 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
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 36 / 46
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44%
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 52,650 17,550 —
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building
Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,528 —
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.42
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
5.7. Construction Paving
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 37 / 46
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Racquet Club 1.42 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
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 Racquet Club 449 683 557 181,707 7,152 10,884 8,870 2,894,678
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 52,650 17,550 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 38 / 46
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) Racquet Club 416,431 204 0.0330 0.0040 1,438,128
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Racquet Club 1,892,581 4.89
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Racquet Club 182 —
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 Racquet Club Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 39 / 46
Racquet Club Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 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
5.16. 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
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 40 / 46
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 23.4 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.00 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 41 / 46
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 42 / 46
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 91.1
AQ-PM 94.3
AQ-DPM 30.6
Drinking Water 98.5
Lead Risk Housing 4.31
Pesticides 97.2
Toxic Releases 36.2
Traffic 17.9
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 17.1
Groundwater 97.6
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 82.9
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 52.9
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 45.3
Cardio-vascular 65.1
Low Birth Weights 22.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 43 / 46
Education 38.5
Housing 4.74
Linguistic 32.6
Poverty 32.5
Unemployment 25.2
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 80.16168356
Employed 87.75824458
Median HI 89.51623252
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 74.16912614
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 29.69331451
Transportation —
Auto Access 95.6242782
Active commuting 23.1233158
Social —
2-parent households 95.72693443
Voting 77.4541255
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 83.75465161
Park access 23.70075709
Retail density 3.772616451
Supermarket access 21.45515206
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 44 / 46
Tree canopy 3.708456307
Housing —
Homeownership 85.71795201
Housing habitability 95.25214936
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 89.72154498 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 86.00025664
Uncrowded housing 72.73193892
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 80.31566791
Arthritis 81.7
Asthma ER Admissions 67.0
High Blood Pressure 59.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 52.2
Asthma 72.9
Coronary Heart Disease 88.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 84.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 85.5
Life Expectancy at Birth 59.3
Cognitively Disabled 78.9
Physically Disabled 90.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 46.0
Mental Health Not Good 73.6
Chronic Kidney Disease 85.5
Obesity 54.6
Pedestrian Injuries 56.4
Physical Health Not Good 83.3
Stroke 91.3
Health Risk Behaviors —
Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 45 / 46
Binge Drinking 12.7
Current Smoker 66.4
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 70.6
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 31.0
Elderly 74.7
English Speaking 73.2
Foreign-born 46.3
Outdoor Workers 24.4
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 79.9
Traffic Density 14.7
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 10.9
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 62.9
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 49.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 81.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No Mann Sports - Recreation Facility Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 46 / 46
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Paving Paved Area - Parking Lot and Northern Access Road Paved Area to Match Site Diagram
Land Use Lot Size changed to 3.5 Acres
Construction: Dust From Material Movement -Water Exposed area during construction phase -Updated Total Acres Graded to lot size
Characteristics: Project Details Adjusted Location Context 5400 Rosedale Highway
Bakersfield, CA 93308
AGRICULTURAL CONVERSION STUDY
Mann Recreational Facility
5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road
City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California
APN: 535-020-05/10
Prepared For:
PDA Architects
1330 22nd Street, Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93301
April 2, 2025
Revised July 9, 2025
Prepared By:
Envirotech Consultants, Inc
5400 Rosedale Highway
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Agricultural Conversion Study, Mann Recreational Facility April 2025 Page i
661.377.0073 | 5400 Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93308 | www.envirotechteam.com Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Soil Quality ......................................................................................................................... 2
3.0 Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model Analysis...................................... 2
3.1 Site Assessment (SA) Score ...................................................................................................2
3.2 Total LESA Score Summary ...................................................................................................3
4.0 Five-Year Crop History ...................................................................................................... 3
5.0 Availablity Of Irrigation Water........................................................................................... 4
6.0 Proximity To Non-Agricultural Uses................................................................................. 4
7.0 Proximity To Intensive Parcelization ................................................................................ 4
8.0 Ability to Provide Urban Services..................................................................................... 5
9.0 Impact on Agricultural Chemical Application .................................................................. 5
10.0 Precedent Setting Implications ....................................................................................... 5
11.0 Demonstrated Project Need ............................................................................................ 6
12.0 Necessity of Buffers ........................................................................................................ 6
13.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 7
14.0 References........................................................................................................................ 8
FIGURES
Figure 1 Location Map
Figure 2 Soils Map
Figure 3 Water Well Map
Agricultural Conversion Study, Mann Recreational Facility April 2025 Page 1
661.377.0073 | 5400 Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93308 | www.envirotechteam.com
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Project Applicant, Mr. Jagmit Mann, manager of APVJ LLC, a California limited liability company, is submitting general plan amendment, zone change, and site plan review applications to the Bakersfield Planning Department for an indoor recreational project. The proposed project is located at 5525 & 5543 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA. The project area is approximately 3.67-acres gross and 3.46-acres net.
The corresponding Assessor's Parcel Numbers are 535-020-05 and 535-020-10. This project will not be phased.
The site is currently vacant, undeveloped. The site was recently developed with a single-family residence and accessory buildings; however, all existing structures were demolished on February 19, 2025 in preparation for this project. The proposed improvements include standard curb, gutter, sidewalk, and drive approach per City Standards, 31,500 square foot (SF) indoor recreational facility, parking lot, and onsite retention basins.
The indoor recreational facility will be equipped with a lobby, check-in desk, restrooms, snack bar, storage rooms, sitting area for parents, lockers, and 6 indoor volleyball courts. These 6 indoor volleyball courts could be transformed into 3 basketball courts or other sport courts as desired. Private groups (e.g., local schools and recreational sports teams) will utilize the facilities for practice facilities, club play, traveling club play, and tournaments for volleyball, pickle ball, and basketball. When not being utilized by private groups, the public can rent the facilities for open play.
The hours of operation will be 8:00 AM - 10:00 PM seven days a week. There will be 2 employees per 8- hour shift with a maximum of 4 employees during the busiest shift of the day. Project will utilize city sewer and water. Solid waste will be stored in bins within a city standard trash enclosure and will be picked up by the local service provider. All on-site and street frontage storm water drainage will be conveyed to onsite retention basins.
The existing general plan land use designation is resource-intensive agriculture (R-IA). The existing zoning designation is agricultural-20-acre minimum (A-20A). As noted above, the existing site is 3.67-acres gross/3.46-acres net. Existing single-family residential developments are located to the east and south.
An existing multi-family residential development is located to the east as well. The proposed use requires a general plan amendment and zone change as proposed. The proposed general plan land use designation is open space-parks (OS-P). The proposed zoning designation is recreation (RE). The proposed designations were established through coordination with the City of Bakersfield Planning Department. The project will provide local schools and recreational sports teams with a safe facility to practice and complete.
The purpose of this study is to assess the agricultural suitability and long-term viability of the site and to determine whether the proposed conversion aligns with the City of Bakersfield’s agricultural land conversion policies, including General Plan Agricultural Conversion Policy 14. The following sections address key evaluation criteria including soil quality, water availability, crop history, LESA scoring, proximity to urban services, land use compatibility, and other policy considerations. This document serves as a basis for determining the appropriateness of transitioning the site from agricultural use to urban recreational use.
Agricultural Conversion Study, Mann Recreational Facility April 2025 Page 2
661.377.0073 | 5400 Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93308 | www.envirotechteam.com
2.0 SOIL QUALITY
Based on soil survey data obtained from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the entire project site consists of a single soil type: Kimberlina fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Soil Map Unit 174), located within Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 17. This soil type accounts for 100% of the 3.5-acre project site (Figure 2).
Kimberlina fine sandy loam is characterized by deep, well-drained profiles with minimal slope and moderate natural fertility. It is suitable for a wide range of crops, including vegetables, row crops, and orchard crops, provided irrigation is available. However, its classification as Class 7e under the nonirrigated NRCS Land Capability Classification system indicates moderate limitations due to erosion susceptibility and low organic matter.
Importantly, this soil is not designated as Prime Farmland under the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). While productive under appropriate conditions, the soil is not considered unique or limited in distribution, as Kimberlina fine sandy loam occurs extensively throughout the Southern San Joaquin Valley.
Given the site’s lack of on-site irrigation infrastructure and urban encroachment from surrounding development, the long-term agricultural viability of this soil at this location is low. Therefore, its presence does not represent a constraint to the proposed land use conversion.
3.0 LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT (LESA) MODEL ANALYSIS The Land Evaluation (LE) component of the LESA Model assesses soil quality based on data from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey. The project site is comprised entirely of Kimberlina fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Soil Map Unit 174), according to the NRCS. This soil covers 100% of the project area. Kimberlina fine sandy loam is a deep, well-drained soil with moderate fertility and limited slope. It is classified under NRCS soil capability classification as Class IIIe due to moderate limitations related to erosion and fertility. Based on its classification and characteristics, this soil type receives a LESA score of 40 out of 100. As the sole soil present on-site, the weighted average LE score for the site is 40 out of 100.
3.1 Site Assessment (SA) Score
The Site Assessment (SA) component evaluates land use and agricultural viability based on several criteria.
Although data from the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker GAMA system indicates the presence of two groundwater wells on the property, one listed as a water supply well (30S26E24H001M) and the other as a domestic well (NO3_1028106), there is no evidence that these wells are actively used to support agricultural operations. The site lacks visible irrigation infrastructure, such as piping, valves, or surface irrigation systems, and the property is not served by a surface water irrigation district. The site will be served by municipal water systems, effectively eliminating its use for agricultural irrigation.
Therefore, the water availability score is 10 out of 20.
The surrounding area has transitioned significantly from agricultural to urban land use. Although some vacant or open space lands remain, Most adjacent parcels to the east are developed or planned for residential or recreational uses; however, the parcel to the north is occupied by a church, and the land to Agricultural Conversion Study, Mann Recreational Facility April 2025 Page 3
661.377.0073 | 5400 Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93308 | www.envirotechteam.com the south is currently undeveloped. As a result, the adjacent land use score is 15 out of 20, reflecting moderate compatibility with surrounding uses.
The pattern of development in the immediate vicinity reflects substantial parcelization, with large tracts previously used for agriculture now divided for residential, commercial, and public use. This trend limits the potential for contiguous agricultural operations and supports an SA score of 20 out of 20 for parcelization.
The proposed zoning change from A‑20A (Agricultural, 20‑acre minimum) to RE (Recreation) aligns with the City of Bakersfield’s long‑term planning vision and supports the development of indoor recreational facilities. This rezoning is consistent with Policy 5.1.2 of the City of Bakersfield Recreation & Parks Master Plan, which encourages partnerships with the private sector to support a broad range of recreation facilities, including indoor uses. Specifically, Policy 5.1.2 states the City will ‘encourage and support private sector recreation development as a means to provide additional recreational services and opportunities to the community.’ Therefore, the zoning consistency score is 20 out of 20.
While the property is not enrolled in a Williamson Act contract, it is designated for agricultural use under the current General Plan and zoning, which slightly reduces the suitability for urban development. Thus, the Williamson Act status score is 10 out of 20.
3.2 Total LESA Score Summary
Category Score
Land Evaluation (LE) 40 / 100
Site Assessment (SA-1: Water Availability) 10 / 20
Site Assessment (SA-2: Adjacent Land Uses) 15 / 20
Site Assessment (SA-3: Parcelization) 20 / 20
Site Assessment (SA-4: Zoning Consistency) 20 / 20
Site Assessment (SA-5: Williamson Act Status) 10 / 20
Total LESA Score 115 / 260
A total LESA score below 160 suggests that the site is not considered important farmland for long-term protection, supporting its conversion.
4.0 FIVE-YEAR CROP HISTORY
The Field observations and aerial imagery confirm that the site has not been actively farmed within the past five years. No evidence of commercial crop production, such as orchard rows, tilled land, or irrigation infrastructure, is visible. Instead, the parcels appear to have remained fallow or have been used for lowintensity rural activities. The limited acreage and absence of nearby operational farms further diminish the potential for future agricultural production on the site.
Agricultural Conversion Study, Mann Recreational Facility April 2025 Page 4
661.377.0073 | 5400 Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93308 | www.envirotechteam.com
5.0 AVAILABLITY OF IRRIGATION WATER
According to data from the California State Water Resources Control Board's Geotracker GAMA Groundwater Information System, there are two groundwater wells located on the project site. One well, identified as 30S26E24H001M, is classified as a water supply well. The second well, identified as NO3_1028106, is registered as a domestic well (Figure 3).
While these wells suggest some level of historical or potential water access, there is no evidence of an irrigation system, active water conveyance infrastructure, or current agricultural use of the groundwater on-site. The lack of visible or reported water distribution equipment, coupled with the fallow state of the property, suggests that these wells are not actively supporting ongoing agricultural production. Their utility for commercial-scale irrigation remains uncertain.
The site has been transitioned to municipal water service, and these wells may be decommissioned or repurposed under city jurisdiction. Therefore, while water availability technically exists, its use for agricultural sustainability remains limited and does not represent a barrier to conversion.
6.0 PROXIMITY TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USES
The project site is located within a rapidly urbanizing portion of southwest Bakersfield. Although some nearby land remains designated for agricultural use, the majority of adjacent and surrounding parcels have been developed for residential, commercial, and recreational uses. To the east residential subdivisions and community infrastructure demonstrate an ongoing transition away from agricultural production and toward urban development. The parcel to the north is occupied by a church. The area immediately surrounding the project site includes paved arterial roads, suburban neighborhoods, and public facilities.
This transitional land use pattern reflects the city's growth into former agricultural regions and suggests a broader shift in land use identity. Given this urbanizing context, the proposed recreation facility aligns with existing development and does not introduce new land use conflicts. In fact, converting the project site to a community-serving recreational use is consistent with the land use pattern that has already been established in the surrounding area.
7.0 PROXIMITY TO INTENSIVE PARCELIZATION
The vicinity of the project site demonstrates an advanced stage of parcelization, with many formerly large agricultural parcels now subdivided into residential lots, institutional facilities, and commercial centers.
To the north and northeast of the site, development patterns show small-lot residential subdivisions and planned neighborhoods. To the east, parcels are occupied by a mix of single-family homes and commercial uses. Public roadways, drainage features, and utility infrastructure have further divided the land, reducing the practicality of returning to agricultural-scale production.
To the east and south, newer developments including schools and residential communities have fragmented the landscape into smaller and increasingly urbanized segments. This trend of subdivision and land fragmentation continues to make the surrounding environment less compatible with commercial agriculture and more supportive of infill and redevelopment. The project site shares its northern boundary with a church located approximately 250 feet from the center of the site. The eastern boundary directly borders existing residential development (a distance of about 600 feet). To the south, the site borders Agricultural Conversion Study, Mann Recreational Facility April 2025 Page 5
661.377.0073 | 5400 Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93308 | www.envirotechteam.com undeveloped land that transitions into residential development at approximately 600 feet. The western boundary is agriculture land.
Given the intensity of parcelization and the surrounding land use patterns, the continued use of the site for large-scale agricultural activities is impractical. The proposed conversion reflects an appropriate adaptation to this evolving context and is consistent with established development trends in southwest Bakersfield.
8.0 ABILITY TO PROVIDE URBAN SERVICES
The site is well-suited for urban development based on the availability of key municipal infrastructure.
Existing utilities, including water, sewer, and electricity, are in nearby roadways and can be extended to serve the proposed development without requiring major capital improvements. Roadway access is available from both Buena Vista Road and Pensinger Road, which are improved to urban standards and provide efficient vehicle and service access to the site.
Public safety services, including fire protection and law enforcement, can be provided by existing stations.
The Bakersfield Fire Station 14 is located approximately 0.5 miles southeast of the site and the Bakersfield Police Department has a station located approximately 3 miles north of the site. Additionally, nearby schools, parks, and commercial services further support the feasibility of urban use. The integration of this project into the city's existing service networks will be unified and does not pose a burden on public infrastructure systems.
9.0 IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL APPLICATION
As agricultural land use gives way to urban development in southwest Bakersfield, the introduction of sensitive receptors such as residents, schoolchildren, and recreation users can complicate nearby farming practices. Typical agricultural operations involve the application of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, which may become constrained when adjacent to non-agricultural uses.
Although active agriculture is limited in the immediate project vicinity, the conversion of this site will further reduce the area in which unrestricted chemical applications can occur. As such, this project may contribute to an environment that discourages nearby intensive farming. To minimize land use conflicts, site planning should incorporate appropriate buffers, such as landscaping, setbacks, or designated open space. These measures can serve as transitional zones to mitigate potential concerns about chemical drift, dust, and noise.
10.0 PRECEDENT SETTING IMPLICATIONS
The conversion of agricultural land to urban use in this location is consistent with Bakersfield’s long-term growth strategy and does not establish a new precedent. The surrounding area has already experienced substantial land use transition. Similar General Plan Amendments and zone changes have been approved throughout southwest Bakersfield to accommodate the city’s growing demand for urban services, housing, and community infrastructure.
Rather than creating a new pattern of development, the proposed project continues an existing trend toward urbanization in the metropolitan Bakersfield area. It supports the city’s strategy to direct growth Agricultural Conversion Study, Mann Recreational Facility April 2025 Page 6
661.377.0073 | 5400 Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93308 | www.envirotechteam.com toward areas with available infrastructure and public services, thereby avoiding unnecessary expansion into more productive agricultural areas.
11.0 DEMONSTRATED PROJECT NEED
The City of Bakersfield has experienced consistent growth over the past decade, resulting in increased demand for community-serving infrastructure, particularly recreational amenities. As population density rises and residential areas expands, the need for health and wellness facilities becomes more urgent.
The proposed 31,500 indoor recreational facility will serve local schools, club teams, and the public. It will contribute to the city's goals of improving access to recreation and enhancing quality of life. With few comparable facilities in the immediate vicinity, this project fills a critical gap in services.
From an economic development perspective, the project will generate jobs, attract regional visitors, and increase local investment. Its location along a well-connected arterial road corridor ensures accessibility while supporting compact, infrastructure-efficient development. The proposed project directly supports strategic objectives outlined in the City of Bakersfield Recreation & Parks Master Plan (2021), including Goal 2.2, which promotes partnerships with private providers to expand recreational access, and Goal 3.3, which encourages the development of destination-level facilities that serve regional users and stimulate economic activity.
12.0 NECESSITY OF BUFFERS
To facilitate compatibility with the proposed recreation facility and any remaining or future agricultural operations in the surrounding area, the inclusion of buffers and transitional land uses is recommended.
These features can take several forms:
Vegetative Buffers or Greenbelts: Tree-lined berms, hedgerows, or landscaped strips can act as physical and visual barriers, absorbing sound and reducing dust or pesticide drift from adjacent properties.
Drought-tolerant species may be selected to minimize maintenance and water use.
Open Space Zones: Parks, walking paths, and passive recreation areas along the project perimeter can serve as soft edges between different land uses. This approach provides added community value while maintaining a low-impact buffer.
Setbacks: Buildings may be placed at a designated distance (e.g., 100–200 feet) from property lines shared with agricultural parcels. Roads, parking areas, or drainage facilities can also be incorporated within this buffer zone.
Right-to-Farm Disclosures: Homeowners, renters, and business operators can be notified that nearby agricultural operations are protected under state and local policies. This ensures awareness of typical agricultural practices and limits complaints.
Through these combined strategies, the project can minimize land use conflicts and demonstrate sensitivity to the transitional nature of the area. While not currently proposed as formal design elements, features such as vegetative buffers, setbacks, open space transitions, and Right-to-Farm disclosures are recommended best practices for promoting compatibility with adjacent agricultural uses.
Agricultural Conversion Study, Mann Recreational Facility April 2025 Page 7
661.377.0073 | 5400 Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93308 | www.envirotechteam.com
13.0 CONCLUSION
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the 3.67-acre site at 5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road support a transition from agriculture to urban recreational use. The project will develop a 31,500 SF indoor recreational facility serving local schools, club teams, and the public.
The site is not classified as Prime Farmland and has no recent history of agricultural production. Although two wells are present, the site is now served by municipal water, and its total LESA score of 115 out of 260 confirms limited agricultural value. Surrounding land uses are increasingly urban, with nearby residential subdivisions, a church, and arterial road access.
The project aligns with Bakersfield’s General Plan Agricultural Conversion Policy 14 and supports Goals
2.2 and 3.3 of the City’s Recreation & Parks Master Plan, which promote public-private partnerships and the development of regional recreational facilities. Additionally, Map 4-1 of the Master Plan identifies the site within a recreational service gap area.
While not formal components of the site plan, buffering measures such as setbacks, landscaping, and open space are recommended to promote compatibility with nearby uses. Overall, the conversion is consistent with regional growth trends and supports the long-term vitality of southwest Bakersfield.
Agricultural Conversion Study, Mann Recreational Facility April 2025 Page 8
661.377.0073 | 5400 Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93308 | www.envirotechteam.com
14.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation (DOC), Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). • Important Farmland Categories and Soil Classifications. o Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). • Web Soil Survey: Soil Data for Bakersfield, CA.
o Available at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG).
• Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) & Population Growth Projections. o Available at: https://www.kerncog.org/
City of Bakersfield, Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. • Agricultural Conversion Policy 14 & Land Use Designations. o Available at: https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/
Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department.
• Land Use Zoning Regulations and Williamson Act Contract Policies. o Available at: https://kernplanning.com/
California Department of Water Resources (DWR).
• Groundwater Basin Reports & Water Management Strategies for Kern County. o Available at: https://water.ca.gov/
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). • Best Practices for Urban-Agricultural Buffers & Air Quality Regulations. o Available at: https://www.valleyair.org/
University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources (UCANR). • Best Management Practices for Pesticide Drift Mitigation & Agricultural Buffers. o Available at: https://ucanr.edu/
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. • Guidance on Environmental Impact Assessments for Agricultural Land Conversion. o Available at: https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA).
• Right-to-Farm Policies and Agricultural Land Conservation Strategies. o Available at: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/
FIGURES
Figure 1
Location Map
HARRIS RD
BUENA VISTA RD
PENSINGER RD
City
Drawn by
Date
Prepared by:
4/2/2025
Logan Prosser
Bakersfield
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Map Type Site Map
Legend
APN: 535-020-05
APN: 535-020-10
PDA Architects
1330 22nd Street, Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93301
AGRICULTURAL CONVERSION STUDY
Mann Recreational Facility
5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road
City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California
1 inch =1,000 feet APN: 535-020-05/10
Figure 2
Soils Map
Kimberlina fine
sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes MLRA 17
Granoso sandy loam,
0 to 2 percent
slopes, overwash
Panoche clay
loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
City
Drawn by
Date
Prepared by:
4/2/2025
Logan Prosser
Bakersfield
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Map Type USDA Soil Map
Legend
Entisols - Kimberlina fine sandy loam
Aridisols - Panoche clay
APN: 535-020-05
APN: 535-020-10
1 inch =1,000 feet
PDA Architects
1330 22nd Street, Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93301
AGRICULTURAL CONVERSION STUDY
Mann Recreational Facility
5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road
City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California
APN: 535-020-05/10
Figure 3
Water Well Map
DWR Well:
30S26E24H001M USGS_NWIS Well:
351818119073901
City
Drawn by
Date
PDA Architects
1330 22nd Street, Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Prepared by:
4/2/2025
Logan Prosser
Bakersfield
0 250 500
Feet
Map Type Groundwater Wells Map
Legend
AGRICULTURAL CONVERSION STUDY
Mann Recreational Facility
5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road
City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California
1 inch =250 feet APN: 535-020-05/10
APN: 535-020-05
APN: 535-020-10
Water Supply Well
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change
Assessor’s Parcel Map Number
535-020-05, -10
County of Kern
Bakersfield, California
Prepared for:
Mr. Jagmit Mann
APVJ, LLC
12810 Margate Court
Bakersfield, California 93311
Prepared by:
Pruett Biological Resource Consulting
8819 Latera Court
Bakersfield, California 93314
661.421.0006
July 1, 2025
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc. (PruettBio) has prepared this biological resource evaluation for a proposed Site Plan Review of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 535-020-05, -10. The project consists of 3.67 gross acres (1.48 hectares)(project) Section 24, Township 30 South, Range 26 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. The project is located just north of the intersection of Pensinger Road and Buena Vista Road, within the incorporated limits of the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, California.
The project is located within the geographic range of several federal-, and state-listed, threatened and/or endangered plant and animal taxa. Several non-listed, special-status species also have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project.
The purpose of this report is to document biological resources identified during a reconnaissance-level field study of the project site and include potential biological resources identified during a literature review of the site and vicinity, identify potential impacts to biological resources resulting from the project.
Evaluation of potential impacts to plant and animal species are required under federal and state regulation during a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Appendix G thresholds have been used to evaluate potential impacts to the biological resources from the proposed project development. Avoidance and minimization measures for implementation prior to and during project activities are recommended as appropriate.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have not been contacted regarding the preparation of this report. Appendix B, Special-Status Plant and Animal Evaluations, satisfy the requirements for an initial determination of potential impacts under the CEQA Appendix G thresholds. If CEQA threshold determinations warrant, further consultation may be required with CDFW and USFWS. If additional consultation with the agencies results in the need for Application for a California Incidental Take Permit, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 outlines requirements for detailed species-specific take analysis, proposed measures to minimize and fully mitigate impacts, compliance monitoring, and funding. A detailed description satisfying Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 is not required to meet the CEQA Appendix G thresholds.
A literature review was conducted of the site and vicinity, prior to the field study, of the biological resources known to occur based on recorded, direct observation, or potentially occurring in the project impact area based on current or historical habitat conditions. During the field study, existing habitat conditions, direct observations and/or species sign was recorded to assess the potential for occurrence of special-status species. This report includes an evaluation of the potential for those special-status biological resources not observed during the field study, with the potential to occur on the property based on the habitat conditions observed.
The project is in southern Bakersfield in an area historically farmed. Urban development has increased along the margins of Metropolitan Bakersfield in the past 50 years and has resulted in the conversion of farmland to residential and commercial properties. The project site consists primarily of vacant, though previously developed land with few remaining structures on site. The project is surrounded by commercial and residential development, and intensive agricultural production. No undisturbed, native, or recovering habitat is present on the site or adjacent parcels.
The federal and state database queries yielded 23 special-status plant species and 40 special-status animal species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. Of these, 5 plant species, and 18 animal species have federal-, and/or state-listing and are afforded protection under federal or state law.
A query of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) database was made for the quadrangle in which the project exists and the eight-quadrangles surrounding the project. The CNPS tracks plant species that Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
do not meet the CEQA Section 15380 criteria for listing as threatened or endangered and are afforded no protection under federal or state law. A United States Geologic Service (USGS) nine-quadrangle query additionally includes a search area beyond a standard 10-mile radius. Plant species meeting the criteria for Special Status Plants as defined in Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018) and evaluated under CEQA Section 15380 have been included in this report.
Some California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 4 taxa may meet the Section 15380 definition of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, and in the definition of CRPR 4, CNPS and CDFW suggest additional reasons for including CRPR 4 taxa in a CEQA analysis. These reasons include Regionally Rare Taxa. Considered locally significant plants, that is, plants that are not rare from a statewide perspective but are rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (c)), or as designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). “Locally rare” has not been generally defined, but in counties where a “locally rare” policy exists, it applies to taxa with only five to 10 known occurrences in that county.
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and CNPS lists were cross-referenced for consistency. A separate CNDDB query for the County of Kern was also generated to evaluate plant species for local significance.
The project will not conflict with existing or adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, local or regional conservation plans, or local ordinances protecting biological resources.
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT SETTING AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................1 METHODS ..............................................................................................................................................................2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................................................2 FIELD STUDY..............................................................................................................................................................2 RESULTS.................................................................................................................................................................3 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER.......................................................................................................3 SOILS .........................................................................................................................................................................3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES...........................................................................................................................................3 Special-Status Plant Species.................................................................................................................................3 Special-Status Animal Species..............................................................................................................................5 Designated Critical Habitat..................................................................................................................................5 Jurisdictional Water Resource Features...............................................................................................................5 Special-Status Natural Communities....................................................................................................................5 Wildlife Migration Corridors and Nursery Sites....................................................................................................5 Regional and Local Policies ..................................................................................................................................5 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES........................................................................6 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................................................9 APPENDIX A......................................................................................................................................................... 13 PROJECT VICINTY AND SITE.................................................................................................................................. 13 APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................................................................... 19 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND ANIMAL EVALUATION............................................................................................ 19 APPENDIX C ......................................................................................................................................................... 34 PLANTS AND ANIMALS OBSERVED ON THE PROJECT ........................................................................................... 34 Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
1 INTRODUCTION
Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc. (PruettBio) has prepared this biological resource evaluation for the proposed development of APN 535-020-05 and -10. The project consists of 3.67 gross acres (1.48 hectares) (project) Section 24, Township 30 South, Range 26 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. The project is at the north of the intersection of Pensinger Road and Buena Vista Road, within the incorporated limits of the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, California. The report documents biological resources identified during fieldwork conducted on the project site and those identified through a literature search as potentially occurring based on known observations or historic habitat conditions. The report uses the information collected during the field study and literature search to evaluate potential impacts to biological resources, resulting from the project. The report is intended to assist in the analysis of the proposed project for a Site Plan Review.
Listed plant and animal species are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Protection of other non-listed, special-status species is afforded under additional regulation including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impacts to non-listed, special-status species must be evaluated. Where necessary, the report recommends avoidance and minimization measures for implementation prior to and during project activities. The report is intended to provide technical information in support of a CEQA preliminary review. For the purposes of this report, potential impacts to the biological resources of the proposed project were evaluated in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (2025).
PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The project consists of 3.67 gross acres (1.48 hectares) of APN 535-020-05 and -10. The project site is located north of the intersection of Pensinger Road and Buena Vista Road, Section 24, Township 30 South, Range 26 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.
PROJECT SETTING AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The project site is in the southern San Joaquin Valley; a broad, treeless plain in the rain shadow of the Inner Coast Ranges. The region’s climate can be characterized as Mediterranean; with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Summer high temperatures typically exceed 100 °Fahrenheit (°F); with an average of 110 days per year over 90 °F. Winter temperatures in the San Joaquin Valley are mild, with an average of only 16 days per year with frost (Twisselmann 1967).
Rainfall varies, increasing from west to east, with the west side of the valley receiving an average of around 4 inches (10 centimeters) per year and the east side averaging about 6 inches (15 centimeters) per year. Winter fog, called Tule fog, sometimes forms during the months of November, December, and January, supplementing the annual precipitation. Approximately 90% of the rainfall in the region occurs between November 1 and April 1. Drought cycles occur periodically, becoming severe enough that plant and animal populations can experience large fluctuations. The vegetation communities in the San Joaquin Valley are distinguishable from the Mojave Desert to the east due to Tule fog, higher humidity, and isolation from continental climatic influences by mountain ranges (Twisselmann 1967).
The general topography of the area slopes very subtly south with the project generally flat at about 350 feet (106 meters) above mean sea level. The project site consists primarily of vacant, though previously developed land with few remaining structures on site. The project is bordered to the west and south by intensive agricultural development, to the east by existing residential development, and to the north by a small church. The project and vicinity were historically farmed for decades. Historical aerial imagery going back to 1985 shows the project site and general vicinity under row crops. Historical aerial imagery showing several small structures appearing as early as 2003, but no structures currently remain on the site. No undisturbed, native, or recovering habitat is present on the project site or adjacent parcels.
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
2 METHODS
LITERATURE REVIEW
PruettBio conducted a literature review to identify known observations and potential for listed, or otherwise special-status, species to occur in the vicinity of the project site. A standard, 10-mile (16- kilometer) radius query was performed. Database records reviewed included:
• United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (iPac): The iPac report generates a list of federal-listed species and other resources under the jurisdiction of the USFWS, including designated critical habitat for listed species, National Wildlife Refuge lands, and Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory. The list includes resources that are outside of the project site, but that have the potential to be impacted by project activities. • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory: The Wetlands Mapper is an online inventory integrating digital map data and other resources to provide current information regarding the status of national wetlands, riparian, and deepwater habitats.
• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) WebSoil Survey: The report is an online database providing soil data produced by the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the USDA and other federal, state, and local agencies. The information drawn for the Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Northwestern Part was originally drawn from fieldwork completed in 1981 with soil names and descriptions approved in 1982. • California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB-RareFind 5): The CNDDB is a database of listed, or otherwise special-status, plant and animal species and sensitive communities maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The information queried for this report included a standard 10-mile radius of the project site. • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants:
CNPS is a private, professional organization that maintains a database evaluating the current conservation status of California’s rare, threatened, and endangered plant species. The information queried for this report included a standard 10-mile radius of the project site. The list includes resources that are outside of the project site, but that have the potential to be impacted by project activities based on known historic or current habitat features. The data base was compared to the CNDDB and iPac queries for consistency.
FIELD STUDY
A reconnaissance-level, biological field study was conducted by Jared Pratt on March 31, 2025. The project was surveyed by walking the perimeter and random transects to evaluate all representative habitat features of the site. The field study conducted, allowed for 100% visual coverage of the project site. Field notes included observations of all plant and wildlife species observed. Direct observations and/or species sign was recorded to assess the potential for occurrence. Land cover types and general habitat conditions were recorded and photographed. Special-status species and habitat features, such as vegetation communities or ephemeral channels, were also recorded and photographed if observed.
Coordinates for important biological resource elements and direct observations of special-status species were recorded using a handheld geographic positioning system unit. If observed, San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) dens were classified as defined by the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011). All plant taxa encountered were identified to the extent possible given the diagnostic features present. Identifications were made using keys contained in The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California and online updates containing revisions to taxonomic treatments (Baldwin et al. 2012; Jepson Flora Project 2015).
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
3 RESULTS
This section summarizes the results of the field study conducted on the project site and evaluates those results for the known or potential for occurrence of special-status species based on the literature review and database queries and pursuant to statutory regulation. Discussions are provided describing the existing habitat conditions including vegetation communities, land cover and current use; soils; specialstatus biological resources potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project site; the potential for jurisdictional resources including designated critical habitat and riparian/wetland/water resource features; the potential for wildlife migration corridors and nursery sites; and regional and local policy.
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER
The project site is located at the southern edge of urban development of Metropolitan Bakersfield. Before conversion to farmland, the original vegetive communities of the project site were Non-native Grassland (Holland 42200) and Valley Saltbush Scrub (Holland 36220). No undisturbed, native, or recovering habitat is present on the project site, adjacent parcels, or general vicinity of the project. The project site consists primarily of vacant, though previously developed land with few remaining structures on site. The project is surrounded by residential development, intensive agriculture, and a small church. The project and vicinity were historically farmed for decades. Historical aerial imagery going back to 1985 shows residential development of the project with much of the surrounding land under row crops. No undisturbed, native, or recovering habitat is present on the project site or adjacent parcels. The potential for any native herbaceous species is extremely low due to ongoing disturbance. The project site and margins are dominated by ruderal/invasive plant species.
SOILS
Map Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name Description
174 Kimberlina fine sandy loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes.
Well drained fan remnant formed from igneous and
sedimentary rock
Source: NRCS 2025
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The literature review and database queries yielded 23 special-status plant species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. Forty animal species were identified as potentially occurring in the region of the project site. No evidence of any listed animal species was observed during the field study. No evidence of any locally rare plant or animal species was observed. No evidence of otherwise special-status plant or animal species, or animal species sign was observed during the field study.
No focused, protocol-level surveys were conducted for the preparation of this report. The field study was conducted outside of the blooming period for many of the special-status plant species potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project. The evaluation of special-status species that were found during the literature review with a potential to occur in the region are included in Appendix B.
Special-Status Plant Species
The federal and state database queries yielded 23 special-status plant species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. A query of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) database was made for the nine-quadrangles surrounding the project. A USGS nine-quadrangle query additionally includes a search area beyond a standard 10-mile radius. Plant species meeting the criteria for Special Status Plants as defined in Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018) were evaluated under CEQA Section 15380.
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
4 Special-status plant species considered in this evaluation include all plant species that meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under ESA or candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA (50 CFR §17.12). • Listed or candidates for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under CESA (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.). A species, subspecies, or variety of plant is endangered when the prospects of its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors (Fish and Game Code §2062). A plant is threatened when it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management measures (Fish and Game Code §2067). • Listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code §1900 et seq.). A plant is rare when, although not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies, or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens (Fish and Game Code §1901). • Meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA §15380(b) and (d). Species that may meet the definition of rare or endangered include the following:
o Species considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” (Lists 1A, 1B and 2);
o Species that may warrant consideration on the basis of local significance or recent biological information.
o Some species included on the California Natural Diversity Database’s (CNDDB) Special Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (California Department of Fish and Game 2008). • Considered a locally significant species, that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA §15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). Examples include a species at the outer limits of its known range or a species occurring on an uncommon soil type.
Some CRPR 4 taxa may meet the Section 15380 definition of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, and in the definition of CRPR 4, CNPS and CDFW suggest additional reasons for including CRPR 4 taxa in a CEQA analysis. These reasons include Regionally Rare Taxa. Considered locally significant plants, that is, plants that are not rare from a statewide perspective but are rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (c)), or as designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). “Locally rare” has not been generally defined, but in counties where a “locally rare” policy exists, it applies to taxa with only five to 10 known occurrences in that county. The CNDDB, iPac, and CNPS lists were crossreferenced for consistency.
Precipitation has been average to date, resulting in a good year for annual plant species observations. Of the 23 special-status plant species returned during database queries for the project vicinity, 5 species are either federally- or state-listed as threatened or endangered. Although CEQA requires consideration for impacts to locally significant plant species, no mitigation is legally required to compensate for impacts to non-listed plant species. No listed, or otherwise special-status plant species was observed during the fieldwork conducted for the preparation of this report. No listed, or otherwise special-status plant species, has been recorded as occurring within the project site.
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
5 Special-Status Animal Species
The federal and state database queries yielded 40 special-status animal species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. Of these, 18 animal species have federal-, and/or state-listing and are afforded protection under federal or state law. Special-status animal species considered in this evaluation include those that may occur in the project vicinity that have statutory protections. This includes federal- and state-listed (rare, threatened, or endangered; fully protected) species and candidates for listing under the respective endangered species acts. Species that are of special concern to the CDFW or the USFWS are included in this evaluation. Special-status bird species that are afforded protection under the MBTA which may nest on or within an approximate 10-mile (16-kilometer) radius of the project site are also evaluated. No evidence of any listed animal species was observed during the field study. No evidence of otherwise special-status animal species, or animal species sign was observed during the field study.
Designated Critical Habitat
The USFWS iPac report and USFWS Designated Critical Habitat Mapper lists no Designated Critical Habitat (USFWS 2025). Designated Critical Habitats closest to the project site is Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) approximately 10-miles south of the project site. No suitable habitat for this species exists on the project site.
Jurisdictional Water Resource Features
Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates discharge of dredged and fill material into Waters of the United States. Wetlands are included under this jurisdiction. Proposed activities that may result in discharge of material into Waters of the U.S. require a permit review process by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as set forth under CWA section 404(b)(1). Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify CDFW before beginning any activity that will substantially modify a river, stream, or lake.
A search of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory resulted in no riparian, wetlands, or other jurisdictional water features mapped on the project site (USFWS 2025). These results are consistent with the observed conditions within the survey area.
Special-Status Natural Communities
No special-status vegetation communities on the project site were identified by the USFWS iPac query, the CNDDB, or the CNPS Inventory (USFWS 2025, CDFW 2025, CNPS 2025). These results are consistent with the observed conditions within the survey area.
Wildlife Migration Corridors and Nursery Sites
Wildlife corridors can be defined as connections between wildlife blocks that meet specific habitat needs for species movement generally during migratory periods but seasonally as well. Wildlife corridors generally contain habitat dissimilar to the surrounding vicinity and include examples such as riparian areas along rivers and streams, washes, canyons, or otherwise undisturbed areas within urbanization.
Corridor width requirements can vary based on the needs of the species utilizing them. Development of the project would not impact wildlife migration corridors or nursery sites.
Regional and Local Policies
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
6 The proposed, modified project will not conflict with existing or adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, local or regional conservation plans, or local ordinances protecting biological resources.
IMPACT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
CEQA Appendix G thresholds have been used to evaluate potential impacts to the biological resources from the proposed project. Appendix G provides an analysis of the impacts of the proposed project following the standards of CEQA and provides recommendations that, when implemented, would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. It is important to note that potential take of any federal- or statelisted species from project activities would require contacting the appropriate wildlife agency (the USFWS and/or the CDFW).
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have not been contacted regarding the preparation of this report. Appendix B, Special-Status Plant and Animal Evaluations, satisfy the requirements for an initial determination of potential impacts under the CEQA Appendix G thresholds. If CEQA threshold determinations warrant, further consultation may be required with CDFW and USFWS. If additional consultation with the agencies results in the need for Application for a California Incidental Take Permit, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 outlines requirements for detailed species-specific take analysis, proposed measures to minimize and fully mitigate impacts, compliance monitoring, and funding. A detailed description satisfying Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 is not required to meet the CEQA Appendix G thresholds.
The project would create a significant impact to biological resources, based on the specifications in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, if the following were to occur:
1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;
6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
The following analysis discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides recommendations where appropriate to further reduce potential impacts.
1. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, by the CDFW, or the USFWS? Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
7 Direct and indirect impacts, in the form of “incidental take” of a threatened, endangered, or otherwise protected species, are not expected as a result of the development of the proposed project.
Implementation of standard measures for the protection of biological resources are recommended to avoid and minimize potential impact to general wildlife. These measures include, but may not be limited to:
• A biological resource pre-activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more that 30- days before the start of construction activities,
• Biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance, • Compliance reporting provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted.
If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.
The project is within the historic range of Tipton kangaroo rat. The project was not included in the southwest focus area for the species in the previous habitat conservation plan. The most recent habitat suitability modeling (Cypher 2021) does not include the project in any of the four tiers enumerated for suitability. Trapping would be required to confirm small mammal species occupying the project.
2. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS?
No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service exists on the project site. No adverse effect will occur as a result of the development of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are recommended.
3. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No features, identified in wetland categories, appear on the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory mapping (USFWS 2025) on the proposed, modified project site. No federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act were identified during the field study conducted for the preparation of this report. No substantial adverse effect will occur as a result of the development of the project. No mitigation measures are recommended.
4. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No migratory wildlife corridors were identified during the literature search or field study. The project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native fish of wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The following recommendations are provided for the general protection of bird species that may occur on the project site or vicinity in compliance with the MBTA:
If ground-disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance should occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist.
Appropriate avoidance should be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
8 zones for active nests should be implemented as follows: 1) ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters); 2) burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW may be warranted. 3) Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers); 3) other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters).
5. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? There are no biological resources on the site which are protected by local policies. Impacts from conflicts with local policies will not occur. No additional mitigation measures are recommended.
6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
The project does not conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No additional mitigation measures are recommended.
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
9 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
The following Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMM) represent the authors professional opinion regarding reducing the probability of take occurring during project activities. The following AMMs are generally regarded as best management practices during construction activities in the southern San Joaquin valley, however they are not a substitute for procuring the appropriate state and federal permits to allow for take of special-status species during project activities and do not provide coverage should take occur during project activities. Communication with state and federal agencies regarding proposed AMMs is recommended prior to initial ground disturbance to fully comply with FESA, CESA, and CEQA.
These measures include, but may not be limited to:
• A biological resource pre-activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more that 30- days before the start of construction activities,
• Biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance, • Compliance reporting provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted, • A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special-status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented, • If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance. • Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet,
• Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped should be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable
• Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater should be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping
The following recommendations are provided for the general protection of bird species that may occur on the project site or vicinity in compliance with the MBTA:
If ground-disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance should occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist.
Appropriate avoidance should be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests should be implemented as follows:
1) Ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters), 2) Burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW may be warranted, 3) Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers), 4) Other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters).
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
10 REFERENCES
Baldwin, B. G., Goldman, D. H., Keil, D. J., Patterson, R., Rosatti, T. J., & Wilken, D. H. (Eds.). (2012).
The Jepson manual: Vascular plants of California (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1568 pp.
CDFG. (2009). Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and natural communities. Sacramento, CA: Author. 7 pp.
CDFG. (2012). Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Sacramento, CA: Author.
CNDDB. (2025). Occurrence for U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5 minute quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: CDFW California Endangered Species Act of 1970, C.F.G.C § 2050 et seq. (2023).
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, 13 P.R.C. § 21000 et seq. (2023).
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 Guidelines, 14 C.C.R. § 15000 et seq. (2023).
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). (2025). Inventory of rare and endangered plants (Online edition, v8-01a) 7.5 minute quadrangles and corresponding plant species accounts. Sacramento, CA: Author.
California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977, C.F.G.C § 1904 et seq. (2023).
Clean Water Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (2014).
Cypher, B., Phillips, S.E., Westall, T., Tennant, E.N., Saslaw, L., Kelly, E., Van Horn Job, C. (2021).
Conservation of endangered Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides): status surveys, habitat suitability, and conservation recommendations. California Fish and Wildlife Special CESA Issue:382-397.
Dunn, J. L., & Alderfer, J., (Eds.). (2008). Field guide to the birds of western North America. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society. 447 pp.
Ehrlich, P. R., Dobkin, D. S., & Wheye, D. (1988). The birder’s handbook: A field guide to the natural history of North American birds. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc. 785 pp.
Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. (2023).
Harris, J. H., & Stearns, D. M. (1991). Population density, census methods, habitat relationships, and home range of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel, 1988–89. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section, Report 91-02. Oakland, CA: CDFG. Retrieved from http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2953
Jennings, M. R., Hayes, M. P., & Metro Washington Park Zoo. (1994). Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California (Final report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Contract No. 8023). Rancho Cordova, CA: CDFG. 255 pp.
Jepson Flora project (Eds.). (2015). Jepson eFlora. Retrieved from http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html Luce, B. (2005). Eumops perotis: Western mastiff bat. In C. Chambers & M. Herder, (Eds.), Species accounts. Portland, OR: Western Bat Working Group. 5 pp. Retrieved from http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/molossidae/eupe.pdf Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
11 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. (2023).
Nafis, G. (2000–2021a). North American legless lizards - Anniella. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Retrieved from http://www.californiaherps.com/lizards/pages/a.pulchra.html Nafis, G. (2000–2021b). San Joaquin coachwhip – Coluber flagellum ruddocki. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Retrieved from
http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/pages/c.f.ruddocki.html Nafis, G. (2000–2021c). Blainville’s horned lizard – Phrynosoma blainvillii. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Retrieved from http://www.californiaherps.com/lizards/pages/p.blainvillii.html Native Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species, 32 Fed. Reg. 4001 (Mar. 11, 1967). Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr18.pdf
Papenfuss, T. J., Parham, J. F. (2013). Four new species of California legless lizards (Anniella). Breviora 536, 1–17. Retrieved from
http://mczbase.mcz.harvard.edu/specimen_images/publications/Breviora_536.pdf Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, C.W.A. § Section 13000 et seq. (2023).
Reid, F. A. (2006). Mammals of North America (Peterson field guide). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 579 pp.
Sherwin, R. (2005). Antrozous pallidus: Pallid bat. In D. A. Rambaldini, (Eds.). Species accounts.
Portland, OR: Western Bat Working Group. 5 pp. Retrieved from http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/anpa.pdf Shuford, W. D., Gardali, T., (with Comrack, L.A.). (Eds.). (2008). California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Sacramento, CA: CDFG.
Stebbins, R. C. (1985). A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians (Peterson field guide), (2nd ed.).
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 336 pp.
Stebbins, R. C. (2003). A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians (Peterson field guide), (3rd ed.).
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 533 pp.
Twisselmann, E. C. (1967). A flora of Kern County, California. The Wasmann Journal of Biology, 25, 1– 395.
Uptain, C. E. (1989). Survey for Tipton kangaroo rats (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides) on the proposed Delano prison site, Kern County, California (Prepared for the California Department of Corrections).
Sacramento, CA: 11 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (1996). California condor recovery plan, third revision. Portland, OR: Author. 62 pp.
USFWS. (1998). Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Portland, OR:
Author. Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/980930a.pdf USFWS. (2011). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service standardized recommendations for protection of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance. Sacramento, CA: Author. 9 pp.
Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-ProtocolsGuidelines/Documents/kitfox_standard_rec_2011.pdf Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
12 USFWS. (2013). California condor recovery program population size and distribution, December 31, 2013 overview page. Retrieved from
http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_8/NWRS/Zone_1/Hopper_Mountain_Complex/Hopper_Mounta in/Sections/News/News_Items/PDFs/2013-12-31.pdf
USFWS. (2025a). Federal endangered and threatened species that may occur in or may be affected by project in the counties and/or USGS 7 ½ minute quads you requested: quadrangle [February]. Author.
Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species_lists-form.cfm USFWS. (2025b). National Wetlands Inventory Website [February]. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
Williams, D. F. (1980). Distribution and population status of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel and giant kangaroo rat. (Nongame Wildlife Investigation Final Report E-W-4). Sacramento, CA: CDFG. 48 pp.
Williams, D. F. (1986). Mammalian species of special concern in California (Prepared for the State of California, The Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game). Turlock, CA: CSUS. 112 pp. Retrieved from http://esrp.csustan.edu/resources/publications/pdf/mammalian_scc_ca_esrp5.pdf Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer, W. F., Jr., Mayer, K. E., & White, M., (Eds.). (1990a). California’s wildlife volume II birds (California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System). Sacramento, CA: CDFG.
Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer, W. F., Jr., Mayer, K. E., & White, M., (Eds.). (1990b). California’s wildlife volume III mammals (California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System). Sacramento, CA:
CDFG.
APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINTY AND SITE
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
Figure A-1. Aerial photograph of the project and vicinity (Google Earth Pro 2025).
Bakersfield
Project Site
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
15 Figure A-2. Aerial photograph of the project and vicinity (Google Earth Pro 2025).
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
Figure A-3 Soil map of the project site (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2025).
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
Figure A-4. Photograph of the project site taken from the SE corner facing W (31Mar25).
Figure A-5. Photograph of the project site taken from near the SW corner facing N (31Mar25).
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
18 Figure A-6. Photograph of the project site from near the SW corner facing E (31Mar25).
Figure A-7. Photograph of the project site taken from the NW corner facing S (31Mar25).
APPENDIX B
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND ANIMAL EVALUATION
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
Table B-1: Special-status Plants That May Occur in the Vicinity of the Project.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State/CNPS Description Blooming Period
Field Study
Results/Potential for
Occurrence
Astragalus hornii var.
hornii
Horn’s milk vetch
S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Fabaceae found in meadows and seeps and on playas and lake margins on alkaline soils between 197 and 2,789 feet (60–850 meters) in elevation. Known
from occurrences in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, the Tehachapi Mountains and the Western Transverse Ranges
in Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino Counties.
May to October Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Atriplex cordulata var.
cordulata
Heartscale
S/-/1B.2 Herbaceous annual in the Chenopodiaceae found in chenopod scrub, meadows and weeps, and valley and
foothill grasslands in sandy, saline or alkaline soils below 1,837 feet (560 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in the Great Central Valley from Kern County north to Southern Butte County.
April to October Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Atriplex coronata var.
vallicola
Lost Hills crownscale
S/-/1B.2 Herbaceous annual in the Chenopodiaceae found in valley and foothill grasslands, playas, and vernal pools on alkaline soils between 165 and 2,085 feet (50–635 meters) in
elevation.
April to September Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Atriplex tularensis
Bakersfield smallscale
-/E/1A Annual herb in the Chenopodiaceae found in valley and foothill grasslands, between 295 and 655 feet (90–200
meters) in elevation. Known to occur in the San Joaquin Valley from Northwestern Kern County north to Southern
Merced County and in the Sacramento Valley in Southern
Butte County.
June to August
(occasionally October)
Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Calochortus striatus
Alkali mariposa lily
S/-/1B.2 Bulbiferous perennial herb in the Liliaceae found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grasslands on sandy often granitic, sometimes serpentine soils, between 230 and
5,235 feet (70–1,595 meters). Known to occur in the Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Tulare Counties.
April to June Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Caulanthus californicus
California jewelflower
E/E/1B.1 Annual herb in the Brassicaceae family found chenopod scrub, pinyon and juniper woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats on sandy soils between 200 and 3,280 feet (61–1000) in elevation.
February to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
21 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State/CNPS Description Blooming Period
Field Study
Results/Potential for
Occurrence
Chloropyron molle ssp.
hispidum
Hispid bird’s-beak
S/-/1B.1 Hemiparasitic annual herb in the Orobanchaceae family found on coastal dunes and coastal saltwater marshes and swamps below 510 feet (155 meters) in elevation.
June to September Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Cirsium crassicaule
Slough thistle
S/-/1B.1 Annual or perennial herb in the Asteraceae family found in chenopod scrub, marshes and swamps, and riparian scrub
below 330 feet (100 meters) in elevation.
May to August Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Delphinium recurvatum
Recurved larkspur
S/-/1B.2 Perennial herb in the Ranunculaceae family found in chenopod scrub, cismontane woodland, and valley and
foothill grassland habitats below 2,590 feet (790 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Kern and Tulare Counties.
March to June Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Diplacus pictus
Calico monkeyflower
S/-/1B.2 Annual herb in the Phrymaceae family found in broadleafed upland forest, cismontane woodland in granitic and
disturbed areas between 325 and 4,690 (100 – 1,430
meters) in elevation.
March to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Eremalche parryi ssp.
kernensis
Kern mallow
E/-/1B.2 Annual herb in the Malvaceae family found in chenopod scrub, pinyon and juniper woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats in clay, dry, openings, and sandy soils often at the edge of balds between 230 and 4,230 feet (70 – 1,290 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Kern,
Kings, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, and
Ventura Counties.
January to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Eschscholzia lemmonii
ssp. kernensis
Tejon poppy
S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Papaveraceae family found in valley foothill and grasslands and chenopod scrub, generally on loose, calcareous soils between 525 and 3,280 feet (200– 1,000 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Kern and San Luis Obispo Counties.
(February)March to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Imperata brevifolia
California satintail
-/-/2B.1 Perennial rhizomatous herb in the Poaceae family found in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, creosote bush scrub and
wetland-riparian communities below 3,985 feet (1,215
meters). Known to occur in Butte, Lake, Fresno, Tulare, Inyo, Kern, Santa Barbara, Ventura, San Bernadino,
Orange, Riverside, San Diego and Imperial Counties.
September to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
22 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State/CNPS Description Blooming Period
Field Study
Results/Potential for
Occurrence
Lasthenia chrysantha
Alkali-sink goldfields
-/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae found in vernal pools in alkaline soils below 655 feet (200 meters) in elevation.
Known to occur in Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced,
Sacramento, Solano, Stanislaus, and Tulare Counties.
February to April Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Lasthenia glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter’s goldfields
S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family found in marshes and swamps, playas, and vernal pools below 4,005 feet (1,220 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Colusa, Kern, Los Angeles, Merced, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Solano, Tehama,
Tulare, Ventura, and Yolo Counties.
February to June Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Layia leucopappa
Comanche Point layia
S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family found in chenopod scrub and valley and foothill grasslands between 325 and 1,150 feet (100 – 350 meters) in elevation.
March to April Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Monolopia congdonii
San Joaquin woollythreads
E/-/1B.2 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family found in chenopod scrub and valley and foothill grassland habitats on sandy soils between 195 and 2,625 feet (60 – 800 meters) in
elevation. Known to occur in Fresno, Kern, Kings, San
Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Tulare
Counties.
February to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Navarretia setiloba
Piute Mountains
navarretia
S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Polemoniaceae family found in cismontane woodland, pinyon and juniper woodlands,
valley and foothill grasslands in clay or gravelly loam soils between 935 and 6,890 feet (285 – 2,100 meters) in
elevation.
April to July Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Opuntia basilaris var.
treleasei
Bakersfield cactus
E/E/1B.1 Perennial stem succulent in the Cactaceae family found in chenopod scrub, cismontane woodland, and valley and
foothill grasslands between 394 and 1,804 feet (120–550 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in the Southeast San Joaquin Valley and Southern Sierra Nevada Foothills in
Kern County.
April to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Puccinellia simplex
California alkali grass
S/-/1B.2 Annual herb in the Poaceae family found in chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools in alkaline, vernally-mesic sinks, flats, and lake margins between 5 to 3,050 feet (2 – 930 meters) in elevation.
March to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
23 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State/CNPS Description Blooming Period
Field Study
Results/Potential for
Occurrence
Stylocline citroleum
Oil neststraw
S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family in chenopod scrub, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands in clay soils between 160 and 1,310 feet (50 – 400 meters) in
elevation.
March to April Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Stylocline masonii
Mason’s neststraw
S/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family found in chenopod scrub, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands on clay soils between 164 and 1,312 feet (50–400 meters) in elevation. Known from locations in Kern and San Diego
Counties.
March to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
Tortula californica
California screw-moss
S/-/1B.2 Moss in the Pottiaceae family found in chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland in sandy soil between 30 and 4,790 feet (10 – 1,460 meters) in elevation.
N/A Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.
STATUS: Federal and State Listing Code
D Delisted
E Federally or State-listed Endangered
T Federally or State-listed Threatened
S Listed as a BLM Sensitive Species
CNPS
1A Plants presumed extirpated in California, and either rare or extinct elsewhere 1B.1 Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously threatened in California 1B.2 Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly threatened in California 2B.1 Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; seriously threatened in California
4.2 Plants of limited distribution in California; fairly threatened in California Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
24 Table B-2: Special-status Animals That May Occur in the Vicinity of the Project.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* Invertebrates
Bombus crotchii
Crotch’s bumble bee
-/C Occurs in grasslands and shrublands in the
Mediterranean region, Pacific coast, western desert,
and adjacent foothills throughout California’s southwest region. Food plant genera include but is not limited to Antirrhinum, Clarkia, Eriogonum. and Phacelia.
Not Observed/Not Expected. No known
records in the vicinity of the project.
Branchinect lynchi
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
T/- Found in vernal pools throughout California. Exist as cysts during the dry season and reproduce when pools
are filled with water again.
Not Present. No suitable habitat present.
Danaus plexippus
Monarch butterfly
PT/- Occur for migration between San Diego and British
Colombia. Asclepias spp. are used for egg laying
throughout the range and are a crucial part of their life cycle.
Not Observed/Not Expected. No known
records in the vicinity of the project. No
Asclepias spp. observed on the project.
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle
T/- Central Valley riparian forest; nearly always found on or close to its host plant, elderberry (Sambucus species).
Not Present. No suitable habitat for the
species. No host plants present on the
project or vicinity.
Amphibians
Spea hammondii
Western spadefoot toad
PT/CSC Central valley and adjacent foothills, Coast Ranges from Point Conception south to the Mexico border;
valley-foothill grasslands and valley-foothill hardwood, shallow temporary pools used for breeding, below
4,472 feet (1,363 meters).
Not Observed/Not Expected. No known
records in the vicinity of the project.
Marginal habitat present on the project.
Reptiles
Actinemys marmorata
Northwestern pond turtle PT/CSC
Found in streams, ponds, lakes and permanent and
ephemeral streams.
Not Present. No suitable habitat present.
Anniella grinnelli
Bakersfield legless lizard
-/CSC
Lives mostly underground and burrows in loose, sandy
soil in beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands,
desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream terraces with
sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks. Restricted to the
southern San Joaquin Valley and the east side of the
Carrizo Plain, including within Bakersfield city limits.
Not Observed/Not Expected. Suitable
habitat absent from the site. Potential
habitat in the project vicinity.
Anniella spp.
California legless lizard -/CSC
Found in coastal dunes, chaparral, pine-oak
woodlands, desert scrub, and sandy washes in warm
moist loose soils, below 5,085 feet (1550 meters).
Not Observed/Not Expected. Suitable
habitat absent from the site. Potential
habitat in the project vicinity.
Arizona elegans occidentalis
California glossy snake -/CSC
Found in low elevation scrub, grasslands and chaparral
habitats.
Not Present. No suitable habitat present.
Gambelia sila
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (BNLL) E/E,SFP
Found only in the San Joaquin Valley, adjacent Carrizo
Plain, Elkhorn Plain, Cuyama Valley, and Panoche
Not Present. No suitable habitat present.
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
25 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* Valley; inhabits sparsely vegetated plains, lower canyon slopes, on valley floors, and washes; open grassland,
saltbush scrub, and alkali sink are more common
habitat types.
Masticophis flagellum
ruddocki
San Joaquin coachwhip -/CSC
Found in the San Joaquin Valley in open, dry habitats.
Associated with valley grassland and saltbush scrub
habitats containing small mammal burrows which are
used for refugia and oviposition sites.
Not Present. No suitable habitat present.
Phrynosoma blainvillii
Coast horned lizard
S/CSC
Inhabits valley-foothill hardwood, coniferous and
riparian, as well as pine-cypress, juniper, and annual
grasslands, in Sierra Nevada below 3,937 feet (1,200
meters) and in mountains of Southern California and
into the adjacent valleys.
Not Present. No suitable habitat present.
Thamnophis gigas
Giant garter snake
T/T
Highly aquatic; usually found in areas of freshwater
marsh low-gradient streams, drainage canals and
irrigation ditches, especially those associated with rice farming; historically occurred in the San Joaquin Valley from the vicinity of Sacramento southward to Buena
Vista and the Tulare Lake Basin; currently known from
near Chico, Butte County, to the vicinity of Burrel,
Fresno County.
Not Present. No suitable habitat present.
Birds
Agelaius tricolor
Tricolored blackbird
S/T
Forages in grasslands, wetlands, rice fields, croplands, and weedy uplands dominated by mustards and
thistles, etc.; breeds in marshes containing heavy
growth of bulrushes, cattails, and blackberries; found
throughout the Central Valley.
Not Present/Low Probability of
Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. No
suitable nesting habitat on the site.
Potential for marginal foraging habitat in
farmlands in the vicinity of the project.
Ardea alba
Great egret
-/-
Common resident in the southern San Joaquin Valley.
Nests in large trees. Forages in saline and freshwater
ponds, streams, wetlands, and irrigated farmland.
Rookeries are considered sensitive by CDFW.
Not Observed/Moderate Probability of
Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. No
suitable nesting or foraging habitat
present on the site. Suitable habitat for
nesting and foraging in the vicinity of the
project.
Athene cunicularia
Burrowing owl
S/C
Inhabits dry, open grasslands, rolling hills, desert floors, prairies, savannas, agricultural land, and other areas of open, bare ground. These owls will also inhabit open
areas near human habitation, such as airports, golf
courses, shoulders of roads, railroad embankments,
and the banks of irrigation ditches and reservoirs.
Not Observed/Moderate Probability of
Occurrence in the Project Vicinity.
Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging
in the vicinity of the project. No burrowing
owls or owl burrows observed.
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson’s hawk S/T
Riparian and sometimes large isolated trees used for
nesting; grasslands and agricultural lands used for
foraging; in California, breeds primarily in the
Not Observed/Low Probability of
Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. No
suitable nesting sites on the project. Low
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
26 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* Sacramento Valley, with occasional nesting to the south through Kern County; migrate through the Central and
San Joaquin Valleys to their wintering grounds in South America.
suitable foraging habitat exists across the
row-crop farmland south of metropolitan
Bakersfield.
Charadrius montanus
Mountain plover
-/CSC
Forages in short grasslands and plowed fields Winter
resident from September through March in the Central
Valley from Sutter and Yuba Counties southward also
Los Angeles County, eastern San Bernardino County
and along the Colorado River Valley, does not breed in
California.
Not Present. No suitable wintering
habitat or foraging habitat exists on the
project.
Charadrius nivosus nivosus
Western snowy plover
T/CSC
Nests, feeds, and takes cover on sandy or gravelly
beaches along the coast, on estuarine salt ponds, alkali lakes, and at the Salton Sea. On the Pacific coast, it
nests on barren to sparsely vegetated sand beaches,
dry salt flats in lagoons, dredge spoils deposited on
beach or dune habitat, levees and flats at saltevaporation ponds, and river bars.
Not Present. No suitable wintering
habitat or foraging habitat exists on the
project.
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
T/E
Nests in walnut and almond orchards in California,
natural nesting habitat is in cottonwood-tree willow
riparian forest. Known populations of breeding western
yellow-billed cuckoo are several disjunct locations in
California, Arizona, and western New Mexico.
Not Present. No suitable nesting habitat
exists on the project for this species. The
site represents poor foraging habitat.
Dendrocygna bicolor
Fulvous whistling duck -/CSC
Nests in fresh emergent wetlands and quiet riverine
waters. Uncommon to fairly common in the San
Joaquin Valley, April to November.
Not Present. No suitable nesting habitat
exists on the project for this species. The
site represents poor foraging habitat.
Egretta thula
Snowy egret -/-
Colony nesting in trees, shrubs, mangroves on or near
ground in mashes, swamps, ponds. Widespread in the
San Joaquin Valley in all aquatic habitat types.
Not Present. No suitable nesting habitat
exists on the project for this species. The
site represents poor foraging habitat.
Elanus leucurus
White tailed kite
S/SFP
Associated habitats include open grasslands,
savannahs, agriculture, wetlands, oak woodland and
riparian areas with associated open space.
Not Observed/Low Probability of
Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. No
suitable nesting sites on the project.
Suitable foraging habitat exists across the
row-crop farmland south of metropolitan
Bakersfield.
Eremophila alpestris actica
California horned lark
-/WL
Resident throughout California from the coast to the
deserts up to alpine dwarf-shrub habitat above tree line Not Observed/Moderate Probability of
Occurrence in the Project Vicinity.
Horned lark occur throughout the
southern San Joaquin Valley and
undoubtedly forage in the project vicinity.
Gymnogyps californianus
California condor E/E,SFP
Forages over large expanses of land including but not
limited to, grasslands, foothills, coastal mountain
Not Observed/Low Probability of
Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. No
suitable nesting habitat on the site.
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
27 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* ranges. Nests on cliff faces, large trees or manmade
structures.
Potential for marginal foraging habitat in
farmlands in the vicinity of the project.
Plegadis chihi
White-faced ibis -/WL
Nesting associated with large emergent wetlands. Will
forage in a variety of wet meadows, irrigated pastures, flooded pond edges and wet cropland.
Not Present. No suitable nesting habitat
exists on the project for this species. The
site represents poor foraging habitat.
Toxostoma lecontei macmillanorum
Le Conte’s thrasher
(San Joaquin population only)
-/CSC
Inhabit arid, sparsely vegetated deserts of southern
Nevada, western Arizona, extreme northwestern
Mexico, and southeastern California. It is also found in six isolated pockets of the San Joaquin Valley:
McKittrick to Maricopa, Lost Hills, Kettleman Hills,
Carrizo-Elkhorn Plain, Cuyama Valley, and the
Panoche Mountains.
Not Present. No suitable nesting habitat
exists on the project for this species. The
site represents poor foraging habitat.
Vireo bellii pusillus
Least Bell’s vireo E/E
Inhabits low, dense, riparian growth along water or
along dry parts of intermittent streams. Typically
associated with willow, cottonwood, Baccharis, wild
blackberry, or mesquite in desert localities.
Not Present. Beyond the current
published range of the species.
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus
Yellow-headed blackbird
-/CSC
Yellow-headed blackbirds are found in freshwater
marshes during the summer. They particularly like to
live among cattails, tule, and bulrush. During migration and over winter months, the Yellow-headed Blackbird is
found in open, cultivated lands, in fields, and in
pastures.
Not Present. No suitable nesting habitat
exists on the project for this species. The
site represents poor foraging habitat.
Mammals
Ammospermophilus nelsoni
San Joaquin antelope squirrel
-/T
Found in grasslands or open shrublands; formerly more
extensive, current range includes southwestern portion
of the San Joaquin Valley and in adjacent valleys to the west.
Not Present. Beyond the current
published range of the species.
Dipodomys ingens
Giant kangaroo rat
E/E
Western side of the San Joaquin Valley, including the
Carrizo Plain and the Panoche Valley; grassland and
shrub-land habitats with sparse vegetative cover and
soils that are well-drained, fine sandy loams with gentle slopes.
Not Present. Beyond the current
published range of the species.
Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus
Short-nosed kangaroo rat
S/CSC
Found in arid communities on the valley floor portions
of Kern, Tulare, and Kings counties in scrub and
grassland communities in level to near-level terrain with alluvial fan-floodplain soil (fine sands and sandy loams) with sparse grasses and woody vegetation such as
iodine bush, saltbush, seep weed, and mesquite.
Not Present. Beyond the published
range of the species.
Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides
Tipton kangaroo rat E/E
Found in arid communities on the valley floor portions
of Kern, Tulare, and Kings counties in scrub and
grassland communities in level to near-level terrain with Low Probability of Occurrence. Habitat
suitable for Dipodomys sp. The project is
not within the southwest focus area of the
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
28 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* alluvial fan-floodplain soil (fine sands and sandy loams) with sparse grasses and woody vegetation such as
iodine bush, saltbush, seep weed, and mesquite.
previous Habitat Conservation Plan. No
stereotypical kangaroo rat burrows were
observed. Small mammal trapping would
be required to determine species
occupation.
Eumops perotis californicus
Greater western mastiff bat
S/CSC
Open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, annual and perennial
grasslands, chaparral, desert scrub, and urban areas;
roosts in cliff faces, as well as high buildings, trees, and tunnels; uncommon resident in southwestern San
Joaquin Valley.
No Roosting Sites Present. No known
occurrences in the vicinity of the project.
Information on some bat species
indicates foraging may occur over 10’s of
miles from roosting sites. Impacts not
expected.
Lasiurus cinereus
Hoary bat
-/-
Open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, annual and perennial
grasslands, chaparral, desert scrub, and urban areas;
roosts in cliff faces, as well as high buildings, trees, and tunnels; uncommon resident in southwestern San
Joaquin Valley.
No Roosting Sites Present. No known
occurrences in the vicinity of the project.
Information on some bat species
indicates foraging may occur over 10’s of
miles from roosting sites. Impacts not
expected.
Onychomys torridus tularensis
Tulare grasshopper mouse
S/CSC
Found in valley grasslands habitats, blue oak savanna,
desert associations dominated by annual grasses and
California ephedra, alkali sink scrub, saltbush scrub,
and upper Sonoran shrub associations, dominated by
ephedra.
Not Observed/Not Expected. Beyond
the current published range of the
species.
Perognathus inornatus inornatus
San Joaquin pocket mouse
S/-
Found in west-central California in the Upper
Sacramento Valley, Tehama County, southward
through the San Joaquin and Salinas valleys and
contiguous areas to the Mojave Desert in Los Angeles,
Kern and extreme western San Bernardino counties.
Inhabits dry, open, grassy or weedy areas and annual
grasslands, savannas, and desert-scrub associations
with sandy washes or finely textured soils.
Not Observed/Not Expected. Beyond
the current published range of the
species.
Sorex ornatus relictus
Buena Vista Lake shrew
E/CSC
Formerly occupied marshlands of the San Joaquin
Valley and the Tulare Basin. Its range has become
much restricted due to the loss of lakes and sloughs in the area. It has been recorded from the Kern Lake
Preserve area and the Kern National Wildlife Refuge.
Current distribution is unknown but likely to be very
restricted due to the loss of habitat.
Not Present. No suitable habitat present.
Taxidea taxus
American badger -/CSC
Uncommon resident found through California; in less
disturbed grassland and shrubland habitats in San
Joaquin Valley.
Not Present No suitable habitat.
Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) E/T Found in valley saltbush scrub, valley sink scrub, Interior Coast Range saltbush scrub, upper Sonoran
Moderate to High Probability of
Occurrence. No potential, known, or
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
29 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* sub-shrub scrub, non-native grassland, and valley
sacaton grassland in the Central Valley and adjacent
foothills and valleys, infrequently to the outer Coast
Ranges; generally not found in densely wooded areas,
wetland areas, or areas subject to frequent periodic
flooding.
natal dens were observed. SJKF potential
for occurrence moderate to high in the
vicinity of the project.
STATUS:
Federal
S Listed as a BLM Sensitive Species
D Delisted
E Listed as Endangered
PT Proposed as Threatened
T Listed as Threatened
C Candidate for Endangered Status
State
CSC California Department of Fish and Wildlife Designated Species of Special Concern
D Delisted
E Listed as Endangered
SFP California Department of Fish and Wildlife Designated Fully Protected
T Listed as Threatened
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
30 Figure B-1. CNDDB special-status plant species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2025).
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
31 Figure B-2. CNDDB special-status bird species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2025).
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
32 Figure B-3. CNDDB special-status amphibian and reptile species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2025).
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
33 Figure B-4. CNDDB special-status mammal species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2025).
APPENDIX C
PLANTS AND ANIMALS OBSERVED ON THE PROJECT
FIELD STUDY CONDUCTED
March 31, 2025
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
Table C-1. Vascular plant species observed during the field study conducted on the project site.
Scientific Name Common Name
Asparagaceae
Yucca aloifolia Sanish bayonet
Asteraceae
Lactuca seriola Prickly lettuce
Boraginaceae
Amsinckia menziesii Fiddleneck
Brassicaceae
Sisymbrium irio London rocket
Cactaceae
Cylindropuntia imbricata Tree cholla
Echinopsis spachiana Golden torch
Chenopodiaceae
Salsola tragus Russian thistle
Geraniaceae
Erodium cicutarium Redstem filaree
Malvaceae
Malva parviflora Cheeseweed
Myrtaceae
Callistemon citrinus Crimson bottlebrush
Poaceae
Avena fatuna Wild oat
Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome
Bromus hordeaceus Soft brome
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Red brome
Cynodon dactylon Bermudagrass
Schismus barbatus Mediterranean grass
Urticaceae
Urtica dioica Stinging nettle
Table C-2. Vertebrate animal species observed during the field study conducted on the project site.
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 535-020-05, -10
July 2025
36 Scientific Name Common Name
Birds
Corvus corax Common raven
Tyrannus verticalis Western kingbird
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove
Mammals
Otospermopilus beecheyi Common ground squirrel
Sylvilagus audubonii Desert cottontail
2 Management Summary
At the request of the PDA Inc., a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was conducted at an approximate 3.50-acre parcel for a proposed sports facility, located in the City of Bakersfield, California. The Phase I Cultural Resource Survey consisted of a pedestrian survey of the site and a cultural resource record search.
No cultural resources were identified. No further work is required. If archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, a qualified archaeologist should be consulted for further evaluation.
If human remains or potential human remains are observed during construction, work in the vicinity of the remains will cease, and they will be treated in accordance with the provisions of State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.
The protection of human remains follows California Public Resources Codes, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99.
3.46 3
Table of Contents
Management Summary ...............................................................................................2 Table of Contents .........................................................................................................3 List of Figures..................................................................................................................3
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................4
2.0 Survey Location .................................................................................................6
3.0 Record Search...................................................................................................6
4.0 Environmental Background..............................................................................6
5.0 Prehistoric Archaeological Context.................................................................6
6.0 Ethnographic Background .............................................................................10
7.0 Historic Context ...............................................................................................12
8.0 Field Procedures and Methods. .....................................................................14
9.0 Report of Findings............................................................................................14
10.0 Management Recommendations.................................................................14
11.0 References.......................................................................................................14 Appendix I ...................................................................................................................17 Appendix II ..................................................................................................................21 List of Figures
1 Project Area Location Map..............................................................................7 2 Project Area, View to the West ........................................................................9 3 Project Area, View to the South.......................................................................9 4 1.0 Introduction
At the request of PDA, Inc., Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates conducted a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, for an approximate 3.67-acre parcel for a proposed sports facility, located in the City of Bakersfield, California in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Phase I Cultural Resource Survey consisted of a pedestrian survey of the site and a cultural resource record search.
CEQA is a California statute passed in 1970. Governor Ronald Reagan signed it into law, after the federal government passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CEQA institutes a statewide policy of environmental protection. CEQA does not directly regulate land uses, but instead requires state and local agencies within California to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of environmental impacts of proposed projects and, in a departure from NEPA, adopt all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts. CEQA makes environmental protection a mandatory part of every California state and local agency's decision making process.
CEQA was signed into law in 1970, in a time of increasing public concern for the environment. The statute required that for any public project, the government must conduct an environmental study to examine what impacts the project might have on things like air/water quality, noise, transportation, biological resources, or cultural resources, and generate an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) documenting the impacts as well as any potential and planned mitigations. In 1972, state courts interpreted a public project as a development project that needed government approval.
In 1969, NEPA passed into law. It is similar to CEQA in that both statutes set forth a policy of environmental protection, and a protocol by which all agencies in their respective jurisdictions make environmental protection part of their decision making process. NEPA is narrower in scope than CEQA. NEPA applies only to projects receiving federal funding or approval by federal agencies, while CEQA applies to projects receiving any form of state or local approval, permit, or oversight. Thus, development projects in California funded only by private sources and not requiring approval by a federal agency would be exempt from NEPA; but would likely be subject to CEQA.
The CEQA statute, California Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., codifies a statewide policy of environmental protection. According to CEQA, state and local agencies must give consideration to environmental protection in regulating public and private activities and should not approve projects for which feasible and environmentally superior mitigation measures or alternatives exist.
CEQA mandates actions that all state and local agencies must do to advance this policy. Specifically, for any project under CEQA's jurisdiction with potentially significant environmental impacts, agencies must identify mitigation measures and alternatives by preparing an Environmental Impact Report and 5 must approve projects with feasible mitigation measures and the environmentally superior alternative. The California Natural Resources Agency promulgates the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Title 14 § 15000 et seq., which detail the protocol by which state and local agencies must comply with CEQA requirements. CEQA originally applied to only public projects, but California Supreme Court interpretation of the statute, as well as later revisions, expanded CEQA's jurisdiction to nearly all projects within California, including those proposed by private businesses and individuals. § 21002.1 states "Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so." For private projects, CEQA applies when a discretionary government permit or other entitlement for use is necessary.
The term "historical resources" shall include the following: (1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res.
Code § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.). (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. (3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code, § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
(D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The lead agency, the City of Bakersfield, is responsible for conducting the CEQA review and has final approval of the project. The City of Bakersfield is also responsible for coordinating with the project applicant, public, and associated agencies during the CEQA process.
6 2.0 Survey Location
The survey area is in the City of Bakersfield. The project area is located along the west side of Buena Vista Road, north of Pensinger Road in the E ½ of the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 24, T.30S., R.26E., Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian as displayed on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Stevens 7.5- minute quadrangle map (Figure 1). The proposed sports facility is located in the City of Bakersfield, California.
3.0 Record Search
A record search of the survey area and the environs within one half-mile was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Information Center. Scott M.
Hudlow conducted the record search on February 13, 2025, AIC# 25-080. The record search revealed that seventeen surveys have been conducted within one half-mile of the project area; however, none of these previous cultural resource surveys have addressed the current parcel. Four cultural resources have been recorded within one half-mile of the project area. These cultural resources include the SP line, a historic trash scatter, and a historic house. The last cultural resource is a prehistoric flake (Appendix II). No cultural resources were identified in the current project area.
4.0 Environmental Background
The project area is located at an elevation of 350 feet above mean sea level in the Great Central Valley, which is composed of two valleys-- the Sacramento Valley and the San Joaquin Valley. The project area is located in the central portion of the southern San Joaquin Valley, south of the Kern River.
The project area is denuded of native vegetation; it was as house lot with a series of vegetable beds to the west. Decorative floral species are present, including cacti and tropical plants, such as palms ( Figures 2 and 3).
5.0 Prehistoric Archaeological Context
Limited archaeological research has been conducted in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Thus, consensus on a generally agreed upon regional cultural chronology has yet to be developed. Most cultural sequences can be summarized into several distinct time periods: Early, Middle, and Late.
Sequences differ in their inclusion of various "horizons," "technologies," or "stages." A prehistoric archaeological summary of the southern San Joaquin Valley is available in Moratto (Moratto 1984).
Despite the preoccupation with chronological issues in most of the previous research, most suggested chronological sequences are borrowed from other regions with minor modifications based on sparse local data. 7 Figure 1
Project Area Location Map
8 The following chronology is based on Parr and Osborne's Paleo-Indian, Proto-Archaic, Archaic, Post-Archaic periods (Parr and Osborne 1992:44-47).
Most existing chronologies focus on stylistic changes of time-sensitive artifacts such as projectile points and beads rather than addressing the socioeconomic factors, which produced the myriad variations. In doing so, these attempts have encountered similar difficulties. These cultural changes are implied as environmentally determined, rather than economically driven.
Paleo-Indians, whom roamed the region approximately 12,000 years ago, were highly mobile individuals. Their subsistence is assumed to have been primarily big game, which was more plentiful 12,000 years ago than in the late twentieth century. However, in the Great Basin and California, Paleo people were also foragers who exploited a wide range of resources. Berries, seeds, and small game were also consumed. Their technology was portable, including manos (Parr and Osborne 1992:44). The paleo period is characterized by fluted Clovis and Folsom points, which have been identified throughout North America.
The Tulare Lake region in Kings County has yielded several Paleo-Indian sites, which have included fluted points, scrapers, chipped crescents, and Lake Mojave-type points (Morratto 1984:81-2).
The Proto-Archaic period, which dates from approximately 11,000 to 8,000 years ago, was characterized by a reduction in mobility and conversely an increase in sedentism. This period is classified as the Western Pluvial Lake Tradition or the Proto-Archaic, of which the San Dieguito complex is a major aspect (Moratto 1984: 90-99; Warren 1967). An archaeological site along Buena Vista Lake in southwestern Kern County displays a similar assemblage to the San Dieguito type site. Claude Warren proposes that a majority of Proto-Archaic southern California could be culturally classified as the San Dieguito Complex (Warren 1967). The Buena Vista Lake site yielded manos, millingstones, large stemmed and foliate points, a mortar, and red ochre. During this period, subsistence patterns began to change. Hunting focused on smaller game; plant collecting became more integral to survival. Large stemmed, lancelote (foliate) projectile points represent lithic technology. Millingstones become more prevalent. The increased sedentism possibly began to create regional stylistic and cultural differences not evident in the paleo period.
The Archaic period persisted in California for the next 4000 years. In 1959, Warren and McKusiak proposed a three-phase chronological sequence based on a small sample of burial data for the Archaic period (Moratto 1984:189; Parr and Osborne 1992:47). It is distinguished by increased sedentism and extensive seed and plant exploitation. Millingstones, shaped through use, were abundant.
Bedrock manos and metates were the most prevalent types of millingstones (Parr and Osborne 1992:45). The central valley began to develop distinct cultural variations, which can be distinguished by different regions throughout the valley, including Kern County.
9 Figure 2
Project Area, View to the West
Figure 3
Project Area, View to the South
10 In the Post-Archaic period enormous cultural variations began manifesting themselves throughout the entire San Joaquin Valley. This period extends into the contact period in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Sedentary village life was emblematic of the Post-Archaic period, although hunting and gathering continued as the primary subsistence strategy.
Agriculture was absent in California, partially due to the dense, predictable, and easily exploitable natural resources. The ancestral Yokuts have possibly been in the valley for the last three thousand years, and by the eighteenth century were the largest pre-contact population, approximately 40,000 individuals, in California (Moratto 1984).
6.0 Ethnographic Background
The Yokuts are a Penutian-speaking, non-political cultural group. Penutian speakers inhabit the San Joaquin Valley, the Bay Area, and the Central Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Yokuts are split into three major groups, the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothill Yokuts.
The southern San Joaquin Valley in the Shafter and associated Kern County area was home to the Yokuts tribelet, Yawelmani. The tribelets averaged 350 people in size, had a special name for themselves, and spoke a unique dialect of Yokuts. Land was owned collectively and every group member enjoyed the right to utilize food resources. The Yawelmani inhabited a strip of the southeastern San Joaquin Valley, north of the Kern River to the Tehachapi Mountains on the south, and from the mountains on the east, to approximately the old south fork of the Kern River on the west (Wallace 1978:449; Parr and Osborne 1992:19). The Yawelmani were the widest ranging of the Yokuts tribelets. A half dozen villages were located along the Kern River, including Woilo ("planting place" or "sowing place"), which was located in downtown Bakersfield, where the original Amtrak station was located. A second village was located across the Kern River from Woilo, on the west bank.
The Southern Valley Yokuts established a mixed domestic economy emphasizing fishing, hunting, fowling, and collecting shellfish, roots, and seeds.
Fish were the most prevalent natural resource; fishing was a productive activity throughout the entire year. Fish were caught in many different manners, including nets, conical basket traps, catching with bare hands, shooting with bows and arrows, and stunning fish with mild floral toxins. Geese, ducks, mud hens and other waterfowl were caught in snares, long-handled nets, stuffed decoys, and brushing brush to trick the birds to fly low into waiting hunters.
Mussels were gathered and steamed on beds of tule. Turtles and dogs were consumed. The dogs might have been raised for consumption (Wallace 1978:449-450).
Wild seeds and roots provided a large portion of the Yokuts’ diet. Tule seeds, grass seeds, fiddleneck, alfilaria were also consumed. Acorns, the staple crop for many California native cultures, were not common in the San Joaquin 11 Valley. Acorns were traded into the area, particularly from the foothills. Land mammals, such as rabbits, ground squirrels, antelope and tule elk, were not hunted often (Wallace 1978:450).
The Yokuts occupied permanent structures in permanent villages for most of the year. During the late and early summer, families left for several months to gather seeds and plant foods, shifting camp locations when changing crops.
Several different types of fiber-covered structures were common in Yokuts settlements. The largest was a communal tule mat-covered, wedge-shaped structure, which could house ten individuals. These structures were established in a row, with the village chief’s house in the middle and his messenger’s houses were located at the ends of the house row. Dance houses and assembly buildings were located outside the village living area (Nabokov and Easton 1989:301).
The Yokuts also built smaller, oval, single-family tule dwellings. These houses were covered with tall mohya stalks or with sewn tule mats. Bent-pole ribs frame these small houses. The Yokuts also built a cone-shaped dwelling, which was framed with poles tied together with a hoop and then covered with tule or grass. These cone-shaped dwellings were large enough to contain multiple fireplaces (Nabokov and Easton 1989:301). Other structures included matcovered granaries for storing food supplies, and a dirt-covered, communallyowned sweathouse.
Clothing was minimal; men wore a breechclout or were naked. Women wore a narrow fringed apron. Rabbitskin or mud hen blankets were worn during the cold season. Moccasins were worn in certain places; however, most people went barefoot. Men wore no head coverings, but women wore basketry caps when they carried burden baskets on their heads. Hair was worn long. Women wore tattoos from the corners of the mouth to the chin; both men and women had ear and nose piercings. Bone, wood or shell ornaments were inserted into the ears and noses (Wallace 1978:450-451).
Tule dominated the Yokut’s material culture. It was used for many purposes, including sleeping mats, wall coverings, cradles, and basketry.
Ceramics are uncommon to Yokuts culture as is true throughout most California native cultures. Basketry was common to Yokuts culture. Yokuts made cooking containers, conical burden baskets, flat winnowing trays, seed beaters, and necked water bottles. Yokuts also manufactured wooden digging sticks, fire drills, mush stirrers, and sinew-backed bows. Knives, projectile points, and scraping tools were chipped from imported lithic materials including obsidian, chert, and chalcedony. Stone mortars and pestles were secured in trade.
Cordage was manufactured from milkweed fibers, animal skins were tanned, and awls were made from bone. Marine shells, particularly olivella shells, were used in the manufacture of money and articles of personal adornment. Shells were acquired from the Chumash along the coast (Wallace 1978:451-453). 12 The basic social and economic unit was the nuclear family. Lineages were organized along patrilineal lines. Fathers transmitted totems, particular to each paternal lineage, to each of his children. The totem was a bird or animal that no lineage member would kill or eat; the totems were dreamed of and prayers were given to the totems. The mother’s totem was not passed to her offspring, but was treated with respect. Families sharing the same totem formed an exogamous lineage. The lineage had no formal leader nor did it own land.
The lineage was a mechanism for transmitting offices and performing ceremonial functions. The lineages formed two moieties, East and West, which consisted of several different lineages. Moieties were customarily exogamous. Children followed the paternal moiety. Certain official positions within the villages were associated with certain totems. The most important was the Eagle lineage from which the village chief was appointed. A member of the Dove lineage acted as the chief’s assistant. He supervised food distribution and gave commands during ceremonies. Another hereditary position was common to the Magpie lineage, was that of spokesman or crier.
7.0 Historic Overview
The city of Bakersfield was settled in the 1860s, soon after California joined the United States after the passage of the Compromise of 1850. The Compromise of 1850 allowed California to join the Union as a free state even though a major portion of the state lied beneath the Missouri Compromise line and was potentially subject to southern settlement and slavery. Americans had long been visiting and working in California prior to the admission of California into the Union.
European exploration of the region begins in the 1770s with the Spanish.
In 1772, Pedro Fages arrived in the San Joaquin Valley searching for army deserters. Father Francisco Garces, a Jesuit priest, soon visited the vicinity in 1776. The Spanish empire collapsed in 1820, and California became Mexican territory. American exploration of the San Joaquin Valley begins in the 1820s with Jedediah Smith, Kit Carson, and Joseph Walker looking for commercial opportunities. The United States government began exploring California in the 1830s. Soon, the Americans will be searching for intercontinental railroad routes to link the eastern and western halves of the continent.
The defeat of the Mexicans during the Mexican-American War and the subsequent discovery of gold will drastically alter the complicated political realities of the west. The Mexican-American War was ostensible fought to settle a boundary dispute with the Mexicans over the western boundary of the newlyannexed state of Texas, which had fought a successful rebellion against the Mexican Army in the mid-1830s. The Republic of Texas was an independent country for nine years until Texas was annexed by the United States in 1845. The outcome of the Mexican-American War was that Mexico rescinded its claims to much of the American southwest, in 1848, bringing these territories into the United States, including California.
13 In January 1848, the discovery of gold in Coloma, California changed the settlement of California, forever. In the summer of 1849, when the gold strike was publicly announced, the overnight settlement of California began. The Mexican population of California was small and limited to the coasts and a few of southern California’s interior valleys. A sizable native population settled the remainder of California; Bakersfield and Kern County was Yokuts territory. The Gold Rush tipped the balance of native communities throughout California, as many of California’s natives were decimated.
Many areas experienced smaller gold rushes, including the Kern River Valley, when gold was discovered in Keyesville in 1853. The gold was soon played and the true future of the region was soon identified, farming, as the gold prospectors came down from the mountains. Kern Island, a median point along the Kern Delta, between the mouth of the Kern River and the Kern Lake, was settled in 1860. Soon, Col. Thomas Baker bought the property from the original owner, Christian Bohna and the settlement of Bakersfield began in earnest.
Col. Baker was lured to California by the prospects of gold but was tamed by the farming. He was a practicing lawyer and surveyor and was slowly moving west from Ohio. He was involved in Iowa’s territorial government and served in both the California senate and assembly before arriving in the area in the 1840s and 1850s. Col. Baker realized he had to drain the Kern Delta to manufacture usable farmland, and he also improved his land, creating one of the only transit locations between Los Angeles and Visalia in the 1860s.
Baker laid out the town and began the process of draining, diverting, and controlling the Kern River. In 1873, Bakersfield was incorporated and was the first city in the newly-created Kern County, which was previously a portion of Tulare County. In 1874, Bakersfield got a rail link with the establishment of the Southern Pacific line over the Tehachapi Pass. The train station was located in Sumner, a spite town that was established by the Southern Pacific about a mile east of downtown Bakersfield, now located in east Bakersfield. Bakersfield could now flourish as an agricultural community, producing fruits and grains.
The city of Bakersfield expanded to the north in the early twentiethcentury toward the Kern River, after its 1898 reincorporation. The city centered along Chester Avenue, which was the main north/south thoroughfare. The community of Sumter lied to the east, and the surrounding area in all directions was farmland. The city of Bakersfield was a small community at the turn of the century, slightly less than 5,000 people lived in Bakersfield; an additional 17,000 people lived in Kern County (Maynard 1997:43). Bakersfield was a quiet city in the center of a farming region.
However, the discovery of the Kern River oil field in May 1899 quickly changed the face of the region. Bakersfield quickly became the center of a California oil boom, which made over the community. The population more than doubled in less than ten years, bringing prosperity to the area (Maynard 1997:43). Many people recognized that prosperity could not only be achieved 14 through working in oil, but also through providing necessary services, such as milk products and lodging. The city of Bakersfield grew tremendously.
8.0 Field Procedures and Methods
On February 27, 2025, Scott M. Hudlow (Appendix I for qualifications) conducted a pedestrian survey of the entire proposed project area. Hudlow surveyed in east/west transects at 5-meter (16 feet) intervals across the entire parcel.
9.0 Report of Findings
No cultural resources were identified; however, a house, which did not meet the minimum age requirements for recordation, had recently been demolished in anticipation of the current project. The house was less than fortyfive years old, which is the minimum requirement for potential inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources.
10.0 Management Recommendations
At the request of the PDA Inc., a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was conducted at an approximate 3.50-acre parcel for a proposed sports facility, located in the City of Bakersfield, California. The Phase I Cultural Resource Survey consisted of a pedestrian survey of the site and a cultural resource record search.
No cultural resources were identified. No further work is required. If archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, a qualified archaeologist should be consulted for further evaluation.
If human remains or potential human remains are observed during construction, work in the vicinity of the remains will cease, and they will be treated in accordance with the provisions of State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The protection of human remains follows California Public Resources Codes, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99.
11.0 References
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Orlando, Florida, Academic Press.
Nabokov, Peter and Robert Easton
1989 Native American Architecture. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.
15 Parr, Robert E. and Richard Osborne
1992 Route Adoption Study for Highway 58, Kern County, California.
Report on file, Southern San Joaquin Archaeological Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield, Bakersfield, California.
Wallace, William J.
1978 "Southern Valley Yokuts" in Handbook of North American Indians.
Vol. 8, California, Robert F. Heizer, ed. Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution, pp. 437-445.
Warren, Claude N. and M. B. McKusiak
1959 A Burial Complex from the southern San Joaquin Valley. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1959: 17-26.
Warren, Claude N.
1967 "The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis" American Antiquity 32(2): 168-185.
16 17
Appendix I
18 19
Scott M. Hudlow
1405 Sutter Lane
Bakersfield, California 93309
(661) 834-9183
Education
The George Washington University
M.A. American Studies, 1993
Specialization in Historical Archaeology
and Architectural History
University of California, Berkeley
B.A. History, 1987
B.A. Anthropology, 1987
Specialization in Historical Archaeology
and Colonial History
Public Service
3/94-12/02 Historic Preservation Commission. City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield, California 93305.
7/97-12/01 Newsletter Editor. California History Action, newsletter for the California Council for the Promotion of History.
Relevant Work Experience
8/96- Adjutant Faculty. Bakersfield College, 1801 Panorama Drive, Bakersfield, California, 93305. Teach History 17A, Introduction to American History, History 17B, History 18, and Anthropology 5, Introduction to North American Indians.
Owner, Sole Proprietorship. Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates. 1405 Sutter Lane, Bakersfield California 93309. Operate small cultural resource management business. Manage contracts, respond to RFP's, bill clients, manage temporary employees. Conduct Phase I archaeological and architectural surveys for private and public clients; including the cultural resource survey, documentary photography, measured drawings, mapping of structures, filing of survey forms, historic research, assessing impact and writing reports. Evaluated archaeological and architectural sites and properties in lieu of their eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places in association with Section 106 and 110 requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act).
Full resume available upon request.
20 21
Appendix II
22 23
24 25
26 27
1518 Mill Rock Way, Suite 100, Bakersfield, CA 93311-1351 • Tel: (661) 616-5900 www.provostandpritchard.com
Engineering • Structural • Geostructural • Surveying • Planning • Environmental • GIS • Construction Services • Hydrogeology • Consulting Clovis • Visalia • Bakersfield • Modesto • Los Banos • Chico • Sacramento • Sonora • San Luis Obispo • Riverside • Camarillo • Boise, ID July 9, 2025
APVJ LLC
c/o Andy Erb
12810 Margate Ct.
Bakersfield, CA 93311
RE: Trip Generation & Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis for Sports Facility in Bakersfield, CA Dear Mr. Erb:
This letter is in response to your request for trip generation and vehicle miles traveled analysis for a proposed 31,500 square foot sports training facility located on Buena Vista Road, north of Pensinger Road in Bakersfield, CA. The project is located at APNs 535-020-05 & 535-020-10.
Trip Generation
The trip generation and design hour volumes are shown in Table 1. The facility will accommodate a total of 72 youth players, six coaches, and will employee up to four staff members during business hours. It was assumed, for purposes of determining the trip generation for the project, that there would be one practice session per night. Practice is expected to take place during after-school, evening hours. Tournaments will occasionally take place on the weekends and project traffic is anticipated to be dispersed throughout the day. Vehicle trips associated with tournaments will take place during non-peak hours on the weekends and are not expected to reach City traffic study analysis thresholds.
It was estimated that 72 players will arrive during a practice session on a given night, and it was assumed that 25% of the players will carpool together. The average daily traffic (ADT) rate was calculated using the conservative estimate that players will be driven to practice by a parent or guardian who will then depart for the duration of practice and return during the peak hour for pick up. It was assumed that spectators would arrive with a player and that six coaches will be present per practice. Some staff and coaches will be arriving during non-peak hour times, and therefore half of the staff and coaches will arrive during the PM peak hour.
APVJ LLC July 9, 2025
Trip Generation & Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis for Sports Facility in Bakersfield, CA Page 2 of 3 04513-25-001
Engineering • Structural • Geostructural • Surveying • Planning • Environmental • GIS • Construction Services • Hydrogeology • Consulting Clovis • Visalia • Bakersfield • Modesto • Los Banos • Chico • Sacramento • Sonora • San Luis Obispo • Riverside • Camarillo • Boise, ID Table 1
Trip Generation
From Table 1, it can be seen that the project is anticipated to generate approximately 236 daily trips, with 64 trips during the PM peak hour. Upon review of the population centers and access to the project, it is anticipated that the distribution of traffic will yield fewer than 50 trips at adjacent intersections. Therefore, no further intersection analysis will be required.
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
In 2013, the state of California enacted legislation (SB 743) which required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to recommend new metrics for assessing and mitigating transportation impacts within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Regulatory changes to CEQA Guidelines adopting the use of a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric were approved on December 28, 2018. Statewide implementation began July 1, 2020.
OPR also released a Technical Advisory on December 28, 2018, which provides guidance related to the evaluation of VMT as part of a transportation impact analysis under CEQA. The advisory contains recommendations regarding VMT assessment, significance thresholds and mitigation measures.
Under CEQA, lead agencies have the authority to establish their own VMT significance thresholds and analysis methodologies or rely on thresholds and methodologies recommended by other agencies, provided such guidelines are supported by substantial evidence. At the time of this study, the City of Bakersfield had not developed or adopted a VMT policy, so the VMT analysis was conducted pursuant to the OPR Technical Advisory.
The Technical Advisory and CEQA Guidelines identify project types that are presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT, and therefore, a less than significant impact on transportation. The OPR Technical Advisory also contains “screening thresholds” for identifying whether a land use project should be expected to result in a less than significant transportation impact. Projects meeting one or more of these screening criteria would not be required to undergo a detailed VMT analysis.
One screening threshold pertains to locally-serving commercial developments. According to the Technical Advisory, projects less than 50,000 square feet can be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact since they typically provide a more proximate shopping destination, resulting In Out
% Split/
Trips
% Split/
Trips
54 50% 50%
Players 27 27
4 50% 50%
Staff 2 2
6 50% 50%
Coaches 3 3
236 32 32
Development Type Variable ADT Rate ADT
Total
General Information Daily Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Athletic Facility 4 216
Athletic Facility
Athletic Facility
2 2
8 12
APVJ LLC July 9, 2025
Trip Generation & Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis for Sports Facility in Bakersfield, CA Page 3 of 3 04513-25-001
Engineering • Structural • Geostructural • Surveying • Planning • Environmental • GIS • Construction Services • Hydrogeology • Consulting Clovis • Visalia • Bakersfield • Modesto • Los Banos • Chico • Sacramento • Sonora • San Luis Obispo • Riverside • Camarillo • Boise, ID in shortened trip lengths. Since the proposed project is a locally-serving commercial development less than 50,000 square feet, it is presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact under CEQA. Therefore, no detailed VMT analysis is required.
Please contact me should you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Ian J. Parks
R.C. E. 58155
VERIFICATION OF WATER SERVICE
April 3, 2025
To:
Melissa Snyder
KSI Engineering, Inc.
6205 District Blvd
Bakersfield, CA. 93313
(661) 808-6683
Re: Municipal Water Service to 5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road of Lot Line Adjustment 12-0174, being an adjustment of Parcels 1 & 3 of grant deed recorded October 12, 1999 as document No. 0199146000, in the office of the Kern County Land Company, containing 3.29 and .38 gross acres, located north of Pensinger Road on the west side of Buena Vista Road.
Dear Melissa,
This is not and should not be considered as a “Will Serve Letter” but only as verification that the property is located within or adjacent to the City of Bakersfield Municipal Water System Area boundary. The “Will Serve Letter” may be produced for final map requirements after the signature of the Municipal Water Service Agreement by the property owner(s) and payment of all fees.
City of Bakersfield
Water Department
____________________________
Jeff Garnett
Municipal Water Supervisor
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP AND ZONE
CHANGE, LOCATED AT 5525 AND 5543 BUENA VISTA
ROAD (GPA/ZC NO. PP-CGPA-24-0001).
WHEREAS, KSI Engineering, Inc. (applicant), on behalf of APVJ, LLC (property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to OSP (Parks); and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from A-20A (Agricultural – 20-acre minimum) to RE (Recreation) on 3.67 acres locatedat 5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road in southwest Bakersfield (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Thursday, January 15, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Project as required by Government Code Section 65353, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code;and WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by City staff and the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department (1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings:
1. All required public notices have been given. The MND was circulated for public review between December 5, 2025, and January 5, 2026. 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, at least 20 days prior to thehearing.