Bakersfield City Council
May 27, 2026

......., -~

BAKERSFIELD
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
□ □ □
a. Less than significant impact. The implementation of the Project would generate short-term increases in air emissions from construction activities that would occur as a result of the proposed development. The major construction activities that would occur include site preparation and grading, excavation, earthmoving, and grading for construction of utilities, on-site and off-site roads, parking areas, residence foundations, and landscaping, housing construction, asphalt paving of on-site roadways, and application of architectural coatings. The construction activities would generate dust emissions primarily from soil disturbance; exhaust emissions from construction equipment and motor vehicle operation; and the release of emissions during the finishing phase including paving and the application of architectural coatings. The construction activities that would occur off-site could include delivery of building materials and supplies to the sites and the transport of construction employees to and from the sites. The construction activities would vary substantially day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operations, and the climatic conditions.

The CalEEMod model was used to estimate the GHG emissions due to construction activities as a result of the Project with "business as usual" conditions (EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. 2023). The construction activities for the Project would generate a maximum of 1 ,065 metric tons per year of CO2e of GHG emissions. This represents 0.00017 percent of the 2016 GHG emissions in the State of California (which is 429,400,000 metric tons of CO2e) (EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. 2023). Therefore, the short term GHG emissions as a result of the Project will be less than significant.

It is anticipated that the operation of the Project would have the potential to result in long-term increases in air emissions that would generate GHGs that could contribute to global climate change. The majority of the long-term GHG emissions would be generated by motor vehicles traveling to and from the Project site. Area source emissions would result from fuel combustion, landscape maintenance equipment, and consumer products.

The CalEEMod model was used to estimate the GHG emissions due to mobile source emissions and area source emissions as a result of the Project with "business as usual" conditions (EnviroTech Consultants, 2023). The operation of the Project based on "business as usual" conditions" would result in 5,835 metric tons per year of CO2e of GHG emissions. This represents 0.00075 percent of the CO2e of 2016 GHG emissions in the State of California (which is 429,400,000 metric tons of CO2e) (EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. 2023). Therefore, the long term GHG emissions as a result of the operation of the proposed project will be less than significant also. b. Less than significant impact. CARB is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. As proposed, the project would not conflict with any statewide policy, regional plan, or local guidance or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The project would not interfere with the implementation of AB 32 and SB 375 because it would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction targets identified by CARB and the Scoping Plan as described in VIII.a. The project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts are less than significant.

S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Page 21 of40 ......., -~

BAKERSFIELD
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Im act
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
lncor orated
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Less Than
Significant
Im act
□
□
No
□
□
□
□
□
a. Less than significant Impact. The Project proposes to develop 38 residential units and therefore, does not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Material Transportation Uniform Safety Act. 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 S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Page 22of40 ......., -~
BAKERSFIELD Environmental Checklist and Analysis
the Project, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all applicable materials present at the site would be made readily available to onsite personnel. During construction, non-hazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of at approved facilities for handling such waste. Also, during construction, waste disposal would be managed using portable toilets located at reasonably accessible onsite locations.

Day-to-day activities from the Project operations do not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. Maintenance of residential buildings would require the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides. Building tenants are required to follow any instructions for use and storage provided on product labels carefully to prevent any accidents in the workplace. 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 IX.a. The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment, making impacts less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The Air Quality Analysis concluded that the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people (EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. 2023). As mentioned above, the project would be required to adhere to all applicable federal and state laws and regulations with respect to the handling of hazardous materials, making impacts less than significant.
d. No impact. The EnviroStor {DTSC 2023) and Cortese (CalEPA 2023) lists 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 2012). The closest airport to the site is the Bakersfield Municipal Airport, which is located approximately 3 miles northeast. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. The project is not located within the specified distance or within 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 consistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Bakersfield 1997).

This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Page 23of40 ......., -~
BAKERSFIELD Environmental Checklist and Analysis
or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, making impacts 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 {CalFire 2022). The site is surrounded by extensively developed land, and its vicinity is 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, making impacts less than significant.

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
Potentially
Significant
Im act
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
lncor orated
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Less Than
Significant
Im act
igJ
No
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

......., -~
BAKERSFIELD Environmental Checklist and Analysis
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 storm water discharges are covered under the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board ("CVRWQCB") National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Order No. RS-2016-0040; NPDES No. CAS0085324) (MS4 Permit) (CVRWQCB 2016). The MS4 Permit mandates the implementation of a storm water management framework to ensure that water quality is maintained despite operational storm water 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, making impacts less than significant.
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 District who has provided a Will-Serve letter for the project, which receives at least a portion of its supplies from groundwater sources. Also, by state law, current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) do 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, making impacts less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The following responses to items X.d. through X.g. discuss whether the project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces. The project's impact is less than significant.
d. Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain any blue-line streams or other surface water features; therefore, the proposed development would not alter the course of a river or stream.

The site would be graded and, as a result, the internal drainage pattern would be altered from the baseline condition. Additionally, the project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces on-site (i.e., building pads, sidewalks, asphalt parking area, etc.), which would reduce percolation of water into ground and result in greater amounts of storm water runoff concentrations. If uncontrolled, differences in drainage patterns and increased impervious surfaces could result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. However, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit during construction and MS4 Permit during operation. To comply with the MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with adopted building codes, including complying with an approved drainage plan that avoids on- and off-site flooding, erosion, and siltation problems.

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 off-site, making impacts less than significant. e. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.d. The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Page 25of40 ......., -~
BAKERSFIELD Environmental Checklist and Analysis
a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, the project's impact is less than significant. f. Less than significant impact. To comply with the City's MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with an approved drainage plan that would avoid on- and off-site flooding. The project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, making impacts less than significant.
g. Less than significant Impact. A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Maps shows the project site is in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain. Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows, making impacts less than significant. h. Less than significant impact. The City of Bakersfield is located within Central California and is not near a coastal environment that risks flood inundation. In addition, the City is not located within a tsunami zone as identified by the California Department of Conservation's Tsunami Map. As mentioned above, the project site is in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain.

The site, like most of the City, is located within the Lake Isabella flood inundation area (Kern County 2017), which is the area that would experience flooding if there was a catastrophic failure of the Lake Isabella Dam. There is an approved Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan (Kern County 2009) that establishes processes and procedures for the mass evacuation and short-term support of populations at risk below the Lake Isabella Dam. The City would utilize the Evacuation Plan to support its Emergency Operations Plans. 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, making impacts less than significant. i. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.d. There is currently no adopted groundwater management plan for the project site or surrounding area. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, making impacts less than significant.

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
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
□
□
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 S:\ 03_Advonc e Plonning\ 01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\ 22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\ 04 _CEQA \ MND\ IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Page 26of40 ......., -~
BAKERSFIELD Environmental Checklist and Analysis
wall, etc., that would have the potential to divide a community. The project consists of the development of 38 residential units adjacent to existing residential development. The development of the proposed project will not impede existing or future movement or development of the City.
b. No impact. Upon approval of the general plan amendment and zone change, the project would be consistent with both the MBGP and Zoning Ordinance. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
lmeact lncoreorated lmeact lmeact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral □ □ □ resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local □ □ □ general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Discussion
a. No impact. The project site is not within the administrative boundaries of an oilfield and there are no oil wells found on the site (DOC 2022b). Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
b. No Impact. The project site is currently designated ER (Estate Residential) and SR (Suburban Residential). No portion of the site is designated for potential mineral resource extraction use such as R-MP (Mineral and Petroleum). Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
□
□

......., -~

BAKERSFIELD
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
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
□ □ □
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 the transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site, as well as construction worker commutes. 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 for 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 AM and 9:00 PM on weekdays, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM 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. Parking lot noise, including engine sounds, car doors slamming, car alarms, loud music, and people conversing, would also occur at the project site. It was determined that the noise levels at all points around the project site would experience noise level impacts that would be less than the City's daytime and nighttime maximum noise level standards of 75 dBA and 70 dBA.

Considering the above points, the project would not generate a substantial, temporary, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project that are in excess of the standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Therefore, the project's 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 residential development would not generate ground-borne vibration. Therefore, the project would not result in the generation of excessive ground-borne vibrations or ground-borne noise, making impacts less than significant.

S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Page 2Bof40 ......., -~
BAKERSFIELD Environmental Checklist and Analysis
c . No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area or within the vicinity of a private airstrip (Kern County 2012). Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.

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
Potentially
Significant
Im act
□
□
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
lncor orated
□
□
Less Than
Significant
Im act
No
□
□
a. Less than significant impact. The project would accommodate population growth in this area through the development of new residential units. The project is adjacent to existing and planned residential development and is therefore the logical extension of existing urban development.

Bakersfield has experienced approximately 13% growth in population (347,483 people in 2010 to 394,328 in 2019) since 2010 (DOF 2019a and DOF 2019b). It is predicted that by 2040, 1,137,676 people will live in Kern County (DOF 2019c). Given that 42.5% of the people in Kern County currently live in Bakersfield (DOF 2019b), and if this trend continues, it is estimated that about 483,512 people would live in Bakersfield in 2040. This means that by 2040, 81,951 additional people would need housing in the Bakersfield area. This project accommodates this projected increase in Bakersfield's population by providing residences for existing and future residents in Bakersfield.

Therefore, the project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. The proposed project site is currently developed with single-family homes, mobilehomes, and various accessory structures. The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and impacts are less than significant.

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:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact

......., -~
BAKERSFIELD Environmental Checklist and Analysis
i. Fire protection?
□ □ ~ □ ii. Police protection?
□ □ ~ □ iii. Schools?
□ □ ~ □ iv. Parks?
□ □ ~ □ V. Other public facilities? □ □ ~ □
Discussion
a. The following discusses whether the project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts to public services. The need for additional public service is generally directly correlated to population 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 Kern County.

A potential increase in services can be paid for via property taxes generated by this development. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, or response times or other performance objectives for fire protection. Therefore, the 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 via property taxes generated by this development. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, or response times or other performance objectives for police protection. Therefore, the impacts are less than significant.
iii. Less than significant impact. The Project is growth accommodating and therefore, the need for additional schools can be paid for by existing school impact fees and increased property tax revenues. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Page 30of40 ......., -~
BAKERSFIELD Environmental Checklist and Analysis
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, impacts are less than significant.
iv. Less than significant impact. The project is growth accommodating and therefore, may cause the need for additional recreational opportunities. However, residential projects are required to follow the parkland requirements that are calculated based on the General Plan and City Ordinance park standards of 2.5 acres for every 1,000 people. Every residential unit must pay a park land development fee at the time of issuance of building permits. Compliance with Municipal Code 15.80 park acreage dedication and the park development fee ensures that parks are dedicated and built in accordance with City standards to accommodate the increased population. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions of new or physically altered government 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, impacts are less than significant.
v. Less-than-significant impact. The project and any potential new development of this area would result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City. This potential increase can be paid for via property taxes generated by this development. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, or response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities. Therefore, the impacts are less than significant.

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
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
□
□
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.

S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Page 31 of40 ......., -~
BAKERSFIELD Environmental Checklist and Analysis
b. No impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. 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.

Potentially
Significant
Im act
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
lncor orated
Less Than
Significant
Im act
No
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project result in:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy □ □ □ b.

C.
d.
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant Impact with mitigation incorporated. The project would result in temporary construction-related traffic impacts. Construction workers traveling to and from the project site as well as construction material delivery would result in additional vehicle trips to the area's roadway system. Construction material delivery may require numerous 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 the level of service on area roadways and at intersections. Additionally, the total number of vehicle trips associated with all construction-related traffic, including construction worker trips, could temporarily increase daily traffic volumes on local roadways and intersections. The project may require temporary lane closures or the need for flagmen to safely direct traffic on roadways near the project site. However, once the project is built, it would not result in any permanent traffic-related effects.

A Trip Generation letter was completed and reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department (ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition), along with the proposed site plans. It was determined that the project has been designed in accordance with City development standards, and appropriate standard conditions of approval have been assigned to the project. The conditions include the dedication and improvement of streets, traffic control measures during construction, and pedestrian access. Also, Mitigation Measure 6 will require the applicant to participate in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program by paying the adopted fees in place for the land use type at time of development. Overall, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, making impacts less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Page 32of40 ......., -~
BAKERSFIELD Environmental Checklist and Analysis
b. Less-than-significant impact. Section 15064.3 of the updated California Code of Regulations ("CCR" or CEQA Guidelines), statewide application came into effect July 1, 2020. This CCR Section 15064.3(b) states:

Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts.
(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within onehalf mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing highquality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease VMT in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
(2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, VMT should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.
(3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the VMT for the project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project's VMT qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate. (4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's VMT, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project's VMT and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate VMT and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

The traffic analysis concluded that 500 trips per day is a reasonable threshold to cause less than significant VMT. Since the GPA/ZC only generates 319 trips per weekday and 173 trips per Saturday, it falls below this threshold. The VMT's and Trips generated by this expected project are not significant and do not meet a threshold to require further study, therefore impacts are less than significant.
c. Less-than-significant impact. The project would have to comply with all conditions placed on it by the City Traffic Engineering Division to meet accepted traffic engineering standards intended to reduce traffic hazards. The project is within City limits and surrounded by compatible existing and planned land uses and land use designations, and it would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, making impacts less than significant.

S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Page 33of40 ......., -~
BAKERSFIELD Environmental Checklist and Analysis
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 the Public Works Department. 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, making impacts less than significant.

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
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
□
□
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 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, therefore impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant Impact. Please refer to response XVIII.a. There are no tribal cultural resources determined by the lead agency to be of significance on-site. 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, making impacts less than significant.

S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Page 34 of40 ......., -~

BAKERSFIELD
XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project result in:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's Projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
□
□
□
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
□
□
□
□
□
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 general manufacturing development. Water, storm water, and sewer structures would have to be designed to meet the City's Current Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual (Bakersfield 1999). Compliance with the Design Manual would ensure that the 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 citing protocols to ensure that placement of new utilities to serve new construction would not have a significant effect on the environment. The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, making impacts less than significant. b. Less-than-significant impact. The project is within the City of Bakersfield Water Resources service area. The City has provided a letter stating that water service can be supplied in compliance with their current UWMP that accounts for normal, dray, and multiple dry years (City of Bakersfield 2022). Therefore, the project has sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years, making impacts less than significant.

S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Page 35of40 ......., -~
BAKERSFIELD Environmental Checklist and Analysis
c . Less-than-significant Impact. Wastewater as a result of the project would be treated at Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) No. 3, which is owned and operated by the City. WWTP No. 3 has an overall capacity of 32 MGD and a current available capacity of 14.7 MGD (Bakersfield 2023).

WWTP No. 3 has sufficient capacity to serve the project. As a result, it has been determined that the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments, making impacts less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. It is assumed that solid waste generated because of the project would be disposed of 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, making impacts 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, making impacts less than significant.

Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
lm~act lncor~orated lm~act lm~act
XX. WILDFIRES: Would the project result in:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response □ □ □ plan or emergency evacuation plan? b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or □ □ □ the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? C. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or □ □ □ ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage □ □ □ changes? S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Page 36of40 ......., -~
BAKERSFIELD Environmental Checklist and Analysis
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 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 1997). 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, making impacts 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 surroundings 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. 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, making impacts 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. 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, making impacts less than significant. d. Less than significant impact. The project site is relatively flat, is not within a floodplain, and is not in a moderate risk to high-risk area for wildfires. The project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides because of runoff, postfire slope instability, or drainage changes, making impacts less than significant.

XXL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Would the project result in:
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of life of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
□
S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
□ □
□

......., -~

BAKERSFIELD
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
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
□ □ □
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project, with the implementation of the identified conditions of approval, best management practices, and mitigation measures, would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, making impacts less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b. Less than significant impact. Under Section 15065(0) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that said project has potential environmental effects "that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable." This section further states that cumulatively considerable means "that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects."
Past, present, and future projects in proximity to the project were considered and evaluated as part of this Initial Study. Also, in addition to project specific impacts, this Initial Study considered the project's potential for incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable. As described in the responses above, there is no substantial evidence that there are cumulative effects associated with this project. In addition, any future development projects not identified above would be required to undergo a separate environmental analysis and mitigate any projectspecific or site-specific potential impacts, making impacts 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, making impacts less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

S:\ 03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Page 38of40 ......., -~
BAKERSFIELD Environmental Checklist and Analysis

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

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

Available:< https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/943/Subdivision-Engineering-Design-Manual > Accessed: April 15, 2023
Bakersfield. 2023. Wastewater Treatment Plants. Available:
<http://www.ba kersfieldcity .us/ gov/ depts/public_ works/sewer /wastewater _treatment_pla nts.htm>.

Accessed: April 15, 2023.

CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2023. Cortese List Data Resources. Available:
<https://calepa.ca.gov /sitecleanup/corteselist/>. Accessed: April 18, 2023.

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

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

Accessed: April 18, 2023.

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2022. California State Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available:<
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f 1 a acaa>. Accessed: April 18, 2023.

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

April.

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

Available :<https://www.waterboards.ca .gov/ centralvalley /board_ decisions/ adopted_ orders/ general_ orders/r5-2016-0040_ms4.pdf>. Accessed: April 18, 2023.

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

Available:< https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp >. Accessed: April 18, 2023.

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

Available:< https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp>. Accessed: April 18, 2023.

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

Available:<https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>. Accessed: April 18, 2023.

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

Accessed: April 18, 2023.

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

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

Accessed: April 18, 2023.

S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Page 39of40 ......., -~
BAKERSFIELD Environmental Checklist and Analysis
Kern County. 2012. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. November.

Kern County. 2017. Lake Isabella Flood Area. Available:< https://kernpublicworks.com/building-andcode/floodplain-management/lake-isabella-flood-area/>. Accessed: April 18, 2023.

SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March.

EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. 2022. Air Quality (AQ) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Analysis Level Assessment. November.

Pruett Biological Resource Consulting. 2023. Biological Resource Evaluation, Stine Road Development Project Assessor Parcel Number 532-020-17 and -20 Bakersfield, CA. March.

Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates. 2025. A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, Stine Avenue GPA/ZC, Assessor Parcel Number 532-020-17 & 532-020-20, Bakersfield, California. December.

ITE 11th Edition Formulas. 2022. Trip Generation Analysis Letter. October.

S:\03_Advonce Plonning\01_GPAs\01 _Active \2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\04 _CEQA \MND\IS_MND_GPA_ZC_SPR_22-0372.docxx Page 40of40 5400 Rosedale Highway • Bakersfield, CA 93308 • ph 661-377-0073 • fax 661-377-0074 5400 Rosedale Hwy
Bakersfield, CA 93308
ph. 661.377.0073
Small Project Analysis Level Assessment
Project Title
VTT 7418
GPA/ZC No. TBD
Project Location
Stine Road and Ryzona Drive
City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California
APN: 532-020-17 and 532-020-20
November 9, 2022
Submitted to:

Deepinder Singh Grewal
3323 Pendragon Street
Bakersfield, CA 93313
Cornerstone Engineering
208 Oak Street
Bakersfield, CA 93304
5400 Rosedale Highway • Bakersfield, CA 93308 • ph 661-377-0073 • fax 661-377-0074 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.....................................................................................................................11

7.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................12 TABLES
Table 2-1: Assessor’s Parcel Numbers and Area for Project Site.................................... 2 Table 3-1: Small Project Analysis Level in Units for Residential ...................................... 3 Table 3-2: Small Project Analysis Level in Residential 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............................................................... 8 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 Modeling
Exhibit F Trip Generation Analysis
EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. Page 1
SPAL
5400 Rosedale Highway • Bakersfield, CA 93308 • ph 661-377-0073 • fax 661-377-0074

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Envirotech Consultants, Inc. has prepared a limited air quality assessment for a residential development to identify the potential impacts on air quality resulting from the project. The development consists of 38 multi-family apartments located on APNs 532-020-17 and 532- 020-20. The proposed project occupies 3.71 gross 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.

EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. Page 2
SPAL
5400 Rosedale Highway • Bakersfield, CA 93308 • ph 661-377-0073 • fax 661-377-0074

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Project site occupies 3.71 gross acres (APNs 532-020-17 and 532-020-20) and is currently zoned R-S-2.5A with a land use of ER (estate residential) and SR (suburban residential). The proposed zone change is to zone R-2 with a change in land use to HMR (high medium density residential). The proposed development is limited to 38 multi-family apartments. The Project site is located northwest of the Stine Road and Ryzona Road intersection in southwest Bakersfield. The Project was assessed as if it would be 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 or not 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
532-020-17 3.51
532-020-20 0.20
Total Gross Acreage 3.71

2.2 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is located in the southwest portion of the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California northwest of the Stine Road and Ryzona Road intersection. Figure 2-1 depicts the project location.

Figure 2-1 Project Location
EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. Page 3
SPAL
5400 Rosedale Highway • Bakersfield, CA 93308 • ph 661-377-0073 • fax 661-377-0074

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 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 residential projects.

Table 3-1: Small Project Analysis Level in Units for Residential Land Use Category Project Size (Dwelling Units)*
Single Family 155
Apartments, Low Rise 224
Apartments, Mid Rise 225
Apartments, High Rise 340
Condominiums/Townhouse 256
Condominiums, High Rise 352
Mobile Home Park 292
Retirement Community 580
Congregate Care Assisted Living 536
Proposed Project – Apartments, Low Rise 38 Units
SPAL Exceeded? No
Notes:

Project size based on SPAL Table (November 13,2020), as posted on SJVAPCD webpage:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA Rules/GAMAQI-SPAL.pdf As shown in Table 3-1, the proposed project would not exceed the established SPAL limits for a ‘Single Family, Low Rise’ residential project. The project would construct 38 multi-family low rise apartments, which is below the allowable project size of 224 units. 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 residential projects. 1 SJVAPCD GAMAQI, Section 8.3.4, p. 85.

EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. Page 4
SPAL
5400 Rosedale Highway • Bakersfield, CA 93308 • ph 661-377-0073 • fax 661-377-0074 Table 3-2: Small Project Analysis Level in Residential Vehicle Trips Average Daily One-way Trips for
all fleet Types (except HHDT)
Average Daily One-way for
HHDT Trips only (50 mile trip
length)
800 15
Proposed Project 256 8
SPAL Exceeded? No No
Notes:

Project size based on SPAL Table (November 13,2020), as posted on SJVAPCD webpage:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA Rules/GAMAQISPAL.pdf As shown in Table 3-2, the proposed project would not exceed the established SPAL vehicle trip limits for Residential Housing. The project would generate 256 average daily trips compared to the allowable project vehicle trips for residential housing projects, which is 800 average daily trips. The HHDT is based on the CalEEMOD default HHD rates of about 3% 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.

EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. Page 5
SPAL
5400 Rosedale Highway • Bakersfield, CA 93308 • ph 661-377-0073 • fax 661-377-0074

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 EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. Page 6
SPAL
5400 Rosedale Highway • Bakersfield, CA 93308 • ph 661-377-0073 • fax 661-377-0074 persons, are present, and where there is a reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure to pollutants, according to the averaging period for ambient air quality standards, i.e. the 24-hour, 8hour or 1-hour standards. Commercial and industrial sources are not considered sensitive receptors.

EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. Page 7
SPAL
5400 Rosedale Highway • Bakersfield, CA 93308 • ph 661-377-0073 • fax 661-377-0074

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 38 multi-family residential units (see Attachment A) 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
(Mitigated)
Pollutant
(tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2023 Construction Emissions 0.05 0.31 2.43 0.00 0.07 0.03 2024 Construction Emissions 1.36 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Construction Emissions 1.41 0.32 2.60 0.00 0.07 0.03 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. The following changes to default values were incorporated during the CalEEMod analysis:
• Vehicle trips adjusted based on Trip generation analysis (Exhibit I).

Operational emission estimates also included the following mitigation measures even though the project was less than significant before mitigation:
• Improved walkability design;
• Improved Destination Accessibility;
• Improved pedestrian network;
EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. Page 8
SPAL
5400 Rosedale Highway • Bakersfield, CA 93308 • ph 661-377-0073 • fax 661-377-0074 • No hearths; and
• Use electric lawnmower, leaf blower, and chainsaw (3% per SJVAPCD).

Table 5-2: Total Project Operational Emissions
Emissions
Source
(Mitigated)
Pollutant
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
(tons/year)
Operational Emissions – 2023 Worst Case 0.71 0.25 1.44 0.00 0.27 0.07 SJVAPCD Operational Emissions Thresholds –
non-permitted sources 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
As calculated (see Attachment A), 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 Attachment A). 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
2024 Project Operations 299.37 0.29 0.02 311.65
The current inventory and forecast for GHG emissions in the California Air Resources Board’s 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan supports the 2011 IPPC estimates. The 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan also indicates that GHG emissions will increase to 596.41 million metric tons by 2020. It is widely understood that climate change is a “global” issue and, as such, GHG emissions are a cumulative problem and can only be evaluated as such.

The amount of CO2 that would be generated by the project is so small in relation to the California CO2 equivalent estimates for 2011 and 2022 (3,144.94 CO2e) that it’s not possible for the contribution of the project to be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the project would not generate a cumulatively considerable GHG impact nor would it conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The project will also not conflict with any elements of the California Air Resources Board’s 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Therefore, this potential impact is less than significant.

5.4. POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The proposed Project is located near the northwestern corner of Stine Road and Ryzona Road 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 EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. Page 9
SPAL
5400 Rosedale Highway • Bakersfield, CA 93308 • ph 661-377-0073 • fax 661-377-0074 receptors would likely reside. The closest schools are Ridgeview High School and Ridgeview Christian Preschool, which are both adjacent to 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.

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 residential development near other residential or multi-family developments. Residential neighborhoods and multi-family 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). Multi-family residential projects of less than 224 units and daily vehicle trips of less than 800 non-HHDT/15 HHDT would meet the screening threshold for an AAQA (SJVAPCD 2015 with updated Table dated November 13, 2020).

Because the proposed Project consists of 224 units and 256 daily vehicle trips of non-HHDT/8 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 multi-family residential Project and not expected to generate any TAC emissions. The Project would therefore not generate a health risk impact due to TAC EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. Page 10
SPAL
5400 Rosedale Highway • Bakersfield, CA 93308 • ph 661-377-0073 • fax 661-377-0074 emissions. Its potential health risk impacts would therefore be considered less than significant and no further health risk assessment is required.

EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. Page 11
SPAL
5400 Rosedale Highway • Bakersfield, CA 93308 • ph 661-377-0073 • fax 661-377-0074

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.

EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. Page 12
SPAL
5400 Rosedale Highway • Bakersfield, CA 93308 • ph 661-377-0073 • fax 661-377-0074

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.

EXHIBIT A

LOCATION MAP
Location Map – VTT 7418

EXHIBIT B

PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Project Location
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Parcel Boundary
11/10/2021, 8:44:03 AM
0 0.0375 0.075 0.15 mi
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 km
1:4,514
The City of Bakersfield makes no warranty, representation, or guarantee regarding the accuracy of this map. This map is intended for display purposes only and does not replace official recorded documents. © 2016 - City of Bakersfield This map was created by an author using a public website and should not be considered an official document. 532-020-20 532-020-17

EXHIBIT C

PROJECT SITE PLAN
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 40 ft. 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' LION BUILDERS INC.,

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
VTTM 7418
1 EXHIBIT D
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL MAP

EXHIBIT E

CALEEMOD EMISSION MODELING
- CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (2023-2024)
- OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (2024)
VTT 7418
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - 3.71 gross acres/3.32 net acres
Construction Phase - Default Construction Schedule - no phasing Demolition - Shop and house in parcel 9/10 to be demolished. All other structures can be moved (mobile homes).

Vehicle Trips - 6.74 per unit * 38 units = 256.12 for all units, per 'Trip Generation Analysis' using ITE TripGen.

Area Coating - SJVAPCD Rule 4601 limits of 50 g/L used.

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Tier 4F Diesel Equipment used in construction Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation - Rule 4601 of SJVAPCD limit of 50 mg/L Water Mitigation -
Waste Mitigation -
Woodstoves - No woodstoves or fireplaces will be installed in the units.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Low Rise 38.00 Dwelling Unit 3.32 144,619.20 121

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.7 Precipitation Freq (Days) 45

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintResidentialExteriorValu e
150 50
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintResidentialInteriorValu e
150 50
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 11.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 3,078.40 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 20.90 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 17.10 38.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 38,000.00 144,619.20
tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.38 3.32
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.14 6.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.28 6.74
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 7.32 6.74
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 3.32 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 3.32 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 3,019.20 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.2256 2.0156 2.2334 3.9900e0030.1079 0.0959 0.2038 0.0470 0.0900 0.1371 0.0000 346.0754 346.0754 0.0789 1.9700e003348.6345 2024 1.3699 0.1064 0.1567 2.6000e0042.1600e0035.0700e0037.2300e0035.8000e0044.7400e0035.3200e0030.0000 22.2740 22.2740 5.6300e0036.0000e00522.4337 Maximum 1.3699 2.0156 2.2334 3.9900e0030.1079 0.0959 0.2038 0.0470 0.0900 0.1371 0.0000 346.0754 346.0754 0.0789 1.9700e003348.6345 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.0554 0.3125 2.4264 3.9900e0030.0648 1.1100e0030.0659 0.0255 1.1000e0030.0266 0.0000 346.0750 346.0750 0.0789 1.9700e003348.6341 2024 1.3609 0.0138 0.1706 2.6000e0042.1600e0037.0000e0052.2300e0035.8000e0047.0000e0056.4000e0040.0000 22.2740 22.2740 5.6300e0036.0000e00522.4337 Maximum 1.3609 0.3125 2.4264 3.9900e0030.0648 1.1100e0030.0659 0.0255 1.1000e0030.0266 0.0000 346.0750 346.0750 0.0789 1.9700e003348.6341 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

11.24 84.62 -8.66 0.00 39.12 98.83 67.70 45.16 98.77 80.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-1-2023 3-31-2023 0.6466 0.0857
2 4-1-2023 6-30-2023 0.5292 0.0938
3 7-1-2023 9-30-2023 0.5350 0.0949
4 10-1-2023 12-31-2023 0.5353 0.0952
5 1-1-2024 3-31-2024 1.4072 1.3092
Highest 1.4072 1.3092

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.7090 3.2500e0030.2820 1.0000e0051.5600e0031.5600e0031.5600e0031.5600e0030.0000 0.4609 0.4609 4.4000e0040.0000 0.4720 Energy 2.8000e0030.0239 0.0102 1.5000e0041.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0030.0000 42.1981 42.1981 2.8800e0037.9000e00442.5061 Mobile 0.1294 0.2315 1.2174 2.9100e0030.2785 2.6000e0030.2811 0.0746 2.4400e0030.0770 0.0000 269.0663 269.0663 0.0143 0.0152 273.9663 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.5483 0.0000 3.5483 0.2097 0.0000 8.7907 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7855 1.7450 2.5305 0.0810 1.9400e0035.1323 Total 0.8413 0.2586 1.5096 3.0700e0030.2785 6.0900e0030.2846 0.0746 5.9300e0030.0805 4.3338 313.4703 317.8040 0.3083 0.0180 330.8674 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.5762 3.2300e0030.2801 1.0000e0051.5500e0031.5500e0031.5500e0031.5500e0030.0000 0.4570 0.4570 4.4000e0040.0000 0.4679 Energy 2.8000e0030.0239 0.0102 1.5000e0041.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0030.0000 42.1981 42.1981 2.8800e0037.9000e00442.5061 Mobile 0.1254 0.2189 1.1518 2.7100e0030.2593 2.4400e0030.2618 0.0694 2.2900e0030.0717 0.0000 251.0762 251.0762 0.0137 0.0144 255.7067 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.5483 0.0000 3.5483 0.2097 0.0000 8.7907 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6284 1.4663 2.0946 0.0648 1.5500e0034.1768 Total 0.7045 0.2460 1.4421 2.8700e0030.2593 5.9200e0030.2652 0.0694 5.7700e0030.0752 4.1767 295.1975 299.3741 0.2915 0.0167 311.6483 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2023 1/27/2023 5 20
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/28/2023 2/3/2023 5 5 3 Grading Grading 2/4/2023 2/15/2023 5 8
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

16.26 4.88 4.47 6.51 6.90 2.79 6.81 6.91 2.70 6.60 3.62 5.83 5.80 5.45 6.90 5.81 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 4 Building Construction Building Construction 2/16/2023 1/3/2024 5 230 5 Paving Paving 1/4/2024 1/29/2024 5 18
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/30/2024 2/22/2024 5 18 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 132 0.36
Residential Indoor: 292,854; Residential Outdoor: 97,618; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 7.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 8
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Use DPF for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 7.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 27.00 4.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 7.9000e0040.0000 7.9000e0041.2000e0040.0000 1.2000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0227 0.2148 0.1964 3.9000e0049.9800e0039.9800e0039.2800e0039.2800e0030.0000 33.9921 33.9921 9.5200e0030.0000 34.2301 Total 0.0227 0.2148 0.1964 3.9000e0047.9000e0049.9800e0030.0108 1.2000e0049.2800e0039.4000e0030.0000 33.9921 33.9921 9.5200e0030.0000 34.2301 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.0000e0054.3000e0049.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.1970 0.1970 0.0000 3.0000e0050.2062 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.7000e0043.2000e0043.7200e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.2000e0040.0000 0.9591 0.9591 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9683 Total 4.8000e0047.5000e0043.8100e0031.0000e0051.2600e0031.0000e0051.2700e0033.4000e0041.0000e0053.4000e0040.0000 1.1561 1.1561 3.0000e0056.0000e0051.1745 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0045.0000e0050.0000 5.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.6200e0030.0200 0.2328 3.9000e0049.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0050.0000 33.9920 33.9920 9.5200e0030.0000 34.2300 Total 4.6200e0030.0200 0.2328 3.9000e0043.6000e0049.0000e0054.5000e0045.0000e0059.0000e0051.4000e0040.0000 33.9920 33.9920 9.5200e0030.0000 34.2300 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.0000e0054.3000e0049.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.1970 0.1970 0.0000 3.0000e0050.2062 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.7000e0043.2000e0043.7200e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.2000e0040.0000 0.9591 0.9591 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9683 Total 4.8000e0047.5000e0043.8100e0031.0000e0051.2600e0031.0000e0051.2700e0033.4000e0041.0000e0053.4000e0040.0000 1.1561 1.1561 3.0000e0056.0000e0051.1745 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0491 0.0000 0.0491 0.0253 0.0000 0.0253 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.6500e0030.0688 0.0456 1.0000e0043.1700e0033.1700e0032.9100e0032.9100e0030.0000 8.3627 8.3627 2.7000e0030.0000 8.4303 Total 6.6500e0030.0688 0.0456 1.0000e0040.0491 3.1700e0030.0523 0.0253 2.9100e0030.0282 0.0000 8.3627 8.3627 2.7000e0030.0000 8.4303 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.4000e0049.0000e0051.1200e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2877 0.2877 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2905 Total 1.4000e0049.0000e0051.1200e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2877 0.2877 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2905 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0221 0.0000 0.0221 0.0114 0.0000 0.0114 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.1600e0035.0400e0030.0522 1.0000e0042.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 8.3627 8.3627 2.7000e0030.0000 8.4303 Total 1.1600e0035.0400e0030.0522 1.0000e0040.0221 2.0000e0050.0221 0.0114 2.0000e0050.0114 0.0000 8.3627 8.3627 2.7000e0030.0000 8.4303 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.4000e0049.0000e0051.1200e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2877 0.2877 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2905 Total 1.4000e0049.0000e0051.1200e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2877 0.2877 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2905 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0283 0.0000 0.0283 0.0137 0.0000 0.0137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.8400e0030.0717 0.0590 1.2000e0043.1000e0033.1000e0032.8500e0032.8500e0030.0000 10.4243 10.4243 3.3700e0030.0000 10.5085 Total 6.8400e0030.0717 0.0590 1.2000e0040.0283 3.1000e0030.0314 0.0137 2.8500e0030.0166 0.0000 10.4243 10.4243 3.3700e0030.0000 10.5085 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.9000e0041.3000e0041.4900e0030.0000 4.8000e0040.0000 4.8000e0041.3000e0040.0000 1.3000e0040.0000 0.3836 0.3836 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3873 Total 1.9000e0041.3000e0041.4900e0030.0000 4.8000e0040.0000 4.8000e0041.3000e0040.0000 1.3000e0040.0000 0.3836 0.3836 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3873 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0128 0.0000 0.0128 6.1600e0030.0000 6.1600e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.4500e0036.2900e0030.0710 1.2000e0043.0000e0053.0000e0053.0000e0053.0000e0050.0000 10.4242 10.4242 3.3700e0030.0000 10.5085 Total 1.4500e0036.2900e0030.0710 1.2000e0040.0128 3.0000e0050.0128 6.1600e0033.0000e0056.1900e0030.0000 10.4242 10.4242 3.3700e0030.0000 10.5085 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.9000e0041.3000e0041.4900e0030.0000 4.8000e0040.0000 4.8000e0041.3000e0040.0000 1.3000e0040.0000 0.3836 0.3836 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3873 Total 1.9000e0041.3000e0041.4900e0030.0000 4.8000e0040.0000 4.8000e0041.3000e0040.0000 1.3000e0040.0000 0.3836 0.3836 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3873 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1785 1.6327 1.8437 3.0600e0030.0794 0.0794 0.0747 0.0747 0.0000 263.0984 263.0984 0.0626 0.0000 264.6631 Total 0.1785 1.6327 1.8437 3.0600e0030.0794 0.0794 0.0747 0.0747 0.0000 263.0984 263.0984 0.0626 0.0000 264.6631 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.0000e0040.0201 6.1500e0039.0000e0053.0100e0031.3000e0043.1400e0038.7000e0041.2000e0049.9000e0040.0000 8.7766 8.7766 4.0000e0051.3100e0039.1688 Worker 9.6100e0036.4500e0030.0761 2.1000e0040.0245 1.3000e0040.0246 6.5100e0031.2000e0046.6300e0030.0000 19.5940 19.5940 6.2000e0045.8000e00419.7815 Total 0.0101 0.0265 0.0822 3.0000e0040.0275 2.6000e0040.0278 7.3800e0032.4000e0047.6200e0030.0000 28.3706 28.3706 6.6000e0041.8900e00328.9503 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0372 0.2536 1.9817 3.0600e0036.9000e0046.9000e0046.9000e0046.9000e0040.0000 263.0981 263.0981 0.0626 0.0000 264.6628 Total 0.0372 0.2536 1.9817 3.0600e0036.9000e0046.9000e0046.9000e0046.9000e0040.0000 263.0981 263.0981 0.0626 0.0000 264.6628 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.0000e0040.0201 6.1500e0039.0000e0053.0100e0031.3000e0043.1400e0038.7000e0041.2000e0049.9000e0040.0000 8.7766 8.7766 4.0000e0051.3100e0039.1688 Worker 9.6100e0036.4500e0030.0761 2.1000e0040.0245 1.3000e0040.0246 6.5100e0031.2000e0046.6300e0030.0000 19.5940 19.5940 6.2000e0045.8000e00419.7815 Total 0.0101 0.0265 0.0822 3.0000e0040.0275 2.6000e0040.0278 7.3800e0032.4000e0047.6200e0030.0000 28.3706 28.3706 6.6000e0041.8900e00328.9503 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 2.2100e0030.0202 0.0243 4.0000e0059.2000e0049.2000e0048.7000e0048.7000e0040.0000 3.4777 3.4777 8.2000e0040.0000 3.4983 Total 2.2100e0030.0202 0.0243 4.0000e0059.2000e0049.2000e0048.7000e0048.7000e0040.0000 3.4777 3.4777 8.2000e0040.0000 3.4983 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.0000e0052.7000e0048.0000e0050.0000 4.0000e0050.0000 4.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.1141 0.1141 0.0000 2.0000e0050.1192 Worker 1.2000e0048.0000e0059.3000e0040.0000 3.2000e0040.0000 3.3000e0049.0000e0050.0000 9.0000e0050.0000 0.2505 0.2505 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2528 Total 1.3000e0043.5000e0041.0100e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.7000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.3646 0.3646 1.0000e0053.0000e0050.3720 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.9000e0043.3500e0030.0262 4.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 3.4777 3.4777 8.2000e0040.0000 3.4983 Total 4.9000e0043.3500e0030.0262 4.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 3.4777 3.4777 8.2000e0040.0000 3.4983 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.0000e0052.7000e0048.0000e0050.0000 4.0000e0050.0000 4.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.1141 0.1141 0.0000 2.0000e0050.1192 Worker 1.2000e0048.0000e0059.3000e0040.0000 3.2000e0040.0000 3.3000e0049.0000e0050.0000 9.0000e0050.0000 0.2505 0.2505 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2528 Total 1.3000e0043.5000e0041.0100e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.7000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.3646 0.3646 1.0000e0053.0000e0050.3720 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 7.9300e0030.0745 0.1100 1.7000e0043.5900e0033.5900e0033.3200e0033.3200e0030.0000 14.7423 14.7423 4.6300e0030.0000 14.8581 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.9300e0030.0745 0.1100 1.7000e0043.5900e0033.5900e0033.3200e0033.3200e0030.0000 14.7423 14.7423 4.6300e0030.0000 14.8581 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.2000e0043.3000e0044.1200e0031.0000e0051.4400e0031.0000e0051.4500e0033.8000e0041.0000e0053.9000e0040.0000 1.1132 1.1132 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.1233 Total 5.2000e0043.3000e0044.1200e0031.0000e0051.4400e0031.0000e0051.4500e0033.8000e0041.0000e0053.9000e0040.0000 1.1132 1.1132 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.1233 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 1.9700e0038.5600e0030.1218 1.7000e0044.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 14.7423 14.7423 4.6300e0030.0000 14.8581 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.9700e0038.5600e0030.1218 1.7000e0044.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 14.7423 14.7423 4.6300e0030.0000 14.8581 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.2000e0043.3000e0044.1200e0031.0000e0051.4400e0031.0000e0051.4500e0033.8000e0041.0000e0053.9000e0040.0000 1.1132 1.1132 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.1233 Total 5.2000e0043.3000e0044.1200e0031.0000e0051.4400e0031.0000e0051.4500e0033.8000e0041.0000e0053.9000e0040.0000 1.1132 1.1132 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.1233 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.3574 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6300e0030.0110 0.0163 3.0000e0055.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0040.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e0040.0000 2.3012 Total 1.3590 0.0110 0.0163 3.0000e0055.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0040.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e0040.0000 2.3012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3000e0048.0000e0051.0300e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2783 0.2783 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2808 Total 1.3000e0048.0000e0051.0300e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2783 0.2783 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2808 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.3574 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.7000e0041.1600e0030.0165 3.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e0040.0000 2.3012 Total 1.3577 1.1600e0030.0165 3.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e0040.0000 2.3012 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3000e0048.0000e0051.0300e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2783 0.2783 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2808 Total 1.3000e0048.0000e0051.0300e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2783 0.2783 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2808 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1254 0.2189 1.1518 2.7100e0030.2593 2.4400e0030.2618 0.0694 2.2900e0030.0717 0.0000 251.0762 251.0762 0.0137 0.0144 255.7067 Unmitigated 0.1294 0.2315 1.2174 2.9100e0030.2785 2.6000e0030.2811 0.0746 2.4400e0030.0770 0.0000 269.0663 269.0663 0.0143 0.0152 273.9663

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 256.12 256.12 256.12 742,189 690,978 Total 256.12 256.12 256.12 742,189 690,978
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 10.80 7.30 7.50 45.60 19.00 35.40 86 11 3 Increase Diversity
Improve Destination Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.511221 0.052103 0.170611 0.160645 0.028932 0.007649 0.013284 0.025916 0.000654 0.000315 0.023645 0.001472 0.003552

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 14.5243 14.5243 2.3500e0032.8000e00414.6679 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 14.5243 14.5243 2.3500e0032.8000e00414.6679 NaturalGas
Mitigated

2.8000e0030.0239 0.0102 1.5000e0041.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0030.0000 27.6738 27.6738 5.3000e0045.1000e00427.8382 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

2.8000e0030.0239 0.0102 1.5000e0041.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0030.0000 27.6738 27.6738 5.3000e0045.1000e00427.8382

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
518587 2.8000e0030.0239 0.0102 1.5000e0041.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0030.0000 27.6738 27.6738 5.3000e0045.1000e00427.8382 Total 2.8000e0030.0239 0.0102 1.5000e0041.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0030.0000 27.6738 27.6738 5.3000e0045.1000e00427.8382 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
518587 2.8000e0030.0239 0.0102 1.5000e0041.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0030.0000 27.6738 27.6738 5.3000e0045.1000e00427.8382 Total 2.8000e0030.0239 0.0102 1.5000e0041.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0030.0000 27.6738 27.6738 5.3000e0045.1000e00427.8382 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Use Electric Lawnmower

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
156979 14.5243 2.3500e0032.8000e00414.6679
Total 14.5243 2.3500e0032.8000e00414.6679
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
156979 14.5243 2.3500e0032.8000e00414.6679
Total 14.5243 2.3500e0032.8000e00414.6679
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Use Electric Leafblower
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior
Use only Natural Gas Hearths
Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.5762 3.2300e0030.2801 1.0000e0051.5500e0031.5500e0031.5500e0031.5500e0030.0000 0.4570 0.4570 4.4000e0040.0000 0.4679 Unmitigated 0.7090 3.2500e0030.2820 1.0000e0051.5600e0031.5600e0031.5600e0031.5600e0030.0000 0.4609 0.4609 4.4000e0040.0000 0.4720 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.1357 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.5648 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 8.4800e0033.2500e0030.2820 1.0000e0051.5600e0031.5600e0031.5600e0031.5600e0030.0000 0.4609 0.4609 4.4000e0040.0000 0.4720 Total 0.7090 3.2500e0030.2820 1.0000e0051.5600e0031.5600e0031.5600e0031.5600e0030.0000 0.4609 0.4609 4.4000e0040.0000 0.4720 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0453 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.5226 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 8.3900e0033.2300e0030.2801 1.0000e0051.5500e0031.5500e0031.5500e0031.5500e0030.0000 0.4570 0.4570 4.4000e0040.0000 0.4679 Total 0.5762 3.2300e0030.2801 1.0000e0051.5500e0031.5500e0031.5500e0031.5500e0030.0000 0.4570 0.4570 4.4000e0040.0000 0.4679 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 2.0946 0.0648 1.5500e0034.1768
Unmitigated 2.5305 0.0810 1.9400e0035.1323

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

2.47585 /

1.56086

2.5305 0.0810 1.9400e0035.1323
Total 2.5305 0.0810 1.9400e0035.1323
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

1.98068 /

1.46565

2.0946 0.0648 1.5500e0034.1768
Total 2.0946 0.0648 1.5500e0034.1768
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 3.5483 0.2097 0.0000 8.7907
Unmitigated 3.5483 0.2097 0.0000 8.7907
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

17.48 3.5483 0.2097 0.0000 8.7907
Total 3.5483 0.2097 0.0000 8.7907
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

17.48 3.5483 0.2097 0.0000 8.7907
Total 3.5483 0.2097 0.0000 8.7907
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 33 Date: 11/8/2022 5:34 PM VTT 7418 - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

EXHIBIT F

TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS
5509 Young Street
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Tel: 661.325.9474 - Fax 661.322.0129
www.cornerstoneeng.com
Engineering:

Civil
Electrical
Mechanical
Process
Structural
Surveying
Project
Management
Staff
Augmentation
Drone
Services
October 19, 2022 Project No. 866-02-00
City of Bakersfield, Planning Department
Attn: Kassandra Gale, Principal Planner
1715 Chester Ave.

Bakersfield, California 93301
Re: Trip Generation Letter for General Plan Amendment and Zone Change on APN’s 532-020-17 and 532-020-20
Dear Kassandra,
Regarding the project referenced above, Cornerstone Engineering herein provides a Trip Generation Study estimating the traffic trips that will be generated by the proposed land use. This letter is written to aid the City of Bakersfield in better understanding the traffic generation of this GPA/ZC.

Project Description:

Cornerstone Engineering on behalf of the owner, Deepinder Grewal, is currently preparing a general plan amendment and zone change for a 3.32-net acre multi-family duplex project at 8235 Stine Road in the City of Bakersfield. The project is situated on APN’s: 532-020- 17 and 532-020-20. The entire property is currently zoned R-S-2.5A with a Land Use of ER (estate residential) and SR (suburban residential). Proposed zoning is R-2 and proposed land use designation is HMR. 19 duplexes are proposed resulting in 38 dwelling units. See APN map, GPA/ZC exhibits, and Aerial attached for your reference. The proposed zoning is R-2 (one lot) & C-2/PCD and proposed land use is proposed LMR (one lot) and GC. The C-2/PD land is proposed to be developed as a Derrel’s Mini-Storage facility.

Assumptions:

A site plan has been developed for this site and is attached. The project will be developed as a Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (ITE 220) with 38 dwelling units.

Trip Generation:

The table below shows the estimated trips that will be generated by the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. These numbers are based upon the ITE 11th edition formulas (the current edition).
5509 Young Street
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Tel: 661.325.9474 - Fax 661.322.0129
www.cornerstoneeng.com
Results:

The project described herein, using the ITE TripGen Web-based App for trip generation calculations, the GPA/ZC will generate a total of 319 trips per day on a weekday and 173 trips per day on a Saturday. During the AM Peak Hour on a weekday a total of 41 trips shall be generated by the GPA/ZC and during the PM Peak Hour on a weekday a total of 51 trips shall be generated by the GPA/ZC. Weekday Peak Hour trip generations are less than the 50 peak hour trip threshold required for a traffic study. During the Saturday Peak Hour, the GPA/ZC will generate 16 trips which falls below the 50 peak hour trip generations threshold. The GPA/ZC highest amount of peak hour trips will occur at the Weekday PM Peak Hour; those trips will be split 62/38 inbound/outbound.

CEQA guidelines require an evaluation of a vehicle miles traveled for a project. The County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield have not yet adopted standards for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis. Other cities within the San Joaquin Valley, such as City of Clovis and City of Fresno, have adopted standards. Per these documents, 500 trips per Table 1 : Trip Generation Analysis per ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition General Information Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Notes ITE
Code
Development
Type Rate Units ADT Rate ADT Rate
In %
Split/
Trips
Out
%
Split/
Trips
Total Rate
In %
Split/
Trips
Out
%
Split/
Trips
Total
220
Multifamily
Housing
(Low-Rise) 38
Dwelling
Units

6.74 0.40 24% 76% 0.51 63% 37%
Weekday, Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street Traffic
256 3 12 15 12 7 19 Average Rate
220
Multifamily
Housing
(Low-Rise) 38
Dwelling
Units
24% 76% 63% 37%
Weekday, Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street Traffic
319 8 27 35 23 14 37 Fitted Curve
220
Multifamily
Housing
(Low-Rise) 38
Dwelling
Units

6.74 0.47 24% 76% 0.57 62% 38%
Weekday, Peak Hour of
Generator
256 4 14 18 13 9 22 Average Rates
220
Multifamily
Housing
(Low-Rise) 38
Dwelling
Units
24% 76% 62% 38%
Weekday, Peak Hour of
Generator
319 10 31 41 31 20 51
Fitted Curve;
Controlling Values
220
Multifamily
Housing
(Low-Rise) 38
Dwelling
Units

4.55 0.41
Saturday, Peak Hour of
Generator
173 16 Average Rates
220
Multifamily
Housing
(Low-Rise) 38
Dwelling
Units

3.86 0.36
Sunday, Peak Hour of
Generator
147 14 Average Rates
5509 Young Street
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Tel: 661.325.9474 - Fax 661.322.0129
www.cornerstoneeng.com
day is a reasonable threshold to cause less than significant VMT. Since the GPA/ZC only generates 319 trips per Weekday and 173 trips per Saturday, it falls below this threshold.

The VMTs and Trips generated by this expected project are not significant and do not meet a threshold to require further study.

Based on the trip generation and VMT analysis results, Cornerstone Engineering does not recommend any further study of traffic impacts.

Sincerely,
Derrill Whitten Jr.

Chief Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor
661.325.9474 ext. 107
[email protected]

Image
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Parcel Boundary
11/10/2021, 8:44:03 AM
0 0.0375 0.075 0.15 mi
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 km
1:4,514
The City of Bakersfield makes no warranty, representation, or guarantee regarding the accuracy of this map. This map is intended for display purposes only and does not replace official recorded documents. © 2016 - City of Bakersfield This map was created by an author using a public website and should not be considered an official document. 532-020-20 532-020-17
D GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 40 ft. 40' 20' 0' 20' 40'

EXHIBIT B
LION BUILDERS INC., GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE REDUCED TO 11"x17";

NOT TO SCALE
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 40 ft. 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' LION BUILDERS INC.,

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
VTTM 7418
1 REDUCED TO 11"x17";

NOT TO SCALE
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 22
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 229
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation

6.74 2.46 - 12.50 1.79
Data Plot and Equation T = Trip Ends
X = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 6.41(X) + 75.31 R²= 0.86
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 100 200 300 400 500 0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
38 256
319
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m.

Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 49
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 249
Directional Distribution: 24% entering, 76% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation

0.40 0.13 - 0.73 0.12
Data Plot and Equation T = Trip Ends
X = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.31(X) + 22.85 R²= 0.79
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 0
100
200
300
38 15
35 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.

Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 59
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 241
Directional Distribution: 63% entering, 37% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation

0.51 0.08 - 1.04 0.15
Data Plot and Equation T = Trip Ends
X = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.43(X) + 20.55 R²= 0.84
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 0
100
200
300
400
500
1938
37 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday,
AM Peak Hour of Generator
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 40
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 234
Directional Distribution: 24% entering, 76% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation

0.47 0.25 - 0.98 0.16
Data Plot and Equation T = Trip Ends
X = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.35(X) + 28.13 R²= 0.76
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 0
100
200
300
400
38 18
41 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday,
PM Peak Hour of Generator
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 38
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 231
Directional Distribution: 62% entering, 38% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation

0.57 0.25 - 1.26 0.20
Data Plot and Equation T = Trip Ends
X = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.42(X) + 34.78 R²= 0.80
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 0
100
200
300
400
500
38 22
51 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Saturday, Peak Hour of Generator
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 1
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 282
Directional Distribution: Not Available
Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation

0.41 0.41 - 0.41 *
Data Plot and Equation Caution – Small Sample Size T = Trip Ends X = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given R²= ****
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 100 200 300 400 0
100
200
300
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Sunday, Peak Hour of Generator
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 1
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 282
Directional Distribution: Not Available
Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation

0.36 0.36 - 0.36 *
Data Plot and Equation Caution – Small Sample Size T = Trip Ends X = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given R²= ****
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 100 200 300 400 0
100
200
300
To: Melissa Snyder Record Search 22-419
Cornerstone Engineering
5509 Young Street
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Date: November 15, 2022
Re: CEI Project# 866-02; Located at 8235 Stine Road, Bakersfield, CA (APN 532-020-17 & 532-020-20) County: Kern
Map(s): Gosford 7.5’

CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public. Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.

The following are the results of a search of the cultural resource files at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. These files include known and recorded cultural resources sites, inventory and excavation reports filed with this office, and resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the OHP Built Environment Resources Directory, California State Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, California Inventory of Historic Resources, and California Points of Historical Interest. Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the OHP are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area.

PRIOR CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES CONDUCTED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS
According to the information in our files, there have been no previous cultural resource studies conducted within the project area. There have been sixteen cultural resource studies conducted within the the one-half mile radius: KE-01297, 01732, 02325, 02536, 02562, 02670, 02688, 02739, 02772, 02773, 02991, 02997, 03150, 03428, 03468, and 04285.

Record Search 22-419

KNOWN/RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS According to the information in our files, there are no recorded resources within the project area, and it is unknown if any exist there. There are four recorded resources in the one-half mile radius: P-15-010656, 010723, 010724, and 010725. These resources consist of historic era buildings, an historic era trash scatter, and a prehistoric era lithic scatter.

There are no recorded cultural resources within the project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, for the California State Historic Landmarks.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
No information was given as to the nature of the project or the current state of the project area.

Because a cultural resources study has not be completed on this project area, it is unknown if any cultural resources are present. Therefore, if ground disturbance will result from this project and the project area is currently vacant, we recommend a qualified, professional consultant conduct a field survey prior to ground disturbance activities to determine if cultural resources are present. If ground disturbance will result from this project and the project area is currently developed with structures more than 45 years old, we recommend the structures be recorded and evaluated by a qualified, professional consultant prior to any alteration or demolition. If ground disturbance will result from this project and the project area is currently developed with structures less than 45 years old or if no ground disturbance will result from this project, then no further cultural resource investigation is recommended at this time. Additionally, if any cultural resources are unearthed during ground disturbance activities, all work must halt in the area of the find and a qualified, professional consultant should be called out to assess the findings and make the appropriate mitigation recommendations. A list of qualified consultants can be found at www.chrisinfo.org.

We also recommend that you contact the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento. They will provide you with a current list of Native American individuals/organizations that can assist you with information regarding cultural resources that may not be included in the CHRIS Inventory and that may be of concern to the Native groups in the area. The Commission can consult their "Sacred Lands Inventory" file to determine what sacred resources, if any, exist within this project area and the way in which these resources might be managed. Finally, please consult with the lead agency on this project to determine if any other cultural resource investigation is required. If you need any additional information or have any questions or concerns, please contact our office at (661) 654-2289.

By:

Celeste M. Thomson, Coordinator Date: November 15, 2022 Please note that invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change
Assessor’s Parcel Map Numbers
532-020-17 and -20
County of Kern
Bakersfield, California
Prepared for:

Mr. Deepinder Singh Grewal
3323 Pendragon Street
Bakersfield, California 9333
Prepared by:

Pruett Biological Resource Consulting
8819 Latera Court
Bakersfield, California 93314
661.421.0006
28 March 2023
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 532-020-17 and -20
March 2023

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc. (PruettBio) has prepared this biological resource evaluation for a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 532-020-17 and -20. The project consists of 3.67 gross acres (1.49 hectares)(project) located in the NE ¼ of Section 14, Township 30 South, Range 27 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; within the incorporated limits of City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California.

The Owner has submitted an application to the City of Bakersfield for the reconfiguration of zoning and land uses to allow for a multi-family, duplex project that will include 38-units located at the northwest corner of Stine Road and Ryzona Drive. 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 and vicinity have historically been farmed. Urban development has increased throughout Metropolitan Bakersfield and the unincorporated areas of greater Bakersfield in the past 50 years. The project site consists of about 3.67 gross acres (1.49 hectares) currently developed with single-family homes, mobile trailers, and outbuildings. No undisturbed habitat is present on the site or adjacent parcels.

The literature review and database queries yielded 21 special-status plant species and 32 special-status animal species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. Of these, 5 plant species, and 16 animal species have federal-, and/or state-listed and are afforded protection under federal or state law.

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 532-020-17 and -20
March 2023
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 ............................................................................................................................. 4 Designated Critical Habitat ................................................................................................................................. 4 Jurisdictional Water Resource Features .............................................................................................................. 4 Special-Status Natural Communities................................................................................................................... 5 Wildlife Migration Corridors and Nursery Sites................................................................................................... 5 Regional and Local Policies.................................................................................................................................. 5 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................................................5 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................................................8 APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................................................................11 PROJECT VICINTY AND SITE ................................................................................................................................11 APPENDIX B........................................................................................................................................................18 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND ANIMAL EVALUATION...........................................................................................18 APPENDIX C........................................................................................................................................................32 PLANTS AND ANIMALS OBSERVED ON THE PROJECT ..........................................................................................32 Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 532-020-17 and -20
March 2023
1 INTRODUCTION
Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc. (PruettBio) has prepared this biological resource evaluation for the proposed development of APN 532-020-17 and -20, 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 GPA and ZC.

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 (2021).

PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The project consists of 3.67 gross acres (1.49 hectares)(project) of APN 532-020-17 and -20 in the NE ¼ of Section 14, Township 30 South, Range 27 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. The project site is located at the northwest corner of Stine Road and Ryzona Drive, Bakersfield, California.

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 if generally flat at about 355 feet (108 meters) The project is in south Bakersfield, an area that was generally farmed with scattered residential development going back to the early 1900s. The margins of Metropolitan Bakersfield and the unincorporated areas of greater Bakersfield have experienced an increase in urban development in the past 50 years. The project is currently developed with single-family homes, mobile trailers, and outbuildings. The Farmer’s Canal is the west border of the project. Ridgeview High School is adjacent to the south edge of the project. The project is otherwise surrounded by residential development. No undisturbed habitat is present on the site or adjacent parcels.

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 532-020-17 and -20
March 2023
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) 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.

FIELD STUDY
Two reconnaissance-level, biological field studies were conducted by Steven P. Pruett on 09 December 2022 and 26 February 2023. 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 habitat types. 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. Specialstatus 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 532-020-17 and -20
March 2023
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. The original vegetive communities of the project site were Non-native Grassland (Holland 42200) and Valley Saltbush Scrub (Holland 36220). The project and adjacent parcels are fully developed. Invasive herbaceous species dominate the vegetative cover not cultivated.

SOILS
The USGS soil survey map describes the soil of the project site as Unit 127, Granoso sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (NRCS 2021). Unit 127 is alluvium derived from mixed rock sources found on alluvial fans and flood plains. It is comprised of sandy loam, loamy sand, and sand to a depth of about 62 inches. The depth to the restrictive feature is more than 80 inches and the available water storage in profile is listed as low (about 4.9 inches).

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The literature review and database queries yielded 21 special-status plant species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. Thirty-two 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 otherwise special-status plant or animal species, or animal species sign was observed during the field study. 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
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, Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 532-020-17 and -20
March 2023
4 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.

Precipitation has been above average to date, resulting in a good year for annual plant species observations. Of the 21 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.

Special-Status Animal Species
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 2020). Designated Critical Habitats closest to the project site include California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) approximately 22-miles south/southwest and Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) west of the project site. No suitable habitat for either 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.

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 532-020-17 and -20
March 2023
5 A search of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory resulted in no riparian, wetlands, or other jurisdictional water features mapped on the project site (USFWS 2021). 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 2021, CDFW 2021, CNPS 2021). 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
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. The project site is located within the MBHCP, CDFW, ITP boundaries.

Recommendations included in this report when implemented in concert with the MBHCP, would be expected to mitigate any project impacts to biological resources to a less-than-significant level.

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; Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 532-020-17 and -20
March 2023
6 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? 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 most recent habitat suitability modeling (Cypher 2020) does not include the project in any of the four tiers enumerated for suitability. The project and adjacent parcels are fully-developed. No expectation of TKR presence exists.

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.

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 532-020-17 and -20
March 2023
7 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 2021) 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 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 532-020-17 and -20
March 2023
8 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. (2021). 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. (2021).

California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, 13 P.R.C. § 21000 et seq. (2021).

California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 Guidelines, 14 C.C.R. § 15000 et seq. (2021).

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). (2021). 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. (2021).

Clean Water Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (2014).

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. (2021).

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 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. (2021).

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 Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 532-020-17 and -20
March 2023
9 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. (2021).

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 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
Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 532-020-17 and -20
March 2023
10 USFWS. (2021a). 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 [August]. Author.

Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species_lists-form.cfm USFWS. (2021b). National Wetlands Inventory Website [August]. 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

Image
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Parcel Boundary
11/10/2021, 8:44:03 AM
0 0.0375 0.075 0.15 mi
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 km
1:4,514
The City of Bakersfield makes no warranty, representation, or guarantee regarding the accuracy of this map. This map is intended for display purposes only and does not replace official recorded documents. © 2016 - City of Bakersfield This map was created by an author using a public website and should not be considered an official document. 532-020-20 532-020-17
D GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 40 ft. 40' 20' 0' 20' 40'

EXHIBIT B
LION BUILDERS INC., GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE REDUCED TO 11"x17";

NOT TO SCALE
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 40 ft. 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' LION BUILDERS INC.,

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
VTTM 7418
1 REDUCED TO 11"x17";

NOT TO SCALE
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 22
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 229
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation

6.74 2.46 - 12.50 1.79
Data Plot and Equation T = Trip Ends
X = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 6.41(X) + 75.31 R²= 0.86
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 100 200 300 400 500 0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
38 256
319
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m.

Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 49
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 249
Directional Distribution: 24% entering, 76% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation

0.40 0.13 - 0.73 0.12
Data Plot and Equation T = Trip Ends
X = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.31(X) + 22.85 R²= 0.79
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 0
100
200
300
38 15
35 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.

Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 59
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 241
Directional Distribution: 63% entering, 37% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation

0.51 0.08 - 1.04 0.15
Data Plot and Equation T = Trip Ends
X = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.43(X) + 20.55 R²= 0.84
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 0
100
200
300
400
500
1938
37 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday,
AM Peak Hour of Generator
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 40
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 234
Directional Distribution: 24% entering, 76% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation

0.47 0.25 - 0.98 0.16
Data Plot and Equation T = Trip Ends
X = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.35(X) + 28.13 R²= 0.76
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 0
100
200
300
400
38 18
41 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday,
PM Peak Hour of Generator
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 38
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 231
Directional Distribution: 62% entering, 38% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation

0.57 0.25 - 1.26 0.20
Data Plot and Equation T = Trip Ends
X = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.42(X) + 34.78 R²= 0.80
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 0
100
200
300
400
500
38 22
51 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Saturday, Peak Hour of Generator
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 1
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 282
Directional Distribution: Not Available
Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation

0.41 0.41 - 0.41 *
Data Plot and Equation Caution – Small Sample Size T = Trip Ends X = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given R²= ****
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 100 200 300 400 0
100
200
300
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Not Close to Rail Transit (220)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Sunday, Peak Hour of Generator
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies: 1
Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 282
Directional Distribution: Not Available
Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation

0.36 0.36 - 0.36 *
Data Plot and Equation Caution – Small Sample Size T = Trip Ends X = Number of Dwelling Units
Study Site Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given R²= ****
Trip Gen Manual, 11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 100 200 300 400 0
100
200
300

AK S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\01_Hearing Documents\PC

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 16, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent Hearings TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director
DATE: April 10, 2026
WARD: 7
FILE: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change No. 22-0372 STAFF PLANNER: Ashley Knight
REQUEST: (1) An amendment of the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use designation from ER (Estate Residential) and SR (Suburban Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential); and (2) a change in zone classification from R-S 2.5A (Residential Suburban 2.5 acre minimum) to R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) Zone.

APPLICANT: Cornerstone Engineering, Inc. OWNER: David Gill 5509 Young St. 13707 Road 192
Bakersfield, CA 93311 Porterville, CA 93257
PROJECT LOCATION: 8235 Stine Road; generally located at the northwest corner of Stine Road and Ryzona Drive
APN: 532-020-17 and 532-020-20
PROJECT SIZE: Approximately 3.71 acres CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 ER (Estate Residential) and SR (Suburban Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential); and (3) Adopt Resolution APPROVING change in zone classification from RS 2.5A (Residential Suburban 2.5 acre minimum) to R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) Zone.

File No. GPA/ZC 22-0372
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ER (Estate Residential) and SR (Suburban Residential) EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: R-S-2.5A (Residential Suburban - 2.5-acre minimum) SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site is residential land. Surrounding properties are primarily developed as: north – single-family residential; east – single-family residential and a banquet hall; south – Ridgeview High School; and west – a canal adjacent to single-family residential.

BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:
• April 27, 1993 - City Council approved the annexation of the project site to the City of Bakersfield as part of Annexation No. 370, Segment IX (Resolution 34-93).

PROJECT ANALYSIS:

General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (GPA/ZC).

The General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) and Zone Change (“ZC”) request submitted by Cornerstone Engineering Inc. (applicant), on behalf of David Gill (property owner) is (1) proposing a GPA to change the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use designation from ER (Estate Residential) and SR (Suburban Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential) or a more restrictive designation; and (2) proposing a change in zone classification from R-S 2.5A (Residential Suburban 2.5 acre minimum) to R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) or a more restrictive zone on approximately 3.71 acres. The project parcel is located on the northwest corner of Stine Road and Ryzona Drive, in southwest Bakersfield [Assessor’s Parcel numbers (APNs) 532-020-17 and -20].

The project intends to develop a multi-family dwelling complex with a mix of 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom units for a total of 34 units. The residential density range for this zone is 6.1 to thirteen dwelling units per net acre, which is consistent with the proposed HMR designation of the project site.

The project site consists of two contiguous parcels that have existing multiple single-family dwellings and various accessory structures. Surrounding properties to the north and west are single-family residential uses, to the east are a banquet hall and single-family residential, and to the south is Ridgeview High School.

Approve Zone Change as Requested. If the zone change is approved to R-2 as requested, an application for site plan approval is required for future multi-family residential projects. The project will be reviewed by the Site Plan Review (SPR) Committee, as listed below, for compliance with City development standards. The Development Services Director may then approve, conditionally approve, or deny the site plan. There is no requirement for Planning Commission consideration unless the Development Services Director’s decision is appealed.

CALIFORNIA STATE HOUSING BILLS:

Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5, establishes limitations to a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects, emergency shelters, or farmworker housing that are consistent with objective local development standards and contribute to meeting housing need. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(3)(j), when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local File No. GPA/ZC 22-0372
agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:

1. The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) is a process mandated by California state law that requires jurisdictions to plan for new housing to accommodate projected growth. The RHNA assigns the number of housing units that the California State Housing and Community Development Agency (HCD) determines is necessary to build in an eight-year cycle for each jurisdiction, organized by affordability level. The project would contribute additional R-2 residential units on 3.71 acres to the City of Bakersfield’s 6th Housing Element Cycle from 2023 through 2031.

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 2: Accommodate new development which provides a full mix of uses to support its population.

The project is consistent with this goal because the property owner determined the market is driving a need for multi-family residential within the project area. Additionally, the State encourages the densification of residential uses within cities throughout California.

Goal 3: Accommodate new development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses.

The project is consistent with this goal by providing multi-family residential housing densification to support the local population.

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 necessary infrastructure and public improvements are available to accommodate multiple-family residential developments or, if the project is approved, will be developed through the fair-share payment of impact fees by the property owner. Therefore, the project is consistent with this goal.

Policy 2: Allow for the development of a variety of residential types and densities.

The project provides multiple-family land use within an area that predominantly consists of single-family residential use. Allowing multiple-family residential at the site would allow for the increased development of a variety of residential types and densities beyond the current condition. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy.

File No. GPA/ZC 22-0372
Policy 3: Ensure that residential uses are located in proximity to commercial services, employment centers, public services, transportation routes, and recreational and cultural resources.

The proposed project site is across the street from an existing Ridgeview High school and one (1) mile from commercial services. There are nearby employment centers as well as others throughout the city that can be easily accessed via the existing circulation system.

Policy 75: Provide adequate land area for the expansion of existing uses and development of new uses consistent with the policies of the general plan.

The project site is located on existing residential land near residential land uses. Therefore, adequate land is available for the project, and the project expands existing residential land uses at a different density.

Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Initial Study was based on the following project-specific analysis and technical studies: Air Quality Impact Analysis; Phase I Cultural Resource Survey; Biological Resource Evaluation; Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Travel Analysis.

The initial study determined that compliance with the recommended mitigation measures, local ordinances, state laws, and construction to the standards of the Uniform Building Codes will reduce impacts to a less- than-significant level. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND was circulated for a 30-day public and agency review period starting February 17, 2026, through March 19, 2026 (SCH No. 2026020609).

Comments Received. One comment letter was submitted by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). DTSC’s comments and staff’s response are as follows:

1. DTSC recommended that an appropriate State or local regulatory agency provide concurrence that the project site is safe for construction and the proposed use.

Response: Staff noted that projects involving hazardous materials are subject to regulatory oversight through required submittal of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, as well as compliance with applicable stormwater permitting requirements (NPDES). These processes ensure agency review and site safety. The project proponent was advised of this recommendation.

2. DTSC recommended that the MND acknowledge the potential for hazardous substance releases from past or future activities, and identify procedures for investigation, remediation, and regulatory oversight if contamination is identified.

Response: Staff indicated that these concerns are addressed through existing regulatory requirements and processes described in Response 1. The project proponent was advised of this recommendation.

3. DTSC noted the potential presence of aerially deposited lead (ADL) in soils due to historical use of leaded gasoline and recommended soil sampling prior to ground disturbance.

File No. GPA/ZC 22-0372
Response: Staff stated that soil analysis is required during grading and building permit review, and any contaminants identified will be handled in accordance with applicable regulations.

Impacts would remain less than significant. The project proponent was advised of this recommendation.

4. DTSC recommended that any imported soil be properly sampled and documented to ensure it is free of contamination, consistent with DTSC guidance.

Response: Staff responded that imported soil will be regulated in accordance with applicable state and federal requirements. The project proponent was advised of this recommendation.

5. DTSC recommended that if the site has a history of agricultural or related uses, additional investigation for pesticide contamination be conducted in accordance with state guidance.

Response: Staff acknowledged this recommendation and advised the project proponent accordingly.

Environmental Conclusion. The State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed in the evaluation of the environmental effects of this project. With mitigation, significant environmental impacts were not identified for the proposed project.

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 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.

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

Tribal Consultation. In compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 18, staff mailed a letter on November 17, 2023, notifying the American Indian Tribes of the proposed project and location of the site. The notice starts the 90-day consultation period required under SB 18. As of this writing, no tribal consultation has been requested.

Community Outreach. The applicant hosted a community outreach meeting on March 12, 2026. Invitation letters were mailed by the applicant to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. According to the meeting sign-in sheet, one individual attended.

CONCLUSIONS:

Consistency with Surrounding Development. The project would provide for an increase in density to residential use to complement the existing single-family residential development in the area.

File No. GPA/ZC 22-0372
Consistency with General Plan/Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan related to multi-family development, as noted above. As conditioned, the site plan review is required to comply 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) An amendment of the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use designation from ER (Estate Residential) and SR (Suburban Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential); and (3) a change in zone classification from R-S 2.5A (Residential Suburban 2.5 acre minimum) to R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) Zone.

ATTACHMENTS:

Map Set
• GPA/ZC Aerial
• GPA/ZC Zone Classification
• GPA/ZC General Plan Designation
Site Plan
Elevations
Landscape Plan
Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments
Planning Commission Draft Resolutions
• MND with Attachments
• GPA with Attachments
• ZC with Attachments

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Deferred Business TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kristina Budak, Water Director
DATE: May 19, 2026
SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting Sewer User Rates
for Fiscal Years 2026-27 through 2030-31
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends adoption of the resolution.

BACKGROUND:

The Water Department – Wastewater Division provides services for the collection and treatment of the City’s wastewater. The Sewer Enterprise is self-sustaining, supported primarily by sewer user rates that provide for the daily operations of the sewer and stormwater collection systems and the two wastewater treatment plants. The fixed sewer service charge, often referred to as the flat rate, is collected on the property tax bill for all residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Commercial and industrial customers, in addition to the flat rate, are also subject to sewer surcharge fees based on their wastewater strength classification, and water consumption.

In 2025 the Water Department (Water) partnered with HF&H Consultants (HF&H) to conduct a revenue rate study to assess the revenue requirements needed to cover costs of operating and maintaining the existing systems and infrastructure. Water prepared 15-year infrastructure and financial plans, identifying capital improvement projects, operation and maintenance, and staffing requirements needed to maintain a proper level of service in the coming years. Using the 15-year plans, HF&H completed a full cost-ofservice-analysis (COSA) and provided recommendations for rates beginning FY 2026-27.

Results of the COSA were presented to City Council on October 22, 2025. Since then, City staff received direction regarding acceptable rate options, received feedback from community stakeholders, and engaged in multiple public outreach events.

In 2026, HF&H conducted a new COSA taking into consideration the feedback provided. With the results of the 2026 COSA, Water staff finalized the 2026-2030 Sewer Rates and Fees Report recommending a fiveyear rate increase from FY 2026-27 through FY 2030-31 as shown below:

Fiscal Year Proposed Rate
2026-27 $475
2027-28 $575
2028-29 $675
2029-30 $775
2030-31 $875
Annual sewer fees are viewed as property-related fees for utility service and are subject to Proposition 218. In accordance with Proposition 218 requirements, the City has:
 Determined that the proposed fees for services rendered do not exceed the reasonable estimated cost for providing the services.
 Mailed Proposition 218 Notices for the proposed increased rates to all affected property owners informing them of proposed changes to sewer user rates for FY 2026-27 through FY 2030-31.

Notices were mailed out to residents on March 5, 2026, and March 19, 2026.  Held two public hearings on April 22, 2026, and May 13, 2026, in which the public was able to support or protest the rate increase.

If approved, the proposed rates will go into effect July 1, 2026, and future increases would go into effect each July 1 thereafter through July 1, 2031.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The resolution has no impact to the General Fund. Failure to adopt the proposed rates will result in the Sewer Enterprise Fund being underfunded for upcoming fiscal years.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution to Adopt Sewer Rates

2. Exhibit A – Rate Schedule for FY26.27 – 30.31
RESOLUTION NO. __________

RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW SEWER RATES
FOR FISCAL YEARS 2026-27 THROUGH
2030-31
WHEREAS, Chapter 14.12 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code provides for the establishment of fees sufficient to recover reasonable costs of providing sewer services rendered; and
WHEREAS, HF&H Consultants completed a full cost-of-services analysis and provided rate recommendations; and
WHEREAS, City staff finalized the 2026-2030 Sewer Rates and Fees Report determining recommend rate increases; and
WHEREAS, proposed changes were presented to the City Council on February 11, 2026; and
WHEREAS, City staff was given permission to move forward with the proposed changes; and
WHEREAS, City staff prepared and mailed notices of the public hearings to residential and commercial users, as required by Proposition 218, notifying them of the proposed rate increases (Cal. Constitution Article XIIID, section 6); and WHEREAS, both public hearings before the City Council were advertised in the Bakersfield Californian, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, two public hearings were held in order to receive evidence and hear all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed rate increases; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report, public comments, information presented at the public hearings, and written protests; and
WHEREAS, the Rate Schedule for Fiscal Years 2026-27 through 2030-31, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein, summarizes both residential and commercial rates proposed for Fiscal Years 2026-27 through 2030-31; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of sewer fees is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the California Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8).

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

1. The above recitals and findings are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. The Council finds that insufficient written protests were presented to prevent the proposed rate increases.

3. The Council ratifies the Proposition 218 process followed by the City.

4. The fees and charges set forth in Exhibit “A” are herby adopted and shall become effective July 1, 2026 with the subsequent increases following thereafter on July 1st of the indicated fiscal year.

5. The adoption of these fees and charges complies with Proposition 218 and Proposition 26.

6. Pursuant to the Bakersfield Municipal Code, the fees and charges herein shall be collected by the Kern County Tax Collector on the property tax rolls.

7. This Resolution is effective July 1, 2026.
--oo0oo—
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted, by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on ______________________________ by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER ARIAS, GONZALES, WEIR, SMITH, KOMAN, BASHIRTASH, KAUR NOES: COUNCILMEMBER _______________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER _______________________________________________________________ ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER ______________________________________________________________ _ ________________________________

JULIE DRIMAKIS, CPMC, MMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED: __________
By _________________________

KAREN GOH
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By: ________________________
MATTHEW S. COLLOM
Deputy City Attorney I
Attachment: Exhibit A
Strength Classification FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 Single Family Residence $475.00 $575.00 $675.00 $775.00 $875.00 Multiple Dwelling $356.25 $431.25 $506.25 $581.25 $656.25 Commercial Low Strength $475.00 $575.00 $675.00 $775.00 $875.00 Commercial Medium Strength $475.00 $575.00 $675.00 $775.00 $875.00 Commercial Medium-High Strength $475.00 $575.00 $675.00 $775.00 $875.00 Commercial High Strength $475.00 $575.00 $675.00 $775.00 $875.00 Strength Classification FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 Commercial Low Strength $3.26 $3.95 $4.64 $5.33 $6.02
Commercial Medium Strength $3.80 $4.60 $5.40 $6.20 $7.00 Commercial Medium-High Strength $5.06 $6.13 $7.20 $8.27 $9.34 Commercial High Strength $6.19 $7.49 $8.79 $10.09 $11.39 Parameter FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31
Flow / Million Gallons $3,862.30 $4,675.42 $5,488.54 $6,301.66 $7,114.78 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
/ 1,000 pounds $351.64 $425.67 $499.70 $573.73 $647.76
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) / 1,000
pounds $219.41 $265.60 $311.79 $357.98 $404.17

SEWER USER FEES AND CHARGES

RATE SCHEDULE
Note: Sewer fees for commercial users consist of 1) a flat rate component, collected on the property tax bill by the Kern County Tax Assessor, and 2) sewer surcharge, which recovers costs that exceed the amount of water consumption allowed for in the flat rate. The minimum sewer charge for all properties is equal to the single family residence rate.

FISCAL YEARS 2026-2027 THROUGH 2030-2031
Flat Rate - Collected on Property Tax Bill
Sewer Surcharge per Hundred Cubic Foot of Water Consumed Permitted Industrial User Sewer Fee
EXHIBIT A - PAGE 1

1. $900.00

2. $1,800.00 / Annual

3. $964.00 / As needed

4. Actual costs

5. $800.00

6. See below

1. $80.00

2. $200.00

3. $125.00

4. $12.00

5. $69.00

6. $0.090 / gallon
Users may be charged cost recovery fees when discharges are monitored for compliance to regulatory requirements. Costs may include, but are not limited to outside commercial laboratory fees, city staff hourly rates and fringe benefit costs, equipment costs, reimbursement for damages, administrative costs, overhead costs and other costs incurred by the City.

WASTEWATER SEWER FEES

MISCELLANEOUS SEWER FEES
FISCAL YEARS 2026-2027 THROUGH 2030-2031
Pretreatment Section Fees
Industrial waste monitoring - Permit application fee
Industrial waste monitoring - Permit fee
Industrial waste monitoring - Noncompliance re-inspections Outside laboratory testing fees
Notice of violation (NOV) basic fee
Cost Recovery
Disposal rate
Septic / Grease Discharges
Permit application fee
Septage discharge permit fee - initial
Septage discharge permit fee - annual
Card replacement fee
Notice of Violation (NOV) basic fee
EXHIBIT A - PAGE 2

SEWER USER RATE

INCREASE
1 May 27, 2026
Roadmap
• What is the Sewer Enterprise Fund?
• Why is a Sewer User Rate increase necessary?
• Understanding the City’s Sewer System Outreach Effort • How were rates developed?
• Proposition 218 process
2 Why is this rate
increase necessary?
Aging Infrastructure - Significant CIP Costs
Growing City
Increased Regulatory Burden - Significant O&M Costs
Sewer User Rates
4 Plan Development
• Develop a 15-year
Infrastructure Master Plan
o Identify maintenance, regulatory
and growth projects
o Include staffing needed to
operate current and expanded
facilities and manage projects
• Develop a 10-year Budget
o Evaluate and analysis O&M
line-item expenses
o Identify minor and major
infrastructure improvements
• Prepare rate studies
o Incorporate schedule and costs
identified in the master and
financial plans
Sewer User Rates
6 Rate Development
7 $950 Rate
Developed by
staff, Approved
and Rescinded
by Council
March 2025
$1087 2026 Cost
of Service Rate
Developed by
HF&H and staff
October 2025
Staff developed
and presented
6 Rate Scenarios
to Council
October 2025
Staff presented
4 Rate Scenarios
during
Community
Meetings
Dec 2025 – Jan
2026
Council direction
- begin Prop 218
process with
Recommended
Rate
February 2026
• March 2025 - $950 rate
• October 2025 - $1087 2026 COSA
• October 2025 Rate Scenarios:
o 5-year and 7-year options
o 2 No Bond options
o 2 Bond options < $200 mil
o 3 Bond options > $200 mil
• November 2025 Rate Scenarios
o $950 + 3% CCI w/ $180 mil Bond
o No Bond
o Moderate Bond
o Large Bond
• February 2026
o Recommended Rate = $475-$875
Outreach – Understanding City’s Sewer System [2025]
8 Professional Affiliation Presentations
• August 20th – ASCE
• October 8th – Water Association KC
• October 14th – CA Land Surveyors
• November 4th – Do the Math
• November 13th – Virtual Presentation
Wastewater Website:

October 31
Water Day at the Fair:

September 26
Podcasts:
• April 15 – Let’s Talk about Sewer
• September 15 – Understand Sewer System
Key Stakeholders:
• April 22nd – Supervisor Couch
• April 22nd – Kern Tax
• May 6th – Chamber
• July 16th – State of the City
• November 4th – Chamber
Major Infrastructure Evaluation
• July 2025: AECOM began Plant Evaluations
• November 2025: AECOM provided initial
plant evaluation findings
o Kern County and ENCSD staff attended
• January 2026: The Alternatives Analysis for
Plant 2, 3, and future 4 were provided
o Kern County and ENCSD staff attended
9 Outreach – Understanding City’s Sewer System [2025]
Community Meetings – Wards 1 - 7
• October 6th – Ward 5 - Koman
• October 13th – Ward 1 - Arias
• October 15th – Ward 7 - Kaur
• October 16th– Ward 2 - Gonzales
• October 20th– Ward 3 - Weir
• October 21st – Ward 6 - Bashirtash
• October 27th– Ward 4 - Smith
10 Outreach – Rate Scenario Information & Discussion [2026] Community Meetings
• December 3rd – Ward 6 - Bashirtash
• January 8th – Ward 2 - Gonzales
• January 13th – Ward 5 - Koman
• January 14th– Ward 7 - Kaur
• January 15th – Ward 1 - Arias
11 Professional Affiliation Presentations
• December 3rd- Rotary
• December 18th – Downtown Rotary
• January 12th – Kern Tax
Podcast:
• February 17th – Rate Development
Policy Levers
Timing
• Infrastructure already
failing
• Limited ability to wait
• 5-year timeframe to plan
and construct
• Proposed rate increases
now to build capacity for
needed improvements
Phasing
• Allows time to build reserves
before beginning capital
projects
• Return on value of early
improvements while saving
for larger improvements
• Some limits to phasing;
infrastructure is failing
• Created savings to lower total
costs from $1.5 billion over 15
years to $1.2 billion
12 Financing/Bonding
• Bonding spreads costs over
time; shares costs between
current and future users
• Can lower how much rates
need to be increased
• Can burden the enterprise
with interest expenses
• Generational Equity – Policy
question, not a legal
question
Sewer User Rates
13 • Year 1 – 2026-27 $475 92%
• Year 2 – 2027-28 $575 21%
• Year 3 – 2028-29 $675 17%
• Year 4 – 2029-30 $775 15%
• Year 5 – 2030-31 $875 13%
• Year 6 – 2031-32 $975 11%
• Year 7 – 2032-33 $1005 3%
• Year 8 – 2033-34 $1035 3%
• Year 9 – 2034-35 $1065 3%
• Year 10 – 2035-26 $1095 3%
• Bonding Amount anticipated:
• $150,000,000
PROP 218 REQUIRED
14 Based on AECOM Estimates & Schedule
for Major Infrastructure
Recommended Rate
Analysis of County Scenarios
• Baseline: Replicating Rate Study/Report
• Scenario 1: Large Bonds
• Bond in 2027, 2030 and 2033; $700 million in bonds
• Scenario 2: Remove Eligible Stormwater Expenses
• Includes Scenario 1 assumptions, removes stormwater, $50 million obligation to the General Fund over 10 years; $660 million bonds
• Scenario 3: No Stormwater or Expansion
• Includes prior scenarios; removes $560 million in expansion costs; removes $185 million in connection revenues; $320 million in bonds for capital replacement • Scenario 4: Includes Stormwater, no Expansion
• $410 million in bonds
15 Sewer User Rate Prop 218 Process
16 • On February 11 City Council voted to begin
the Proposition 218 process, noticing the
recommended rate
• Final 2026-2030 Sewer Rates & Fees Report
complete March 4th & posted to
Wastewater website March 5th
• Proposition 218 Mailings – March 5th and
March 19th
• Newspaper notice
• City Website
• Hearing Dates April 22nd and May 13th
• Protest letters will be accepted with and
without APN
17 THANK YOU

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: New Business TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: May 11, 2026
SUBJECT: Accept Bid and Approve Contract with Griffith Company for the ‘H’ Street Corridor Improvements Project

1. Accept bid and approve contract with Griffith Company for $14,372,735.00

2. Authorize staff to approve, as necessary, up to $300,000.00 in City-Controlled contingency for unforeseen conditions during the construction of said project.

3. Approve Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 2023-054 with Quad Knopf, Inc. dba QK (increasing compensation $150,100; revised not to exceed $947,435.00) for Engineering Design Services for the Corridor Improvements along 'H' Street - State Route 58 to State Route 204 Project (Ward 2)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends acceptance of the bid and approval of contract, approval of the City-controlled contingency, and approval of the amendment.

BACKGROUND:

The ‘H’ Street Corridor Improvements Project was initially approved in fiscal year 2022/2023 to design and implement Complete Streets Improvements including roadway reconfiguration, pavement grind and overlay, enhanced pedestrian, cyclist and other multimodal safety and capacity improvements; improved signage, lighting, and drainage; pavement markings; and aesthetic improvements to landscaping and hardscaping along H Street stretching from SR58 to SR204. Staff secured Quad Knopf, Inc. (QK) for the design and preparation of construction documents for this project.

In 2022, Staff applied for construction funding through the Active Transportation Program (ATP) – Cycle

6. The initial scope was primarily to add new, dedicated Class II bike lanes throughout the project corridor, along with other striping and pedestrian safety improvements. As staff moved further into the design phase, it was determined that to accommodate the dedicated bike lanes, the cross section would need to be significantly altered by reducing the number of travel lanes. After reviewing traffic volumes for the corridor, a roadway reconfiguration was utilized to make room for the proposed bike facilities, with major intersections (California Ave, Brundage Ln, and Truxtun Ave) retaining their 4 travel lane configuration.

In 2023, Staff applied for additional construction funding through the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Program, administered by the Kern Council of Governments. The City was awarded approximately $11 million in Federal CMAQ funding in Fiscal Year 24/25. Staff completed the required Preliminary Environmental Survey and Hot Spot Analysis and received a NEPA Categorical Exemption on April 8, 2025.

A number of public outreach events were completed at various stages of design completion in an effort to both inform constituents of the upcoming corridor redesign and gather feedback on the design choices.

In December 2024, Staff held three (3) community outreach meetings in Council Chambers, each focused on a specific section of the corridor, inviting community members for a presentation on the proposed improvements and design criteria, as well as answer specific questions regarding said improvements.

Prior to advertising the construction documents, Staff partnered with Blue Zones Project to hold a final community outreach meeting, exhibiting the final design for the corridor and answering questions about construction timelines, phasing, and public impact. This meeting was held on January 12th, 2026 at Bakersfield High School.

Item No. 1: This project has a Final Bidder’s List. Six (6) contractors responded to Staff’s Request for Statements of Qualifications, posted on March 26, 2026. All six (6) were approved and placed on the Final Bidder’s List. On May 14, 2026, a total of four (4) bids were received. The four (4) responsive bids are as follows:

Griffith Company In the amount of $14,372,735.00
1128 Carrier Parkway Ave
Bakersfield, CA 93308
J.L. Plank, Inc. In the amount of $15,299,999.00
dba Cen-Cal Construction
31207 Denbeste Ct
Shafter, CA 93263
Bowman Asphalt, Inc. In the amount of $16,071,700.00
3333 Gibson St
Bakersfield, CA 93308
C.A. Rasmussen, Inc. In the amount of $20,054,041.95
28548 Livingston Ave
Valencia, CA 91355
Staff recommends awarding the bid and contract to lowest responsible bidder, Griffith Company.

Item No. 2: Bakersfield Municipal Code section 3.20.105(E) authorizes Public Works Contract Amendments to be executed via Change Order, provided that Change Orders which exceed $25,000 must be approved by the City Council. Staff is requesting pre-approval of up to $300,000 for City-controlled contingency for unforeseen conditions encountered during construction of this project, to be executed via authorized Change Order(s). Any cost which exceeds the City approved contingency, cumulative or otherwise, would require action and approval from the City Council. This City-controlled contingency will save staff time by not having to prepare multiple Council reports for individual routine change orders throughout the project, should they arise. All remaining contingency funds not used will be returned to the fund balance at the end of the project.

Item No. 3: On February 22, 2023, the City and QK entered into Agreement No. 2023-054 in the amount of Four Hundred Thirty-One Thousand, Eighty-Five Dollars ($431,085) to provide design services for the Corridor Improvements along H Street-State Route 58 to State Route 204 Project.

On January 22, 2025, the City and QK entered into Amendment No. 1 in the amount of Three Hundred Sixty-Six Thousand, Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($366,250) to provide additional design services to accommodate the expanded design scope resulting from the award of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant funding for the construction of the project. This amendment enabled the project to address increased requirements and enhance its overall impact on improving air quality and reducing congestion, including bike lanes and roundabouts at appropriate intersections.

The City and QK desire to enter into Amendment No. 2 to expand the scope of work to include additional design review and adjustments to the plans after public feedback and increase compensation in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand, One Hundred Dollars ($150,100), for a total compensation of Nine Hundred Forty-Seven Thousand, Four Hundred Thirty Five Dollars ($947,435.00).

FISCAL IMPACT:

This project (T3K325) has a total budget of $16,905,806 and is funded through a combination of State and Federal ATP Funding ($3,154,000), CMAQ Funding ($11,059,158), General Fund ($300,188), PSVS ($931,345), and State Gas Tax ($1,461,115). Sufficient funds are available to award the construction contract, cover the contingency, and amend the design agreement.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
Safety and Resilience
Community Character & Quality of Life
Innovative and Efficient City Government
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Agreement

2. Amendment

____________________________________________________
AMENDMENT #2 TO AGREEMENT NO. 2023-054
S:\Advanced Project Delivery\Projects\FY 2022-2023\T3K325 - H St Corridor Improvements\consultants\QK\Amendment\Amendment 2\Amendment No.2 to Agmt 2023-054 QK.docx -- Page 1 of 4 Pages --
AGREEMENT NO.

AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO
AGREEMENT NO. __2023-054__
THIS AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO AGREEMENT NO. 2023-054 is made and entered into on ________________, by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a charter city and a municipal corporation (referred to herein as “CITY”), and QUAD KNOPF, INC. dba QK, a Corporation authorized to do business in California (referred to herein as “DESIGN CONSULTANT”).

R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2023, CITY and DESIGN CONSULTANT entered into Agreement No. 2023-054 in the amount of Four Hundred Thirty-One Thousand, Eighty-Five Dollars and Zero Cents ($431,085.00) wherein DESIGN CONSULTANT agreed to provide design services for the Corridor Improvements along H StreetState Route 58 to State Route 204 Project; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2025, CITY and DESIGN CONSULTANT entered Amendment No. 1 to expand the scope of work, and increase compensation in the amount of Three Hundred Sixty-Six Thousand, Two Hundred Fifty Dollars and Zero Cents ($366,250.00), for a total compensation of Seven Hundred NinetySeven Thousand, Three Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars and Zero Cents ($797,335.00); and;
WHEREAS, CITY and DESIGN CONSULTANT desire to enter Amendment No. 2 to expand the scope of work, and increase compensation in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand, One Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents ($150,100.00), for a total compensation of Nine Hundred and Forty-Seven Thousand, Four-Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars and Zero Cents ($947,435.00); and;
NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and DESIGN CONSULTANT mutually agree to amend Agreement No. 2023-054 as follows:

1. Section 1 of Agreement No. 2023-054 entitled “Scope of Work” is hereby amended to read as follows:

1. SCOPE OF WORK. In exchange for the Compensation (defined below), DESIGN CONSULTANT must competently and thoroughly design and engineer the Project as more specifically described in the Request, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by ____________________________________________________
AMENDMENT #2 TO AGREEMENT NO. 2023-054
S:\Advanced Project Delivery\Projects\FY 2022-2023\T3K325 - H St Corridor Improvements\consultants\QK\Amendment\Amendment 2\Amendment No.2 to Agmt 2023-054 QK.docx -- Page 2 of 4 Pages --
reference, in DESIGN CONSULTANT’s original scope of work, attached hereto as Exhibit B, in DESIGN CONSULTANT’S additional scope of work for Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 2023, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference, and in in DESIGN CONSULTANT’S new additional scope of work, attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by this reference (collectively, the project description in the Request and DESIGN CONSULTANT’s scope of work are referred to as “Scope of Work”). DESIGN CONSULTANT’s services shall include all the procedures necessary to properly complete the Scope of Work, whether specifically included in the Scope of Work or not.

2. Section 2 of Agreement No. 2023-054 entitled “Compensation/ Payment Procedure” is hereby amended to read as follows:

2. COMPENSATION/PAYMENT PROCEDURE. In exchange for
performing the Scope of Work and subject to the terms of this section, CITY will pay DESIGN CONSULTANT as follows
(“Compensation/Payment Procedure”):

2.1 Actual Costs. CITY will reimburse DESIGN CONSULTANT's actual costs (including labor costs, employee benefits, overhead, and other direct costs) in an amount not to exceed Forty Thousand, Eight Hundred Seventy Dollars and Zero Cents
($40,870.00) exclusive of any fixed fee. Actual costs shall not exceed the estimated wage rates and other costs set forth in DESIGN CONSULTANT's cost proposal.

2.2 Fixed Fee. CITY will pay DESIGN CONSULTANT a fixed fee of Nine Hundred Six Thousand, Five Hundred Sixty-Five Dollars and Zero Cents ($906,565.00) on a monthly basis based upon the percentage of the Scope of Work completed. This fixed fee will not be altered unless there is a significant alteration in the scope, complexity, or character of the Scope of Work.

CITY will pay DESIGN CONSULTANT within 30 days after DESIGN CONSULTANT 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 DESIGN CONSULTANT 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 DESIGN CONSULTANT. In no case will CITY compensate DESIGN CONSULTANT more than Nine Hundred and Forty-Seven Thousand, Four-Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars and Zero Cents ($947,435.00) for performing the Scope of Work.
____________________________________________________
AMENDMENT #2 TO AGREEMENT NO. 2023-054
S:\Advanced Project Delivery\Projects\FY 2022-2023\T3K325 - H St Corridor Improvements\consultants\QK\Amendment\Amendment 2\Amendment No.2 to Agmt 2023-054 QK.docx -- Page 3 of 4 Pages --

3. Except as amended herein, all other provisions of Agreement No. 2023- 054 shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No.

One to Agreement No. 2023-054 to be executed the day and year first above written.
“CITY” “DESIGN CONSULTANT”
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD QUAD KNOPF, INC. dba QK
By: By:_________________________________
KAREN GOH, Mayor
Type or Print Name:

Title:
[Signatures on the following page]
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

AMBER AGUAYO

CFO/COO
____________________________________________________
AMENDMENT #2 TO AGREEMENT NO. 2023-054
S:\Advanced Project Delivery\Projects\FY 2022-2023\T3K325 - H St Corridor Improvements\consultants\QK\Amendment\Amendment 2\Amendment No.2 to Agmt 2023-054 QK.docx -- Page 4 of 4 Pages --

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
By:

ZACHARY MEYER
Public Works Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:

ASHLEY ZAMBRANO
Deputy City Attorney II
Insurance: __________
COUNTERSIGNED:

By:

RANDY MCKEEGAN
Finance Director
Attachments: Exhibits A, B, C and D
H Street Corridor Enhancement Project
Project Overview
• Downtown Bakersfield Corridor Enhancement Master
Plan
• Outline for unified and consistent improvements
• Support mobility options and create a safe
pedestrian environment.
• Council Priority to provide safe and accessible
corridors
• Multi-Modal Transportation & Traffic Safety AdHoc Committee • Complete Streets Resolution No. 108-2023 and
Ordinance No. 5143
• Project aligns with Resolution and Ordinance
Project Limits
• SR58 to SR 204 (Golden State Highway)
• +/- 2.3 mi
Existing Conditions
• South of 24th Street – 4 Lanes (2 Travel Lanes in each direction)
• North of 24th Street – 3 Lanes (1 Travel Lane in each direction and a Center Turn Lane)
Why Slow Down?
• As a City, we want all members of the
community to reach their travel and
commute destinations in a safe and timely
manner
• These improvements help find a happy
medium between travel efficiency and
safety, as speed is directly correlated to the
severity of a collision
• Traffic Calming is meant to establish
compromise and accessibility to drivers,
pedestrians, and riders
(FHWA Highway Safety Programs. Module 2: Traffic Calming Basics) Public Outreach
• Corridor-wide door hangers distributed to residents and businesses to provide project information and meeting
notifications
• Multiple community outreach meetings held during
design to gather public input and identify corridor
priorities
• Public feedback focused on speeding, traffic safety,
pedestrian crossings, bicycle access, and student safety • Additional meeting conducted to discuss the Summer
2026 construction schedule, anticipated impacts, and
business accessibility during construction
• Project information and safety goals communicated
through local media outreach and public interviews
• Community support emphasized traffic calming,
beautification, multimodal access, and long-term
corridor revitalization
Why H Street?
• Planned Safety Improvements:
• Traffic calming and speed reduction measures
• Curb extensions, refuge islands, and protected
crossings
• Enhanced lighting and improved street visibility
• Dedicated bicycle lanes and roadway re-striping
• Pavement rehabilitation and streetscape
upgrades
• Safety Framework:
• Aligns with Vision Zero and FHWA Safe System
Approach
• Focus on reducing severe injuries and fatalities
• Separating users and reducing conflict points
• Improving visibility, reaction time, and crossing
safety
• Supporting multimodal transportation options
Traffic safety data from Public Works, Bakersfield Police Department, and statewide TIMS identifies H Street as a high-priority safety corridor Key concerns include high crash history, limited pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure, and reduced walkability and livability Corridor serves as an important gateway into Downtown Bakersfield and aligns with broader downtown improvement efforts Collision Data (2020–2025 TIMS):
67 vehicle crashes (0
fatalities, 67 injuries)
7 bicycle crashes (1
fatality, 6 injuries)
18 pedestrian crashes (1
fatality, 3 severe injuries,
14 injuries)
BPD Data (5-year period):
319 total collisions
between Brundage Lane
and SR 204
~5.3 collisions per
month (~143.5 per mile)
Construction
• The H Street Complete Streets Project has completed the design phase and is moving into construction • Construction is currently scheduled to begin in Summer 2026 and last approximately one year • The project followed planning, engineering, public outreach, and interagency coordination to address long-standing safety and mobility needs
Construction will be completed in 4 phases to minimize impacts to residents, businesses, schools, and traffic circulation Final construction sequencing will continue to be refined in coordination with utilities, stakeholders, and traffic management planning ahead of mobilization
Southern Corridor (SR 58 to
California Ave)
Lane reconfiguration
Bicycle lane installation
Pedestrian crossing improvements
ADA accessibility upgrades
Bakersfield High School Adjacent
(California Ave to Truxtun Ave)
Streetscape improvements
Lighting and landscaping
enhancements
Improved pedestrian crossings
Traffic calming features
Central Downtown (Truxtun Ave to
24th St)
Intersection improvements
Buffered bicycle lanes
Final striping and signage
Northern Corridor (24th St to SR 204)
Intersection improvements
Buffered bicycle lanes
Final striping and signage
Design Features
Design Features
Questions?