Bakersfield City Council
August 26, 2026

JESSICA KIRCHNER, AICP
CEO & Managing Principal
Jessica is owner and Managing Principal and she frequently serves in multiple roles on projects, including contract and project manager, as well as conducting and writing environmental analyses all while overseeing the firm’s most high-profile clients, revenue, and growth of the firm. With 20 years of experience and a background in journalism, Jessica’s emphasis on clear, concise documents that are not overly complicated has become a company hallmark, along with the ability to deliver projects on unbelievably tight deadlines. She is highly skilled at taking technical documents and concepts and translating them into reader-friendly concepts. She has managed the preparation of more than 100 CEQA documents and serves as an advisor to lead agencies on CEQA implementation. She has provided input to and taught workshops and seminars on CEQA compliance, CEQA streamlining, and environmental justice analysis.

Representative Project Experience
Principal in Charge for the City of Bakersfield Site Plan Review No. 24-0027 and Zone Modification No. 24-0032 Stockdale / Jewetta Religious Campus Environmental Impact Report (Bakersfield, CA). The proposed project includes construction of a private church project in the City of Bakersfield. The site was previously planned for retail/commercial development as part of the surrounding commercial complex, and was cleared but remains vacant. The Project Site is bounded by single-family homes to the north; a Park to the east; a church to the south; and a Commercial Medical facility to the west. The Project also includes offsite road improvements for street frontages. A new Road with new sidewalks/walkways and landscaping shall be constructed north of the Project Site.

Impact Sciences is contracted with the City of Bakersfield to prepare an EIR and conduct peer review of existing technical studies. Jessica is responsible for contract administration, client engagement, and leading the overall preparation and quality control review of the CEQA document.

Principal in Charge for the City of Bell Peer Review of the Addendum to the 2013 Development Agreement Final Environmental Impact Report for the CEMEX Transloading Facility Project (Bell, CA). The proposed CEMEX Transloading Facility Project comprises an existing aggregate storage, transloading, and distribution facility located within the Cheli Industrial Zone, adjacent to Interstate 710 and a (now former) BNSF intermodal rail facility. An EIR was prepared in 2013 for the Bell Business Center Project. In 2016, CEMEX applied to the City to construct and operate a rail-to-truck aggregate transloading facility. The CEMEX facility was constructed in 2019 after the City’s Design Review Board (DRB) determined the Project substantially conformed to the 2013 DA and 2013 DA EIR (Bell Business Center).

Project opponents subsequently sued the City, alleging various defects in the DRB’s approval, including the failure to address environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA. The trial court issued a writ of mandate commanding the City to set aside the DRB action and affirming various defects regarding compliance with CEQA. CEMEX and the City appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling as to the conformance of the proposed use to the 2013 DA, but determined any claims regarding CEQA were moot. To support a new DRB action and to address previously asserted and anticipated claims regarding defects in CEQA compliance, an Addendum to the 2013 DA EIR is being prepared.

Jessica was responsible for leading the peer review process for the CEQA document and preparation of a peer review memo for City review. Jessica provided senior environmental review of the CEQA document.

Managing Principal for the California High Speed Rail Project Senior Review of the Final EIS/EIR (Palmdale to Burbank, CA). The California High Speed Rail Authority Palmdale to Burbank Project Section is part of Phase 1 of the of the California High-Speed Rail System connecting the Antelope Valley to the San Fernando Valley, which will bring high-speed rail service to the urban Los Angeles area with a new modern rail line that dramatically reduces travel time

PROJECT ROLE
Principal in Charge and
Reviewer

EDUCATION
Master’s Degree in Urban
Planning, University of
Southern California
Bachelor of Arts, Journalism,
Rutgers University

AFFILIATIONS
Association of Environmental
Planners, Board Member,
Legislative Committee
American Institute of
Certified Planners, Certified
Planner

JESSICA KIRCHNER, AICP
CEO & Managing Principal

between the Antelope Valley and the Los Angeles Basin. This approximately 31 to 38-mile project section will connect two key population centers in Los Angeles County with multi-modal transportation hubs in Palmdale and Burbank.

Jessica provided senior environmental review of the Final EIR/EIS.

Principal in Charge for the City of Bell Salvation Army Bell Oasis Apartment II Project IS/MND Peer Review (Bell, CA). Impact Sciences peer reviewed the Draft IS/MND for the Salvation Army Bell Oasis Apartments II project, which would involve construction of a three-story, 39,690-square-foot apartment building consisting of 57 studio units for homeless individuals and a two-bedroom staff unit, for a total of 58 apartment units. Comments on the MND were provided in a matrix explaining recommendations for the IS/MND preparer to complete a policy consistency analysis with emphasis on the areas of land use compatibility, noise, and safety. Policies from Bell’s recent Housing Element, Environmental Justice and Safety Elements were recommended to be reviewed. Additionally, Impact Sciences recommended that the IS/MND address the larger context of the project, its appropriateness for housing, proximity to rail and freeways, and transportation/transit access for vulnerable populations in light of comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the project site. Jessica led the preparation of the peer review matrix and provided general project oversight and quality control review.

Project Manager for the Kern Council of Governments 2014, 2018, and 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy EIR (Kern County, CA). The RTP is the culmination of a multi-year effort with the intent to improve the balance between land use and transportation systems. Kern COG is required by federal law to develop an RTP that determines the needs of the transportation system and prioritizes proposed transportation projects. Key issues associated with the project include greenhouse gas emissions, specifically meeting targets set by the Air Resources Board, and developing land use planning scenarios. In 2022 issues arose related to the growth forecast and planned development within the County. Jessica worked with the team, including legal counsel, to address the concerns and adopt the RTP on time.

Principal in Charge for the Fit7 Sports Lab Development Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (Baldwin Park, CA). Impact Sciences prepared an IS/MND for the proposed Fit 7 Sports Lab Development Project, which would involve improvements to two adjacent lots located at 14412 Joanbridge Street and 14424 Joanbridge Street in the City of Baldwin Park. The Project would merge the two adjacent lots as one property, including a two-story soccer training facility and demolition of one proposal for the construction of ground floor parking with rooftop soccer fields.

Jessica is responsible for contract administration, client engagement, and leading the overall preparation and quality control review of the IS/MND.

Principal in Charge for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Whittier Narrows Splashpad Project CEQA Exemption Memo and Technical Studies for Air Quality and Noise/Vibration (Whittier, CA). Impact Sciences prepared a CEQA Exemption Memo and technical studies for air quality and noise/vibration impacts for the proposed project, which includes construction of a new regional splash pad to provide interactive water play features and activities for all age groups. The water play equipment will include low-rise ground jets for toddlers and spill buckets, fan sprays, and water cannons for older children, families, and caregivers. The project also includes improvements to the existing parking lot, pathways, with a dedicated pre-fab restroom building for Americans with Disabilities Act compliance. Jessica’s role included contract management, preparation and review of the CEQA exemption memo, quality control review, and overall project oversight.

Project Manager for the City of Pasadena Temporary Use of the Rose Bowl by the NFL EIR (Pasadena, CA). The project, for the City of Pasadena, consisted of an amendment to the Arroyo Seco Public Lands Ordinance to increase the number of large events allowed at the Rose Bowl for a period of five years. Key issues included traffic, land use, air quality, noise, and recreation. The highly controversial project required close coordination among team members.

Jessica prepared much of the analysis and oversaw technical accuracy of subconsultant deliverables. The environmental document was challenged in court and prevailed.

BRAD PERRINE
Senior Project Manager
Brad has more than 17 years of experience writing environmental analyses in compliance with CEQA and NEPA for various projects in urban, suburban, and rural areas in Los Angeles, Inland Empire, Coachella Valley, and Central Valley. Brad’s project experience ranges from small infill developments to projects of regional significance. An experienced project manager, Brad is responsible for resource allocation; scheduling and budget management; environmental review for several projects at a time; coordination with clients, agencies, and other stakeholders; and presentations on environmental topics at public hearings. Brad’s experience with CEQA and NEPA documentation encompasses the full suite of services, including notices of exemption, consistency analyses, initial studies with negative declarations and mitigated negative declaration, environmental impact reports, addenda, statements of overriding considerations, and findings of fact.

Representative Project Experience
Project Manager for the City of Bakersfield Site Plan Review No. 24-0027 and Zone Modification No. 24-0032 Stockdale / Jewetta Religious Campus Environmental Impact Report (Bakersfield, CA). The proposed project includes construction of a private church project in the City of Bakersfield. The site was previously planned for retail/commercial development as part of the surrounding commercial complex, and was cleared but remains vacant. The Project Site is bounded by single-family homes to the north; a Park to the east; a church to the south; and a Commercial Medical facility to the west. The Project also includes offsite road improvements for street frontages. A new Road with new sidewalks/walkways and landscaping shall be constructed north of the Project Site.

Impact Sciences is contracted with the City of Bakersfield to prepare an EIR and conduct peer review of existing technical studies. Brad is responsible for day-to-day project management and leading the preparation of the EIR.

Project Manager for the City of Glendale 1401 Brand Blvd Star Mazda Project Environmental Impact Report (Glendale, CA). Impact Sciences is preparing an EIR for the proposed Star Mazda project in the City of Glendale, which entails the construction of a new two-story building spanning 11,840 square feet to replace an existing vehicle dealership, specifically Star Mazda, located at 1401 South Brand Boulevard, Glendale, CA. The 54,853-square-foot project site is located within the CA (Commercial Auto) Zone. The proposed project includes demolition, building construction to house various dealership facilities and amenities, parking lot reconfiguration, and site enhancements to ensure zoning compliance. Key environmental topics include historic resources and hazards and hazardous materials. Brad is responsible for project management and overseeing CEQA document preparation.

Project Manager for the Landers Hotel Initial Study / Negative Declaration and Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Technical Study (San Bernardino, CA). Impact Sciences is preparing an Initial Study / Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA for a proposed hotel project located in the Landers community of San Bernardino County (APN is 063003105) in the City of Riverside. The proposed project, to be located on a 4.23-acre site, proposes to construct a boutique hotel with 20 rooms, a pool, and a yoga/fitness room. The site is currently zoned Homestead Rural / Rural Commercial and the project does not require a zone change, although a Minor Use Permit (MUP) will be required. For the proposed project, Impact Sciences is also preparing an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas technical report in a manner consistent with the San Bernardino County’s protocol for the implementation of CEQA and consistent with the recommendations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Air Resources Board, and the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District. Brad is responsible for project management and overseeing CEQA document preparation.

PROJECT ROLE
Project Manager and
Reviewer

EDUCATION
Certification in Land Use and
Environmental Planning,
University of California
Riverside Extension
B.A., History, California Baptist
University

AFFILIATIONS
California Association of
Environmental Professionals

BRAD PERRINE
Senior Project Manager

Project Manager for the City of Oxnard CEQA Documentation for Various Fire Stations (Oxnard, CA). Impact Sciences is preparing CEQA documentation for Fire Station Nos. 2, 3 and 4, which are in need of replacement. Fire Stations 2 and 3 will be demolished and reconstructed on site. Fire Station 4 will be on a vacant site surrounded by existing development. Based on our review of the technical specifications of Fire Stations 2 and 3, we anticipate a Categorical Exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, 15303 or 15332 will be sufficient. Due to Fire Station 4’s location, Impact Sciences will prepare an Initial Study with supporting technical studies to determine if either an MND or EIR is necessary. Brad is responsible for project management and overseeing CEQA document preparation.

Environmental analyst for the Harmony Specific Plan EIR (City of Highland, CA). The project proposed a master planned residential community on 1,650 acres owned by the Orange County Water District at the base of the San Bernardino National Forest between the Santa Ana River and Mill Creek on a former borrow site used for raw material for the construction of the nearby Seven Oaks Dam. The Specific Plan would allow for up to 3,632 dwelling units and six acres of neighborhood commercial with an additional commercial overlay that could provide up to 16 acres of additional neighborhood commercial. The Specific Plan also included a new school site and fire station as well as 830 acres of parks, recreation, and open space. The project presented several environmental challenges including sensitive habitat, wildfire risk, heightened earthquake risk, flood zone and inundation risk, and constraints to emergency access.

Brad worked on the environmental analysis for the project.

Environmental analyst for The Villages of Lakeview Specific Plan No. 342 Recirculated EIR (Riverside County, CA).

Brad worked on the recirculated EIR for this project, which entailed a reduced development alternative of 8,725 dwelling units for a master planned community on approximately 2,900 acres along the Ramona Expressway in the Lakeview/Nuevo area of unincorporated Riverside County. The project also proposed approximately 1.4 million square feet of commercial uses and other land uses including agriculture, public facilities, and 1,106 acres of conserved natural open space and 80 acres of recreation. Brad worked on the environmental analysis for the recirculated EIR.

Project Manager for the 676 Mateo Street Project EIR (City of Los Angeles, CA). The project, located in the Arts District of downtown Los Angeles, and consisted of the conversion of an existing warehouse and parking lot into a 200,000- square-foot mixed-use building of up to 185 live/work units, 15,000 square feet of open space, 23,000 square feet of art-production and commercial space resulting in a 4.74:1 floor -to-area ratio. A flexibility option was included for the project that would instead construct 159 live/work units and 45,900 square feet of art-production and commercial space. Brad managed the project and was the primary author of the environmental analysis.

Project Manager for the Bloomington Business Park Specific Plan Project EIR (San Bernardino County, CA). This controversial project in the Bloomington community comprised 213 acres of existing low density residential and commercial land uses to be redeveloped into an industrial business park over a 20-year buildout. The project included a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Site Plan approvals, Tentative Parcel Maps, and Conditional Use Permits across three planning areas. A maximum development potential of up to approximately 3.2 million square feet could be developed under the Specific Plan. As the project would result in a net loss of residential unit capacity in the Bloomington area, an Upzone Site was included to comply with California Senate Bill 330. The Upzone Site was an existing residential site that was rezoned to a higher residential density to allow for a greater number of dwelling units, which would offset the loss of the dwelling unit potential at the Specific Plan area and thereby avoid a net loss of residential unit capacity in Bloomington. Brad served as the project manager for the project.

Project Manager for the City of Pomona 55-65 Rancho Camino Hyatt Place Project Addendum to an EIR (City of Pomona, CA). The project entailed the preparation of a second addendum to the certified EIR that was originally certified in 2016 for a 6-story, 200-room hotel and 3-story, 75,000-square-foot office building within the Pomona Ranch Plaza, a zoned regional activity center in the Phillips Ranch Specific Plan. The second addendum included the 2023 modifications that further revised earlier project modifications from 2018 and 2020-2021 to the project, which now proposed 147 residential dwelling units as part of the West Building and an apartment/hotel dual-use East Building with 143-room hotel and 86 residential dwelling units. The project site also included a former, capped landfill. Brad was responsible for project management, city, and project team coordination, and was the primary author of the analysis.

BRETT POMEROY
Associate Principal
Brett has more than 19 years of professional experience in the environmental planning field with an emphasis in environmental compliance pursuant to CEQA and NEPA. Brett’s experience includes preparing and managing environmental documentation for both private- and public-sector clients. He has provided environmental analyses to support several types of environmental documents including Categorical Exemptions, ISs, Negative Declarations (NDs), MNDs, Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Programs (MMRPs), EIRs, and addenda. Brett also possesses a strong technical background and has provided quantitative analytical modeling support for air quality, GHG, health risk assessments, noise and vibration, and shade/shadow impact analyses for several complex and multi -faceted projects using industry accepted modeling software. Specifically, Brett has experience with AERMOD and ISC air dispersion modeling systems, CalEEMod, CALINE4-based model, noise modeling based on the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model (TNM) and Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).

Project Experience
Senior Reviewer for the City of Inglewood CEQA Peer Review Services for the Proposed Morningside Residential Development Initial Study (Inglewood, CA).

The Project includes development of 571 three-story townhomes, including 1,122 enclosed and on-street parking spaces and two clubhouses on an approximately

22.87-acre site. Currently, the project sites are occupied by Morningside High School and Woodworth Elementary School campuses. The Project will involve the demolition of auxiliary fields, tennis courts, and a baseball field associated with Morningside High School and the entirety of Woodworth Elementary. The Project Site has an existing General Plan land use designation of Low Density with an R-1 (One-family Residential) zoning. A General Plan amendment will be required to change the General Plan land use designation from Low Density to Medium Density and a Zone Change from R-1 (One-family Residential) to R-3 (Multiple-family Residential). Impact Sciences peer reviewed the Initial Study previously prepared by the City’s contracted CEQA consulting firm. Brett peer reviewed the Initial Study and prepared a summary memo for the City.

Project Manager for the City Los Angeles Oil & Gas Drilling Ordinance Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise Technical Report and MND (Los Angeles, CA). The proposed Citywide Oil and Gas Drilling Ordinance (Ordinance) provides for the termination of all nonconforming oil and gas extraction and production uses within the City over a 20- year period and prohibition of new or expanded oil and gas extraction activities, except as allowed to continue via a discretionary process established by the Ordinance and in compliance with State, regional, and local regulations. The project was on a fast-track schedule with an aggressive timeline to get the ordinance to the City Council before the next election. On December 2, 2022, the Los Angeles City Council adopted Ordinance No. 187,709 and the Mayor signed the ordinance on his last day in office. Brett’s duties included document preparation, oversight of technical services, and fast-track schedule management.

Technical Director for the City of Los Angeles Harbor LA Community Plans EIR and Technical Studies (Los Angeles, CA). The Harbor LA Community Plans refer to two Community Plan Areas located north of the City of Los Angeles Harbor that are currently being updated: Harbor Gateway and Wilmington-Harbor City. Key goals of the community plans update are planning for future land use and development over the next 20 years, addressing community issues related to land use and applying the City’s new Zoning Code structure to the Plan Areas. Brett is providing general oversight of technical services and leading the preparation and review of the Air Quality and Noise technical reports.

PROJECT ROLE
Technical Reviewer

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science, Natural
Science, Loyola Marymount
University

AFFILIATIONS
Association of Environmental
Planners (AEP)
CEQA and NEPA workshops
and conferences
Completed AERMOD
Dispersion Modeling
Training Seminar held by
Lakes Environmental

BRETT POMEROY
Associate Principal

Project Manager for the City of Long Beach | 3401 Cerritos Project Initial Study and Focused Environmental Impact Report (Long Beach, CA). For the City of Long Beach, Impact Sciences is preparing an Initial Study for the 3401 Cerritos Project. The proposed project consists of the construction of an apartment complex with 73 dwelling units, of which 100 percent will be restricted affordable units for Lower Income Households, exclusive of the manager’s unit and a two-level subterranean garage. The initial study includes detailed technical analyses, including an Air Quality Report, Cultural Resources and Tribal Consultation Report, Long Beach Climate Action Adaptation Plan Consistency Checklist, Soils Engineering Investigation Report, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, and a Noise/Vibration Report.

Additionally, Impact Sciences is preparing a focused environmental impact report to analyze potential impacts to aesthetics, cultural resources, and land use and planning.

Technical Lead for the 3401 S. La Cienega Blvd. Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) (Los Angeles, CA). The project proposes a new mixed-use residential and commercial development, including one Residential Building and one Commercial Building. The Residential Building contains units for rent; with units reserved for “very low income” households and units reserved for workforce housing. The Commercial Building includes ground floor retail. The project site is centrally located centrally located in the West Adams neighborhood, adjacent to the Metro E (Expo) Line tracks and the La Cienega / Jefferson Metro Station. Brett’s duties include document preparation, and oversight of technical services.

Technical Lead for the Eternal Valley Project Air Quality & Noise Technical Studies (Newhall, CA). This project consists of rough grading, future lawn burials, and the construction of a community mausoleum. The Project includes approximately 17 acres of grading across the Project site. Brett’s duties include document preparation, and oversight of technical services.

Technical Lead for the City Market of Los Angeles Project EIR (Los Angeles, CA). The Project is anticipated to be built out over a 30-year period and would include the construction of approximately 945 multiple residential dwelling units, a maximum of 210 hotel rooms, approximately 294,641 square feet of commercial (including medical and general office) and manufacturing uses, approximately 224,862 square feet of retail floor area (including restaurants, bars, event space, wholesale uses, and a cinema with approximately 744 seats), and approximately 312,112 square feet of corporate/educational campus floor area. Brett duties include the air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise/vibration analyses for the EIR.

Technical Lead for the Santa Clara County Unified School District (SCUSD) Peterson Laurelwood Master Plan Draft EIR (Santa Clara, CA). The Proposed Master Plan supports SCUSD’s Vision 2035 and the SCUSD Board of Trustee’s direction for Bond Measure BB funding. In 2018, SCUSD voters approved General Obligation Bond Measure BB to authorize $720 million to fund critically needed safety, modernization, and new construction projects. Some of Measure BB bond funds will be used to design and build a new Laurelwood Elementary on a portion of the Patrick Henry Campus, a 300-seat Alternative High School on the fields north of the existing Patrick Henry buildings, and new fields at the existing Peterson Middle School. The SCUSD created a master plan for the area to encompass all SCUSD assets within the plan’s boundaries. Brett’s duties include section preparation and oversight of technical services.

Technical Lead for the City of Milpitas 1355 California Circle Project EIR, Health Risk Assessment, and Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Studies (Milpitas, CA). Impact Sciences is preparing CEQA documentation for the proposed Pulte Homes residential development. The proposed project comprises up to 206 new residential units on a 6.69-acre site. The applicant is working with the Milpitas Unified School District (MUSD) to create a program that would provide housing opportunities for their 900+ employees, within the 75 below-market-rate units. The proposed site is located to the east of Interstate 880 and a 35’-wide storm drain channel, west of California Circle. Brett led the preparation of the HRA and technical studies for air quality and noise/vibration.

LYNN KAUFMAN, CLA
Associate Principal
Lynn has over 25 years of experience in both the management and preparation of environmental review documents pursuant to CEQA and NEPA for clients in both the public and private sector. Lynn has written numerous CEQA analyses for high profile and environmentally sensitive projects in both urban and rural settings, and acts as a day-to-day contact for in-house and agency staff, subconsultants, and applicants, providing valuable insight to identify environmental constraints and feasible mitigation measures. Lynn’s duties also include project scheduling, budgeting, conducting field surveys, preparing proposals and graphics, providing quality control review and feedback, and training entry-level staff. Lynn has prepared and comanaged a variety of environmental review documents including Environmental Impact Reports, Initial Studies, Negative Declarations, Mitigated Negative Declarations, Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessments, Environmental Assessments, Addenda, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs, and other focused environmental analyses. Her diverse project experience includes commercial/retail, mixed-use, single-, multi-family and affordable residential, institutional, and master planned developments throughout Southern California.

Representative Project Experience
Task Leader for the City of Los Angeles Oil & Gas Drilling Ordinance IS/MND and Technical Studies (Los Angeles, CA). The proposed Citywide Oil and Gas Drilling Ordinance (Ordinance) provides for the termination of all nonconforming oil and gas extraction and production uses within the City over a 20-year period and prohibition of new or expanded oil and gas extraction activities, except as allowed to continue via a discretionary process established by the Ordinance and in compliance with State, regional, and local regulations. Lynn was responsible for document preparation and quality control review of the IS/MND.

Task Leader for the Kern Council of Governments 2014 and 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy EIR (Kern County, CA).

The RTP is the culmination of a multi-year effort with the intent to improve the balance between land use and transportation systems. Kern COG is required by federal law to develop an RTP that determines the needs of the transportation system and prioritizes proposed transportation projects. Key issues associated with the project include greenhouse gas emissions, specifically meeting targets set by the Air Resources Board, and developing land use planning scenarios. In 2022 issues arose related to the growth forecast and planned development within the County. Lynn was responsible for section preparation and review, project oversight and document preparation
Project Manager for the Hitch Ranch Specific Plan Project EIR (Moorpark, CA). The proposed project would provide up to 755 residential units of varying land use types and densities, in addition to open space, and recreational uses. The residential units would be comprised of a mix of traditional single-family detached dwelling units, clustered singlefamily detached units, and apartment buildings. To be consistent with the City of Moorpark’s policies regarding affordable housing, the Applicant will also donate a six acre graded parcel of land with all utility services to the City, so that the City may pursue development of affordable multi-family housing. A The issues of concern addressed in the EIR include aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, transportation, and wildfire. Lynn was responsible for project oversight, budgeting, and document preparation.

Project Manager for the Temple Beth Am-Pressman Academy Campus Expansion Project IS/MND in the Wilshire Community Plan Area (Los Angeles, CA). The project involves the construction of a new three-story building with classrooms, a library and conference rooms, an art studio, laboratories, offices, a teacher’s lounge and workroom,

PROJECT ROLE
Senior CEQA Reviewer

EDUCATION
University of California, Los
Angeles - University
Extension Professional
Designation Award,
Landscape Architecture
Bachelor of Arts, Design and
Fine Art, California State
University, Northridge

AFFILIATIONS
Registered Landscape
Architect - State of California
– No. 2975

LYNN KAUFMAN, CLA
Associate Principal

restrooms, storage and other support space, and (under the second phase of the proposed project) the enclosure of the third floor to create an indoor gymnasium. Under the third and final phase of the proposed project an elevated play-deck would be constructed over surface parking located on the northwest corner of the project site. Lynn was responsible for project oversight and document preparation.

Task Leader for the Malibu Memorial Park Project IS/MND, (Malibu, CA). The 27.8 acre project site located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and Malibu Canyon Road. The project consists of a 6,673 square foot chapel, 176 parking spaces, 47 freestanding mausoleum structures, approximately 28,265 in-ground burial plot spaces intermittently located throughout the property 3,644 interments in above grade wall crypt structures and approximately 65,036 square feet of walking trails. The main chapel would serve as the central axis for the development and is proposed to house clergy offices and meeting rooms, religious burial preparation areas and private grieving areas. Additional project components include a public mausoleum, private estate plots, terraced estate plots, bench estates, cremation gardens/ossuaries/niche walls, a pet cemetery, and lawn crypts. Lynn was responsible for project oversight and document preparation.

Assistant Project Manager for the Roosevelt Memorial Park Cemetery Master Plan Project IS/MND (Los Angeles, CA). The project includes upgrades to modernize and expand the current operations at the existing Roosevelt Memorial Park Cemetery. The 36.58 acre project site is currently zoned A1-1/GP LUD Open Space (no zone change is required).

The project is separated into seven phases: Phase 1 (Areas A and B): 1,288 crypts, 460 wall niches, and 162 garden niches (3 high), Phase 2 (Areas C and D): 1,428 crypts, 760 wall niches, and 54 garden niches (3 high), Phase 3 (Area E): 1,267 crypts and 1,080 wall niches, Phase 4 (Area Q); one-story, 4,900 sf administrative office and crematory building and vehicle parking, Phase 5 (Areas F, M, and N): 2,408 crypts, 1,240 wall niches, 500 garden niches, and 106 double depth lawn crypts, Phase 6 (Areas G and H): 2,212 crypts, 1,920 wall niches, 3,000 garden niches, and 3,600 chapel niches, Phase 7 (Area I): 1,754 crypts, 2,020 wall niches, 1,868 garden niches, and 152 chapel niches. The project is expected to be developed over an approximately 25-year horizon. Lynn is responsible for project oversight and QA/QC.

Project Manager for the Whole Foods and the Park Project EIR (Malibu, CA). The project includes the development of two parcels totaling 5.88 acres; the project site is currently vacant. The project consists of a new 38,425-square-foot community shopping center in the Civic Center area. The shopping center is designed to be anchored by a Whole Foods Market. The floor area ratio (FAR) for the project would be 0.15, including the main market building and four smaller outbuildings. The buildings would surround a central parking area with walkways, landscaping, and outdoor amenities integrated throughout. The issues of concern addressed in the EIR included aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, land use, noise, and transportation and traffic. Lynn was responsible for project oversight and document preparation.

Project Manager for the for the St. John's Seminary Residential Community Project EIR (Camarillo, CA). The project was processed as a Residential Planned Development (RPD), zone change, and General Plan Amendment to identify potential land uses, phasing, design standards, and circulation patterns for approximately 88.45 acres, located at the north side of Upland Road, easterly of Lewis Road and Somis, formerly occupied by the now closed St. John’s Undergraduate College, and was owned by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles. The proposed project would provide up to 300 residential units for an age restricted adult community, in addition to open space, and recreational uses. The residential units would be comprised of a mix of traditional single family detached dwelling units, clustered single family detached units, and clustered duplex units. The issues of concern addressed in the EIR include aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological and cultural (historic) resources, greenhouse gas emissions, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, and transportation and traffic. Lynn was responsible for project oversight and document preparation.

Project Manager for the proposed 6024 Jefferson Project IS/MND in the West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert Community Plan Area (Los Angeles, CA). The proposed project is located on a 3.672 acre site in Los Angeles, California at 6024-6034 W Jefferson Boulevard. The proposed project is intended to provide corporate headquarters office, manufacturing, and warehouse facilities for “The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf” inclusive of a coffee bean roasting space and viewing area, and a drive-thru retail (coffee shop) component. The development consists of two buildings totaling 218,778 square feet of floor area. Surface and subterranean parking would be provided with up to 828 spaces. Lynn was responsible for project oversight and document preparation.

APPENDIX B
Sample Independent Contractor’s Agreement
Professional Services Agreement
AGREEMENT NO. ___________________

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT
[Over $40,000]
This INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on _______________________, by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation (referred to herein as “CITY”), and _________________________________________ a [business type:

Sole Proprietorship; Partnership; Corporation; LLC; etc.] authorized to do business in California (referred to herein as “CONTRACTOR”).

R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR represents that CONTRACTOR is experienced, well qualified and a specialist in the field of ________________________________.

NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and CONTRACTOR mutually agree as follows:

1. SCOPE OF WORK. In exchange for the Compensation (defined below), CONTRACTOR shall perform the following:
_____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________ (“Scope of Work”). The Scope of Work shall include all items and procedures necessary to properly complete the task CONTRACTOR has been hired to perform, whether specifically included in the Scope of Work or not.

2. COMPENSATION/PAYMENT PROCEDURE. Subject to the conditions of this section, CITY will pay CONTRACTOR as follows for performing the Scope of Work (“Compensation”):
[choose one]
(1) A total, lump sum payment of $ _______________ after the Scope of Work is completed to CITY’s satisfaction, or
(2) On an hourly [or time/material] basis in accordance with the hourly rates as shown on Exhibit A.

CITY will pay CONTRACTOR within 30 days after CONTRACTOR submits an itemized invoice for the portions of the Scope of Work completed and that invoice is approved by CITY. The Compensation will be the total amount paid to CONTRACTOR for performing the Scope of Work and includes, but is not limited to, all out-of-pocket costs and taxes.

CITY will pay no other compensation to CONTRACTOR. In no case will CITY compensate CONTRACTOR more than $_____________ for performing the Scope of Work.

3. TERM. Unless terminated sooner, as set forth herein, this Agreement shall terminate on _________________ [Date].

4. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement after giving the other party written notice, as provided herein, ten days before the termination is effective.

5. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall, at CONTRACTOR’s sole cost, comply with all of the requirements of Municipal, State, and Federal authorities now in force, or which may hereafter be in force, pertaining to this Agreement, and shall faithfully observe in all activities relating to or growing out of this Agreement all Municipal ordinances and State and Federal statutes, rules or regulations, and permitting requirements now in force or which may hereafter be in force including, without limitation, obtaining a City of Bakersfield business tax certificate (Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 5.02) where required.

6. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. This Agreement calls for CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Scope of Work as an independent contractor. CONTRACTOR is not an agent or employee of the CITY for any purpose and is not entitled to any of the benefits provided by CITY to its employees. This Agreement shall not be construed as forming a partnership or any other association with CONTRACTOR other than that of an independent contractor.

7. DIRECTION. CONTRACTOR retains the right to control or direct the manner in which the services described herein are performed.

8. EQUIPMENT. CONTRACTOR will supply all equipment, tools, materials and supplies necessary to perform the services under this Agreement.

9. STARTING WORK. CONTRACTOR shall not begin work until authorized to do so in writing by CITY. No work will be authorized before the date first written above.

10. KEY PERSONNEL. CONTRACTOR shall name all key personnel to be assigned to perform the Scope of Work. All key personnel shall be properly licensed and have the experience to perform the work called for under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall provide background for each of the key personnel including, without limitation, resumes and work experience performing work similar to the Scope of Work. CITY reserves the right to approve key personnel. Once the key personnel are approved, CONTRACTOR shall not change such personnel without CITY’s written approval.

11. INCLUDED DOCUMENTS. Any bid documents, including, without limitation, special provisions and standard specifications and any Request for Proposals, Request for Qualifications and responses thereto relating to this Agreement are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

12. LICENSES. CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits and approvals which are legally required for CONTRACTOR to practice its profession and perform the Scope of Work. If CONTRACTOR is a corporation, at least one officer or key employee shall hold the required licenses or professional degrees. If CONTRACTOR is a partnership, at least one partner shall hold the required licensees or professional degrees.

13. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. The Scope of Work shall be performed in conformity with all legal requirements and industry standards observed by a specialist of CONTRACTOR’s profession in California.

14. SB 854 COMPLIANCE. To the extent Labor Code Section 1771.1 applies to this Agreement, a contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, be subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of Labor Code Section 1771.1 for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded. The prime contractor is required to post job site notices in compliance with Title 8 California Code of Regulations Section 16451. This project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.

15. NO WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The failure of any party to enforce against another party any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that party's right to enforce such a provision at a later time and shall not serve to vary the terms of this Agreement.

16. INSURANCE.

16.1 Types and Limits of Insurance. In addition to any other insurance or security required under this Agreement, CONTRACTOR must procure and maintain, for the duration of this Agreement, the types and limits of insurance below ("Basic Insurance Requirements").

16.1.1 Automobile liability insurance, providing coverage for owned, nonowned, and hired autos on an occurrence basis for bodily injury, including death, of one or more persons, property damage, and personal injury, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.

16.1.2 Commercial general liability insurance, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Risk Manager, providing coverage on an occurrence basis for bodily injury, including death, of one or more persons, property damage, and personal injury, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. The policy must:

16.1.2.1 Provide contractual liability coverage for the terms of this Agreement;

16.1.2.2 Provide products and completed operations coverage;

16.1.2.3 Provide premises, operations, and mobile equipment coverage; and

16.1.2.4 Contain an additional insured endorsement in favor of CITY and its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees, and designated volunteers.

16.1.3 Workers' compensation insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. In accordance with the provisions of Labor Code Section 3700, every contractor will be required to secure the payment of compensation to his employees. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, CONTRACTOR must submit to CITY the following certification before beginning any work on the Improvements:

I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for worker’s compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.

By executing this Agreement, CONTRACTOR is submitting the certification required above.

The policy must contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of CITY and its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees, and designated volunteers.

16.2 General Provisions Applying to All Insurance Types.

16.2.1 All policies required of CONTRACTOR must be written on a first-dollar coverage basis, or contain a deductible provision. Subject to CITY’s advance approval, CONTRACTOR may utilize a self-insured retention in any or all of the policies provided, but the policy or policies may not contain language, whether added by endorsement or contained in the policy conditions, that prohibits satisfaction of any self-insured provision or requirement by anyone other than the named insured or by any means including other insurance or which is intended to defeat the intent or protection of an additional insured.

16.2.2 All policies required of CONTRACTOR must be primary insurance as to CITY and its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees, or designated volunteers and any insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY and its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees, and designated volunteers must be excess of CONTRACTOR’s insurance and must not contribute with it.

16.2.3 The insurance required above, except for workers’ compensation insurance, must be placed with insurers with a Best’s rating as approved by CITY’s Risk Manager, but in no event less than A-:VII. Any deductibles, self-insured retentions, or insurance in lesser amounts, or lack of certain types of insurance otherwise required by this Agreement, or insurance rated below Best’s A-:VII, must be declared prior to execution of this Agreement and approved by CITY in writing.

16.2.4 The insurance required in this section must be maintained until the Scope of Work is satisfactorily completed as evidenced by CITY’s written acceptance. All policies must provide that there will be continuing liability thereon, notwithstanding any recovery on any policy.

16.2.5 Full compensation for all premiums which the CONTRACTOR is required to pay to satisfy the Basic Insurance Requirements shall be considered as included in the prices paid for the performance of the Scope of Work, and no additional allowance will be made therefor or for additional premiums which may be required by extensions of the policies of insurance.

16.2.6 It is further understood and agreed by CONTRACTOR that its liability to CITY will not in any way be limited to or affected by the amount of insurance obtained and carried by CONTRACTOR in connection with this Agreement.

16.2.7 Unless otherwise approved by CITY, if any part of the Scope of Work is subcontracted, the Basic Insurance Requirements must be provided by, or on behalf of, all subcontractors even if CITY has approved lesser insurance requirements for CONTRACTOR, and all subcontractors must agree in writing to be bound by the provisions of this section.

17. THIRD PARTY CLAIMS. In the case of public works contracts, CITY will timely notify CONTRACTOR of third party claims relating to this Agreement. CITY shall be allowed to recover from CONTRACTOR, and CONTRACTOR shall pay on demand, all costs of notification.

18. INDEMNITY. CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY and CITY’s officers, agents and employees against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, arising out of, connected with, or caused by CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR’s employees, agents, independent contractors, companies, or subcontractors in the performance of, or in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this Agreement whether or not caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct.

19. ASSIGNMENT. Neither this Agreement nor any rights, interests, duties, liabilities, obligations or responsibilities arising out of, concerning or related in any way to this Agreement (including, but not limited to, accounts, actions, causes of action, claims, damages, demands, liabilities, losses, obligations, or reckonings of any kind or nature whatsoever, for compensatory or exemplary and punitive damages, or declaratory, equitable or injunctive relief, whether based on contract, equity, tort or other theories of recovery provided for by the common or statutory law) may be assigned or transferred by any party. Any such assignment is prohibited, and shall be unenforceable and otherwise null and void without the need for further action by the non-assigning party or parties.

20. ACCOUNTING RECORDS. CONTRACTOR shall maintain accurate accounting records and other written documentation pertaining to all costs incurred in performance of this Agreement. Such records and documentation shall be kept at CONTRACTOR's office during the term of this Agreement, and for a period of three years from the date of the final payment hereunder, and made available to CITY representatives upon request at any time during regular business hours.

21. BINDING EFFECT. The rights and obligations of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties to the Agreement and their heirs, administrators, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns.

22. CORPORATE AUTHORITY. Each individual signing this Agreement on behalf of entities represents and warrants that they are, respectively, duly authorized to sign on behalf of the entities and to bind the entities fully to each and all of the obligations set forth in this Agreement.

23. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered as an original and be effective as such.

24. EXECUTION. This Agreement is effective upon execution. It is the product of negotiation and all parties are equally responsible for authorship of this Agreement. Section 1654 of the California Civil Code shall not apply to the interpretation of this Agreement.

25. EXHIBITS. In the event of a conflict between the terms, conditions or specifications set forth in this Agreement and those in exhibits attached hereto, the terms, conditions, or specifications set forth in this Agreement shall prevail. All exhibits to which reference is made in this Agreement are deemed incorporated in this Agreement, whether or not actually attached.

26. FURTHER ASSURANCES. Each party shall execute and deliver such papers, documents, and instruments, and perform such acts as are necessary or appropriate, to implement the terms of this Agreement and the intent of the parties to this Agreement.

27. GOVERNING LAW. The laws of the State of California will govern the validity of this Agreement and its interpretation and performance. Any litigation arising in any way from this Agreement shall be brought in Kern County, California.

28. INTERPRETATION. Whenever the context so requires, the masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter, and the singular number includes the plural.

29. MERGER AND MODIFICATION. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all other oral or written representations. This Agreement may be modified only in a writing approved by the City Council and signed by all the parties.

30. NON-INTEREST. No CITY officer or employee shall hold any interest in this Agreement (California Government Code section 1090).

31. NOTICES. All notices relative to this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be personally served or sent by certified or registered mail and be effective upon actual personal service or depositing in the United States mail. The parties shall be addressed as follows, or at any other address designated by notice:

CITY: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

CITY HALL
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
CONTRACTOR: ____________________________

32. RESOURCE ALLOCATION. All CITY obligations under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation and allocation of resources by the City Council.

33. TITLE TO DOCUMENTS. All documents, plans, and drawings, maps, photographs, and other papers, or copies thereof prepared by CONTRACTOR pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, shall, upon preparation, become CITY property.

34. TAX NUMBERS.

CONTRACTOR’s Federal Tax ID Number
CONTRACTOR is a corporation? Yes No
(Please check one.)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date first written above.
"CITY" “CONTRACTOR”

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
By:________________________________ By:_________________________________

KAREN GOH
Mayor Print Name:

Title:
[Signatures on Following Page]

DO NOT HAVE STAND ALONE SIGNATURE PAGE
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

CITY DEPARTMENT NAME
By:_______________________________

DEPARTMENT HEAD NAME
TITLE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:___________________________
(NAME & TITLE)
Insurance:____________
COUNTERSIGNED:

By:_______________________________

RANDY MCKEEGAN
Finance Director
Attachment: Exhibit ___
“I have received and reviewed the sample INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT including the INDEMNITY clause which was sent to me with the CITY’s RFP. My signature below shall signify our firm’s acceptance of said agreement if our firm is selected for award of the agreement for the project as described in said RFP. This acceptance is made with the understanding that the Compensation and Time for Completion clause will be modified to contain the amounts and dates established for this agreement.”
_______________________
Signature
_______________________
Date
August 5, 2026
06/02/2026
AssuredPartners of California Ins Services, LLC
196 S. Fir Street
P.O. Box 1388
Ventura CA 93002-1388
Nathan Berglund
(805) 585-6144 (805) 585-6144
[email protected]
Impact Sciences Inc.
445 S. Figueroa Street
Suite 2550
Los Angeles CA 90071
Travelers Prop Cas Co of Am 25674
Technology Insurance Company, Inc. 42376
Landmark American Insurance Company 33138
26/27 GL/HNOA/WC/UMB/
PROF
A Y 680-7H085627-26-47 02/14/2026 02/14/2027
1,000,000
1,000,000
5,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
A 680-7H085627-26-47 02/14/2026 02/14/2027
1,000,000
A CUP9060Y996-26-47 02/14/2026 02/14/2027
5,000,000
5,000,000
B Y TES4806677 06/01/2026 06/01/2027
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
C

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY LHR874056 02/14/2026 02/14/2027 EACH CLAIM $2,000,000 PER AGGREGATE $4,000,000
GL: Certificate Holder, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and volunteers are Additional Insured as respects to operations of the Named Insured per form CGD3810915. WC: A Waiver of Subrogation is added in favor of the Additional Insured per form WC040306. Endorsements apply only as required by current written contract on file.

City of Bakersfield
Office of Risk Management
1600 Truxtun Ave
Bakersfield CA 93301

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE

THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.

INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURER F :

INSURER E :

INSURER D :

INSURER C :

INSURER B :

INSURER A :

NAIC #
NAME:

CONTACT
(A/C, No):

FAX
E-MAIL
ADDRESS:

PRODUCER
(A/C, No, Ext):

PHONE

INSURED
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.

If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

OTHER:
(Per accident)
(Ea accident)
$
$
N / A
SUBR
WVD
ADDL
INSD

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $
$
$
$

PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY (Per accident)
BODILY INJURY (Per person)

COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT

AUTOS ONLY

AUTOS ONLY AUTOS

NON-OWNED

OWNED SCHEDULED

ANY AUTO

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Y / N

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
(Mandatory in NH)
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
If yes, describe under

ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
$
$
$
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
ER
OTHSTATUTEPER
(MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS

POLICY EXP
(MM/DD/YYYY)

POLICY EFF

LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER
INSR
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)

EXCESS LIAB
UMBRELLA LIAB EACH OCCURRENCE $
AGGREGATE $
$
OCCUR

CLAIMS-MADE
DED RETENTION $
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $
GENERAL AGGREGATE $
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $
MED EXP (Any one person) $
EACH OCCURRENCE $

DAMAGE TO RENTED
PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY

CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:

POLICY
PROJECT LOC

CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)

CANCELLATION

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
ACORD 25 (2016/03)
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

CERTIFICATE HOLDER
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
HIRED

AUTOS ONLY
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY WC 04 03 06 (Ed. 04-84)
(The information below is required only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.) WC 04 03 06

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Evette Roldan, Assistant Water Director
DATE: August 11, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. WR25-037 with Franzenburg LLC (extend the term by one year and increase compensation by $300,000; revised not to exceed $400,000) to provide sludge dewatering centrifuge repair and maintenance for the Wastewater Division.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of amendment.

BACKGROUND:

The Water Department - Wastewater Division requires sludge dewatering centrifuge repair and maintenance services beyond the expertise of City Staff. These services include, but are not limited to, removing and installing the centrifuges (transportation included); troubleshoot, diagnose, and correct unknown problems; disassemble, clean, repair, and reassemble all parts and components of the centrifuges; balance and align scrolls and bowls of the centrifuges; test run fully completed centrifuges; perform routine preventive maintenance tasks such as regular inspection, lubrication, calibration, and part replacement and complete all work in a timely manner.

On September 10, 2025, City entered into Agreement No. WR25-037 with Franzenburg LLC to provide sludge dewatering repair and maintenance for the Wastewater Division. Franzenburg was selected through a formal Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process and was awarded an initial one-year contract.

Since awarding the contract, Franzenburg has completed a variety of maintenance and repair projects, including replacing centrifuge bearing kits and providing maintenance and labor for the major overhaul kit for centrifuge #1.

At this time, given the increased need for repair and maintenance services to support ongoing operations and ensure the reliability of critical wastewater infrastructure, staff recommend extending the term by one year and increasing compensation by $300,000, for a revised total not to exceed $400,000. This adjustment is in accordance with the original Agreement and will allow the Division to continue addressing essential maintenance, emergency repairs, and necessary system improvements without interruption to service.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are budgeted in the Sewer Enterprise Fund for this amendment, therefore, there is no impact to the City General Fund associated with this amendment.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 1

2. Exhibit B

August 3, 2026
Jesus Banuelos
Public Works Wastewater Division
6901 McCutchen Road
Bakersfield, CA
93313
Subject: Franzenburg Centrifuge Hourly Billing Rates
Jesus,
Good day, we hope this finds you well. As per your request here is the pricing information requested on our company letterhead.
• Freight & Shipping Cost per unit to our Des Moines, IA facility is $7500 • The mobilization cost to send a technician to your facility is $2500. • The labor cost for a technician to visit the site for 8-hours is $1600/day. • If requested, we can come on-site and provide diagnostic troubleshooting on the unit at no additional cost to the City.

Please let us know if you need anything else, we are excited to work with you and your team on getting these units up to optimum performance.

Kind Regards,
Sean Tierney
Business Development Manager and Process Specialist
Franzenburg Centrifuge
Email: [email protected]
Mobile: (515) 423-8982

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Evette Roldan, Assistant Water Director
DATE: August 11, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement WR25-038 with Sentrimax Centrifuges Inc. (extend the term by one year and increase compensation by $400,000; revised not to exceed $500,000) to provide sludge dewatering centrifuge repair and maintenance for the Wastewater Division.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of amendment.

BACKGROUND:

The Water Department - Wastewater Division requires sludge dewatering centrifuge repair and maintenance services beyond the expertise of City Staff. These services include, but are not limited to, removing and installing the centrifuges (transportation included); troubleshoot, diagnose, and correct unknown problems; disassemble, clean, repair, and reassemble all parts and components of the centrifuges; balance and align scrolls and bowls of the centrifuges; test run fully completed centrifuges; perform routine preventive maintenance tasks such as regular inspection, lubrication, calibration, and part replacement and complete all work in a timely manner.

On September 10, 2025, City entered into Agreement No. WR25-038 with Sentrimax Centrifuges Inc. (Sentrimax) to provide sludge dewatering repair and maintenance for the Wastewater Division. Sentrimax was selected through a formal Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process and was awarded an initial oneyear contract. Since awarding the contract, Sentrimax has completed a variety of maintenance and repair projects, including variable frequency drive (VFD) and control programming, rebuilding centrifuge #3, and installing new drives for centrifuge #4.

At this time, given the increased need for repair and maintenance services to support ongoing operations and ensure the reliability of critical wastewater infrastructure, staff recommend extending the term by one year and increasing compensation by $400,000, for a revised total not to exceed $500,000. This adjustment is in accordance with the original Agreement and will allow the Division to continue addressing essential maintenance, emergency repairs, and necessary system improvements without interruption to service.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are budgeted in the Sewer Enterprise Fund for this amendment, therefore, there is no impact to the City General Fund associated with this amendment.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 1

2. Exhibit B
CamScanner
CamScanner





































 ­€‚€­ƒ„
†‡
ˆ„
­ ‰Š­ˆ„„ƒ
‹











Œ















Ž

‘Š‚ƒ‚ƒ

’
“”“







•–
—
˜





“







„
ƒ
™


‘
 š„ˆ„
‰‚
”


•›ˆ

˜‘
 šƒƒ

‚‚






œžŠ‚ƒ‚ƒ€

www.sentrimax.com
Canada ǀ 2300 Shirley Dr. ǀ Kitchener, ON ǀ N2B 3Y2ǀ TF: 877-741-0118 Canada ǀ 9440 60th Ave ǀ Edmonton, AB ǀ T6E 0C1 ǀ TF: 866-247-5141 US ǀ 108 Sentry Dive ǀ Mansfield, TX ǀ 76063 ǀ TF: 844-327-3632 2 Sentrimax Centrifuges Billing Rate proposal for the period of this contract:
 Billing hours for all services charged at $175.00usd.

Additional information requested by Jesus Banuelos on September 18th 2025:

 Freight & Shipping Cost (Per Unit to your facility)
 Actual cost + 20%
 Todays actual cost was quoted at $1625.00
 Mobilization Cost (All Travel Cost per Trip per Person)  Actual Flight, Hotel, rental car costs + 20% plus $125/day per diem.  Hourly On-site Labor Services (per day assuming 8 hour work day Monday - Friday)  $1200/day
 Preventative Maintenance Services (Per Unit)
 Preventative maintenance service, borescope, vibration, temperature, borescope and visual inspection same as on-site service day rate

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Randy McKeegan
DATE: August 5, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 2024-245 with Kern Sprinkler Landscaping, Inc. (increase compensation by $420,000, revised not to exceed amount of $1,838,174.98; and to extend the term by one year) to continue the supply of On-Call Irrigation & Landscaping Service.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the amendment.

BACKGROUND:

On September 11, 2024, the City Council approved the annual contract for the supply of On-Call Irrigation & Landscaping Service to Kern Sprinkler Landscaping, in the amount of $1,418,174.98; renewable annually thereafter for four consecutive one-year periods.

Per the terms of the contract, one amendment extending the contract has been approved as follows:
• Amendment 1 approved August 27, 2025; extended the term by one year to September 10, 2026.

This on-call as-needed contract will provide routine irrigation & landscape maintenance and anticipated capital projects to be completed by the Recreation and Parks Department, Water Resources Department, and divisions within the Public Works Department.

If approved, Amendment No. 2 will increase compensation by $420,000 for a revised not to exceed amount of $1,838,174.98 to allow the continuance of the supply of On-Call Irrigation & Landscaping Service to the term date of September 10, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funds are budgeted in various funds, and may include the General Fund, the Capital Outlay Fund, the Park Improvement Fund, and the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

Amendment No.2 to Agreement No. 2024-245

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Daniel Maldonado, Assistant Water Director
DATE: August 11, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-090 with Unified Field Services. (to increase the compensation by $1,500,000; revised not to exceed $5,000,000) to provide on-call construction services for the Water Department.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of the amendment.

BACKGROUND:

The Water Department (Department) is responsible for the City’s Municipal Water system and the Kern River System. Periodically, the Department requires construction services, either planned or under emergency conditions, to maintain and improve these systems. Typical services include installation, repair, modification, and/or replacement of water system infrastructure. Such infrastructure may include potable waterlines and appurtenances, river structures, and canal structures.

On June 11, 2025, the Department entered into an on-call construction agreement with Unified Field Services (Unified) with a not to exceed amount of $3,500,000. Unified was selected through a formal Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process. Since the execution of this contract, Unified has played a critical role in repairing broken water service lines in line with the City’s service line replacement program. To date, the Department has expended approximately $2.7 million dollars with Unified to repair and/or replace 181 water service lines in need of permanent rehabilitation. In addition, Unified has also been used to make on-going repairs and improvements at City owned water stations on an as-needed basis.

Due to the continued need for water service line replacements and station repairs and improvements, staff recommend increasing compensation by $1,500,000, for a revised total contract amount not to exceed $5,000,000. The Department has allocated $2,000,000 in FY 2025-26 for Service Line Replacements in the Municipal Operating Budget and plans to allocate an additional $3,000,000 in FY 2026-27 in accordance with the 2025-2029 five-year rate study.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are available in the Water Department’s FY 2026-27 Operating Budget and in alignment with the Municipal Rate Study; therefore, there is no General Fund impact associated with this agreement.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 2025-090 with Unified Field Services

2. Exhibit A
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-090 –Unified Field Services Page 1 Updated – August 2026
AGREEMENT NO. 2025-090 (1)
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
AGREEMENT NO. 2025-090
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 2025-090 is made and entered into on ________________, by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation (referred to herein as “CITY”), and UNIFIED FIELD SERVICES CORPORATION, a California Corporation authorized to do business in California (referred to herein as “CONTRACTOR”) (Collectively, the “Parties”).

R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2025, the Parties entered into Agreement No. 2025- 090 for On-Call Construction Services for CITY’s Water Department; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-090, increasing the compensation by ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,500,000) for a new total compensation amount not to exceed FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000).

NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and CONTRACTOR mutually agree as follows:

1. Section 2 of Agreement No. 2025-090 entitled
“COMPENSATION/PAYMENT PROCEDURE” is hereby amended to read as follows:

2. COMPENSATION/PAYMENT PROCEDURE. Subject to the
conditions of this section, CITY will pay CONTRACTOR as follows for performing the Scope of Work (“Compensation”):

Compensation for all work, services, or products called for under this Agreement shall consist of payments in the amounts outlined in CONTRACTOR’s Proposal(s) for specific projects; said payments shall be paid in accordance with CONTRACTOR’s Rate Schedule specified on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.

CITY will pay CONTRACTOR within 30 days after CONTRACTOR submits an itemized invoice for the portions of the Scope of Work completed and that invoice is approved by CITY. The Compensation will be the total amount paid to CONTRACTOR for performing the Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-090 –Unified Field Services Page 2 Updated – August 2026
Scope of Work and includes, but is not limited to, all out-of-pocket costs and taxes. CITY will pay no other compensation to CONTRACTOR unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. In no case shall CONTRACTOR receive more than FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000) for all work performed under this Agreement.

2. Except as amended herein, all provisions of Agreement No. 2025-090 shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-090 to be executed the day and year first above written. “CITY” “CONTRACTOR”

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD UNIFIED FIELD SERVICES CORPORTAION
By:____________________________ By:

KAREN GOH
Mayor Print Name:

Title:_______________________________
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

WATER DEPARTMENT
By:_______________________________

KRISTINA BUDAK
Water Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTERSIGNED:

Deputy City Attorney:_______________________ Finance Director: _____________________

MATTHEW COLLOM RANDY MCKEEGAN
Insurance:____________
MSC/pt
Attachment: Exhibit A
S:\WATER\Agrs\26-27\Amend 1 To Agr 2025-090_Unified Field Services.docx Tim Jacober
I agree to the terms defined by the
placement of my signature on this
document
2026.08.11 05:53:50-07'00'
Vice President Public Works Tim Jacober

EXHIBIT A

PB LINE SUPPLIER PART LINE DESCRIPTION UOM BILLING RATE 3 UPMST------HRS LAB - NON UNION - PROJECT MANAGER - ST HOUR $135.66 4 UPMOT------HRS LAB - NON UNION - PROJECT MANAGER - OT HOUR $180.97 5 UPMDT------HRS LAB - NON UNION - PROJECT MANAGER - DT HOUR $230.71 6 UPCST------HRS LAB - NON UNION - PROJECT CONTROLS - ST HOUR $104.67 7 UPCOT------HRS LAB - NON UNION - PROJECT CONTROLS - OT HOUR $138.03 8 UPCDT------HRS LAB - NON UNION - PROJECT CONTROLS - DT HOUR $174.66 9 UMAST------HRS LAB - NON UNION - MAXIMO ASST/FIELD - ST HOUR $56.05 10 UMAOT------HRS LAB - NON UNION - MAXIMO ASST/FIELD - OT HOUR $72.96 11 UMADT------HRS LAB - NON UNION - MAXIMO ASST/FIELD - DT HOUR $91.54 12 USAFST------HRS LAB - NON UNION - SAFETY REP - ST HOUR $100.54 13 USAFOT------HRS LAB - NON UNION - SAFETY REP - OT HOUR $132.70 14 USAFDT------HRS LAB - NON UNION - SAFETY REP - DT HOUR $168.01 15 UQAQCST------HRS LAB - NON UNION - QA/QC - ST HOUR $115.72 16 UQAQCOT------HRS LAB - NON UNION - QA/QC - OT HOUR $153.81 17 UQAQCDT------HRS LAB - NON UNION - QA/QC - DT HOUR $195.60 18 UMCST------HRS LAB - NON UNION - MATERIALS COORDINATOR - ST HOUR $84.69 19 UMCOT------HRS LAB - NON UNION - MATERIALS COORDINATOR - OT HOUR $110.08 20 UMCDT------HRS LAB - NON UNION - MATERIALS COORDINATOR - DT HOUR $137.96 757 UFTST------HRS LAB - NON UNION - FIELD TECHNICIAN - ST HOUR $135.66 758 UFTOT------HRS LAB - NON UNION - FIELD TECHNICIAN - OT HOUR $180.97 759 UFTDT------HRS LAB - NON UNION - FIELD TECHNICIAN - DT HOUR $230.71 22 460SUPST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS SUPERINTENDENT - ST HOUR $187.86 23 460SUPOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS SUPERINTENDENT - OT HOUR $263.00 24 460SUPDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS SUPERINTENDENT - DT HOUR $334.52 25 460PFSGFST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS SENIOR GRAL FOREMAN - ST HOUR $188.34 26 460PFSGFOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS SENIOR GRAL FOREMAN - OT HOUR $261.63 27 460PFSGFDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS SENIOR GRAL FOREMAN - DT HOUR $331.30 28 460GFST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS GRAL FOREMAN - ST HOUR $178.01 29 460GFOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS GRAL FOREMAN - OT HOUR $246.13 30 460GFDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS GRAL FOREMAN - DT HOUR $310.62 31 460FMST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS FOREMAN - ST HOUR $167.31 32 460FMOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS FOREMAN - OT HOUR $230.10 33 460FMDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS FOREMAN - DT HOUR $289.45 34 460PFST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS JOURNEYMAN - ST HOUR $151.27 35 460PFOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS JOURNEYMAN - OT HOUR $206.01 36 460PFDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS JOURNEYMAN - DT HOUR $257.60 37 460FMIWST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS FOREMAN INDUSTRIAL WELDER - ST HOUR $178.64 38 460FMIWOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS FOREMAN INDUSTRIAL WELDER - OT HOUR $247.03 39 460FMIWDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS FOREMAN INDUSTRIAL WELDER - DT HOUR $312.33 40 460IWST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS INDUSTRIAL WELDER - ST HOUR $161.59 41 460IWOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS INDUSTRIAL WELDER - OT HOUR $221.51 42 460IWDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS INDUSTRIAL WELDER - DT HOUR $278.24 43 460PAST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS PRE-APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $56.45 44 460PAOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS PRE-APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $75.81 45 460PADT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS PRE-APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $95.15 46 460PFA1ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 1ST YEAR APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $67.71 47 460PFA10T------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 1ST YEAR APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $92.70 48 460PFA1DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 1ST YEAR APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $115.93 49 460PFA2ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 2ND YEAR APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $74.34

UNIFIED FIELD SERVICES CORPORATION
LABOR RATES - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 2026 - 07-01-2026 thru 06-30-2027

EXHIBIT A

PB LINE SUPPLIER PART LINE DESCRIPTION UOM BILLING RATE

UNIFIED FIELD SERVICES CORPORATION
LABOR RATES - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 2026 - 07-01-2026 thru 06-30-2027 50 460PFA20T------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 2ND YEAR APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $102.18 51 460PFA2DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 2ND YEAR APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $127.99 52 460PFA3ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 3RD YEAR APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $97.84 53 460PFA30T------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 3RD YEAR APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $131.13 54 460PFA3DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 3RD YEAR APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $162.10 55 460PFA4ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 4TH YEAR APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $109.31 56 460PFA40T------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 4TH YEAR APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $148.00 57 460PFA4DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 4TH YEAR APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $184.15 58 460PFA5ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 5TH YEAR APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $120.84 59 460PFA50T------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 5TH YEAR APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $164.98 60 460PFA5DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 5TH YEAR APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $206.26 61 460PFST2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS JOURNEYMAN (2ND SHIFT) - ST HOUR $166.75 62 460PFOT2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS JOURNEYMAN (2ND SHIFT) - OT HOUR $229.22 63 460PFDT2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS JOURNEYMAN (2ND SHIFT) - DT HOUR $288.58 64 460IWST2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS INDUSTRIAL WELDER (2ND SHIFT) - ST HOUR $178.61 65 460IWOT2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS INDUSTRIAL WELDER (2ND SHIFT) - OT HOUR $247.03 66 460IWDT2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS INDUSTRIAL WELDER (2ND SHIFT) - DT HOUR $312.28 67 460PAST2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS PRE-APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - ST HOUR $62.24 68 460PAOT2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS PRE-APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - OT HOUR $84.50 69 460PADT2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS PRE-APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - DT HOUR $106.75 70 460PFA1ST2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 1ST YEAR APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - ST HOUR $74.67 71 460PFA10T2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 1ST YEAR APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - OT HOUR $103.14 72 460PFA1DT2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 1ST YEAR APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - DT HOUR $129.84 73 460PFA2ST2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 2ND YEAR APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - ST HOUR $82.09 74 460PFA20T2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 2ND YEAR APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - OT HOUR $113.82 75 460PFA2DT2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 2ND YEAR APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - DT HOUR $143.49 76 460PFA3ST2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 3RD YEAR APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - ST HOUR $107.13 77 460PFA30T2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 3RD YEAR APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - OT HOUR $145.07 78 460PFA3DT2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 3RD YEAR APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - DT HOUR $180.68 79 460PFA4ST2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 4TH YEAR APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - ST HOUR $120.15 80 460PFA40T2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 4TH YEAR APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - OT HOUR $164.28 81 460PFA4DT2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 4TH YEAR APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - DT HOUR $205.83 82 460PFA5ST2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 5TH YEAR APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - ST HOUR $133.23 83 460PFA50T2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 5TH YEAR APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - OT HOUR $183.55 84 460PFA5DT2ND------HRS LAB - LOCAL 460 - PIPEFITTERS 5TH YEAR APPRENTICE (2ND SHIFT) - DT HOUR $231.05 815 220GFMG1ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GENERAL FOREMAN GROUP 1 - ST HOUR $143.96 816 220GFMG1OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GENERAL FOREMAN GROUP 1 - OT HOUR $191.71 817 220GFMG1DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GENERAL FOREMAN GROUP 1 - DT HOUR $239.45 85 220FMG1ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER FOREMAN GROUP 1 - ST HOUR $138.43 86 220FMG1OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER FOREMAN GROUP 1 - OT HOUR $183.42 87 220FMG1DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER FOREMAN GROUP 1 - DT HOUR $228.41 88 220LBRG1ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GROUP 1 - ST HOUR $129.26 89 220LBRG1OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GROUP 1 - OT HOUR $169.62 90 220LBRG1DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GROUP 1 - DT HOUR $210.01 91 220LBRG2ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GROUP 2 - ST HOUR $130.27 92 220LBRG2OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GROUP 2 - OT HOUR $171.13 93 220LBRG2DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GROUP 2 - DT HOUR $212.03 94 220LBRG3ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GROUP 3 - ST HOUR $131.28 95 220LBRG3OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GROUP 3 - OT HOUR $172.66

EXHIBIT A

PB LINE SUPPLIER PART LINE DESCRIPTION UOM BILLING RATE

UNIFIED FIELD SERVICES CORPORATION
LABOR RATES - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 2026 - 07-01-2026 thru 06-30-2027 96 220LBRG3DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GROUP 3 - DT HOUR $214.04 97 220LBRG4ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GROUP 4 - ST HOUR $134.13 98 220LBRG4OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GROUP 4 - OT 0 $176.93 99 220LBRG4DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GROUP 4 - DT HOUR $219.77 100 220LBRG5ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GROUP 5 - ST HOUR $134.80 101 220LBRG5OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GROUP 5 - OT HOUR $177.88 102 220LBRG5DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER GROUP 5 - DT HOUR $221.06 103 220LBRA1ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 1ST PERIOD - ST HOUR $70.38 104 220LBRA1OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 1ST PERIOD - OT HOUR $91.95 105 220LBRA1DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 1ST PERIOD - DT HOUR $113.51 106 220LBRA2ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 2ND PERIOD - ST HOUR $74.69 107 220LBRA2OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 2ND PERIOD - OT HOUR $98.41 108 220LBRA2DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 2ND PERIOD - DT HOUR $122.14 109 220LBRA3ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 3RD PERIOD - ST HOUR $79.01 110 220LBRA3OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 3RD PERIOD - OT HOUR $104.91 111 220LBRA3DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 3RD PERIOD - DT HOUR $130.79 112 220LBRA4ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 4TH PERIOD - ST HOUR $87.64 113 220LBRA4OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 4TH PERIOD - OT HOUR $117.85 114 220LBRA4DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 4TH PERIOD - DT HOUR $148.05 115 220LBRA5ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 5TH PERIOD - ST HOUR $96.25 116 220LBRA5OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 5TH PERIOD - OT HOUR $130.76 117 220LBRA5DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 5TH PERIOD - DT HOUR $165.27 118 220LBRA6ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 6TH PERIOD - ST HOUR $100.58 119 220LBRA6OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 6TH PERIOD - OT HOUR $137.26 120 220LBRA6DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER APPRENTICE 6TH PERIOD - DT HOUR $173.92 121 12OAFMST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A FOREMAN - ST HOUR $176.86 122 12OAFMOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A FOREMAN - OT HOUR $235.10 123 12OAFMDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A FOREMAN - DT HOUR $293.35 124 12OAG2ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 2 - ST HOUR $169.29 125 12OAG2OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 2 - OT HOUR $223.75 126 12OAG2DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 2 - DT HOUR $278.20 127 12OAG3ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 3 - ST HOUR $169.82 128 12OAG3OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 3 - OT HOUR $224.56 129 12OAG3DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 3 - DT HOUR $279.28 130 12OAG6ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 - ST HOUR $172.96 131 12OAG6OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 - OT HOUR $229.27 132 12OAG6DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 - DT HOUR $285.55 133 12OAG7ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 7 - ST HOUR $175.00 134 12OAG7OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 7 - OT HOUR $232.30 135 12OAG7DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 7 - DT HOUR $289.63 136 12OAG8ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 8 - ST HOUR $173.17 137 12OAG8OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 8 - OT HOUR $229.59 138 12OAG8DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 8 - DT HOUR $285.98 139 12A1ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 1 APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $108.31 140 12A1OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 1 APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $142.11 141 12A1DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 1 APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $175.90 142 12A2ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 2 APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $113.96 143 12A2OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 2 APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $150.56 144 12A2DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 2 APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $187.16

EXHIBIT A

PB LINE SUPPLIER PART LINE DESCRIPTION UOM BILLING RATE

UNIFIED FIELD SERVICES CORPORATION
LABOR RATES - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 2026 - 07-01-2026 thru 06-30-2027 145 12A3ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 3 APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $139.20 146 12A3OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 3 APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $178.61 147 12A3DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 3 APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $218.02 148 12A4ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 4 APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $144.83 149 12A4OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 4 APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $187.05 150 1242DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 4 APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $229.25 151 12A5ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 5 APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $150.46 152 12A5OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 5 APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $195.50 153 12A5DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 5 APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $240.54 154 12A6ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 6 APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $161.72 155 12A6OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 6 APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $212.40 156 12A6DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 6 APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $263.07 157 Z12OAFST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A FOREMAN - ST HOUR $178.69 158 Z12OAFOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A FOREMAN - OT HOUR $237.86 159 Z12OAFDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A FOREMAN - DT HOUR $297.02 160 Z12OAG2ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 2 - ST HOUR $171.13 161 Z12OAG2OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 2 - OT HOUR $226.49 162 Z12OAG2DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 2 - DT HOUR $281.90 163 Z12OAG3ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 3 - ST HOUR $171.67 164 Z12OAG3OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 3 - OT HOUR $227.32 165 Z12OAG3DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 3 - DT HOUR $282.96 166 Z12OAG6ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 - ST HOUR $174.80 167 Z12OAG6OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 - OT HOUR $232.03 168 Z12OAG6DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 - DT HOUR $289.25 169 Z12A1ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 1 APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $110.16 170 Z12A1OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 1 APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $144.88 171 Z12A1DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 1 APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $179.57 172 Z12A2ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 2 APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $115.79 173 Z12A2OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 2 APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $153.33 174 Z12A2DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 2 APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $190.84 175 Z12A3ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 3 APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $141.04 176 Z12A3OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 3 APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $181.34 177 Z12A3DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 3 APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $221.71 178 Z12A4ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 4 APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $146.67 179 Z12A4OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 4 APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $189.80 180 Z1242DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 4 APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $232.95 181 Z12A5ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 5 APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $152.29 182 Z12A5OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 5 APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $198.27 183 Z12A5DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 5 APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $244.22 184 Z12A6ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 6 APPRENTICE - ST HOUR $163.57 185 Z12A6OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 6 APPRENTICE - OT HOUR $215.14 186 Z12A6DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 6 STEP 6 APPRENTICE - DT HOUR $266.75 187 Z12OAG8ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 8 - ST HOUR $175.01 188 Z12OAG8OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 8 - OT HOUR $232.34 189 Z12OAG8DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 12 - ZONE OPERATOR APPX A GROUP 8 - DT HOUR $289.66 191 743CPSUPST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER SUPERINTENDENT - ST HOUR $153.51 192 743CPSUPOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER SUPERINTENDENT - OT HOUR $208.09 193 743CPSUPDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER SUPERINTENDENT - DT HOUR $262.61 194 743CPGFST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER GRAL FOREMAN - ST HOUR $152.13

EXHIBIT A

PB LINE SUPPLIER PART LINE DESCRIPTION UOM BILLING RATE

UNIFIED FIELD SERVICES CORPORATION
LABOR RATES - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 2026 - 07-01-2026 thru 06-30-2027 195 743CPGFOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER GRAL FOREMAN - OT HOUR $203.95 196 743CPGFDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER GRAL FOREMAN - DT HOUR $255.73 197 743CPFMST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER FOREMAN - ST HOUR $146.61 198 743CPFMOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER FOREMAN - OT HOUR $195.66 199 743CPFMDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER FOREMAN - DT HOUR $244.67 200 743CPST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER JOURNEYMAN - ST HOUR $141.09 201 743CPOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER JOURNEYMAN - OT HOUR $187.39 202 743CPDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER JOURNEYMAN - DT HOUR $233.65 203 743CPA1ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 1ST PERIOD 40% - ST HOUR $67.47 204 743CPA1OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 1ST PERIOD 40% - OT HOUR $87.22 205 743CPA1DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 1ST PERIOD 40% - DT HOUR $106.95 206 743CPA2ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 2ND PERIOD 50% - ST HOUR $74.28 207 743CPA2OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 2ND PERIOD 50% - OT HOUR $97.43 208 743CPA2DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 2ND PERIOD 50% - DT HOUR $120.57 209 743CPA3ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 3RD PERIOD 60% - ST HOUR $92.72 210 743CPA3OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 3RD PERIOD 60% - OT HOUR $120.50 211 743CPA3DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 3RD PERIOD 60% - DT HOUR $148.26 212 743CPA4ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 4TH PERIOD 65% - ST HOUR $101.50 213 743CPA4OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 4TH PERIOD 65% - OT HOUR $131.59 214 743CPA4DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 4TH PERIOD 65% - DT HOUR $161.66 215 743CPA5ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 5TH PERIOD 70% - ST HOUR $107.96 216 743CPA5OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 5TH PERIOD 70% - OT HOUR $140.36 217 743CPA5DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 5TH PERIOD 70% - DT HOUR $172.74 218 743CPA6ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 6TH PERIOD 75% - ST HOUR $112.60 219 743CPA6OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 6TH PERIOD 75% - OT HOUR $147.31 220 743CPA6DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 6TH PERIOD 75% - DT HOUR $182.03 221 743CPA7ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 7TH PERIOD 80% - ST HOUR $119.05 222 743CPA7OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 7TH PERIOD 80% - OT HOUR $156.09 223 743CPA7DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 7TH PERIOD 80% - DT HOUR $193.11 224 743CPA8ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 8TH PERIOD 90% - ST HOUR $128.32 225 743CPA8OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 8TH PERIOD 90% - OT HOUR $169.97 226 743CPA8DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 743 - CARPENTER APPRENTICE 8TH PERIOD 90% - DT HOUR $211.60 266 52SUPST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER SUPERINTENDENT - ST HOUR $123.97 267 52SUPOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER SUPERINTENDENT - OT HOUR $170.92 268 52SUPDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER SUPERINTENDENT - DT HOUR $217.88 269 52GFST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER GRAL FOREMAN - ST HOUR $120.75 270 52GFOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER GRAL FOREMAN - OT HOUR $164.02 271 52GFDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER GRAL FOREMAN - DT HOUR $207.30 272 52FMST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER FOREMAN - ST HOUR $117.07 273 52FMOT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER FOREMAN - OT HOUR $158.51 274 52FMDT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER FOREMAN - DT HOUR $199.93 275 52IPST ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER JOURNEYMAN - ST HOUR $115.23 276 52IPOT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER JOURNEYMAN - OT HOUR $155.75 277 52IPDT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER JOURNEYMAN - DT HOUR $196.26 278 52IPA1ST ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 1ST PERIOD - ST HOUR $59.31 279 52IPA1OT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 1ST PERIOD - OT HOUR $79.58 280 52IPA1DT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 1ST PERIOD - DT HOUR $99.83 281 52IPA2ST ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 2ND PERIOD - ST HOUR $64.32 282 52IPA2OT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 2ND PERIOD - OT HOUR $86.61

EXHIBIT A

PB LINE SUPPLIER PART LINE DESCRIPTION UOM BILLING RATE

UNIFIED FIELD SERVICES CORPORATION
LABOR RATES - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 2026 - 07-01-2026 thru 06-30-2027 283 52IPA2DT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 2ND PERIOD - DT HOUR $108.87 284 52IPA3ST ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 3RD PERIOD - ST HOUR $71.82 285 52IPA3OT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 3RD PERIOD - OT HOUR $96.12 286 52IPA3DT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 3RD PERIOD - DT HOUR $120.42 287 52IPA4ST ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 4TH PERIOD - ST HOUR $78.80 288 52IPA4OT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 4TH PERIOD - OT HOUR $105.15 289 52IPA4DT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 4TH PERIOD - DT HOUR $131.46 290 52IPA5ST ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 5TH PERIOD - ST HOUR $84.43 291 52IPA5OT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 5TH PERIOD - OT HOUR $112.79 292 52IPA5DT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 5TH PERIOD - DT HOUR $141.13 293 52IPA6ST ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 6TH PERIOD - ST HOUR $90.29 294 52IPA6OT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 6TH PERIOD - OT HOUR $120.68 295 52IPA6DT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 6TH PERIOD - DT HOUR $151.07 296 52IPA7ST ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 7TH PERIOD - ST HOUR $95.67 297 52IPA7OT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 7TH PERIOD - OT HOUR $128.08 298 52IPA7DT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 7TH PERIOD - DT HOUR $160.49 299 52IPA8ST ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 8TH PERIOD - ST HOUR $100.18 300 52IPA8OT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 8TH PERIOD - OT HOUR $134.62 301 52IPA8DT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 52 - INDUSTRIAL PAINTER APPRENTICE 8TH PERIOD - DT HOUR $169.05 302 600MST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 600 - CEMENT MASON JOURNEYMAN KERN - ST HOUR $129.70 303 600MOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 600 - CEMENT MASON JOURNEYMAN KERN - OT HOUR $170.19 304 600MDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 600 - CEMENT MASON JOURNEYMAN KERN - DT HOUR $210.69 305 155SUPST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER SUPERINTENDENT KERN - ST HOUR $183.42 306 155SUPOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER SUPERINTENDENT KERN - OT HOUR $245.53 307 155SUPDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER SUPERINTENDENT KERN - DT HOUR $307.60 308 155GFST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER GRAL FOREMAN KERN - ST HOUR $176.27 309 155GFOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER GRAL FOREMAN KERN - OT HOUR $232.71 310 155GFDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER GRAL FOREMAN KERN - DT HOUR $289.18 311 155FMST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER FOREMAN KERN - ST HOUR $166.01 312 155FMOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER FOREMAN KERN - OT HOUR $217.33 313 155FMDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER FOREMAN KERN - DT HOUR $268.64 314 155JST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER JOURNEYMAN KERN - ST HOUR $156.68 315 155JOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER JOURNEYMAN KERN - OT HOUR $203.34 316 155JDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER JOURNEYMAN KERN - DT HOUR $249.98 317 155A1ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 1ST PERIOD KERN - ST HOUR $68.46 318 155A1OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 1ST PERIOD KERN - OT HOUR $91.80 319 155A1DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 1ST PERIOD KERN - DT HOUR $115.11 320 155A2ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 2ND PERIOD KERN - ST HOUR $85.47 321 155A2OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 2ND PERIOD KERN - OT HOUR $111.14 322 155A2DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 2ND PERIOD KERN - DT HOUR $136.81 323 155A3ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 3RD PERIOD KERN - ST HOUR $94.42 324 155A3OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 3RD PERIOD KERN - OT HOUR $122.41 325 155A3DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 3RD PERIOD KERN - DT HOUR $150.41 326 155A4ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 4TH PERIOD KERN - ST HOUR $105.12 327 155A4OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 4TH PERIOD KERN - OT HOUR $135.45 328 155A4DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 4TH PERIOD KERN - DT HOUR $165.78 329 155A5ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 5TH PERIOD KERN - ST HOUR $118.74 330 155A5OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 5TH PERIOD KERN - OT HOUR $153.74 331 155A5DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 5TH PERIOD KERN - DT HOUR $188.73

EXHIBIT A

PB LINE SUPPLIER PART LINE DESCRIPTION UOM BILLING RATE

UNIFIED FIELD SERVICES CORPORATION
LABOR RATES - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 2026 - 07-01-2026 thru 06-30-2027 332 155A6ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 6TH PERIOD KERN - ST HOUR $123.40 333 155A6OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 6TH PERIOD KERN - OT HOUR $160.73 334 155A6DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 6TH PERIOD KERN - DT HOUR $198.04 335 155A7ST ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 7TH PERIOD KERN - ST HOUR $143.06 336 155A7OT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 7TH PERIOD KERN - OT HOUR $185.06 337 155A7DT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 7TH PERIOD KERN - DT HOUR $227.05 338 155A8ST ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 8TH PERIOD KERN - ST HOUR $147.72 339 155A8OT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 8TH PERIOD KERN - OT HOUR $192.06 340 155A8DT ------HRS LAB - LOCAL 155 - IRON WORKER APPRENTICE 8TH PERIOD KERN - DT HOUR $236.39 341 87G2ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 87 - TEAMSTER GROUP 2 KERN - ST HOUR $133.80 342 87G2OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 87 - TEAMSTER GROUP 2 KERN - OT HOUR $170.39 343 87G2DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 87 - TEAMSTER GROUP 2 KERN - DT HOUR $206.95 344 87G3ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 87 - TEAMSTER GROUP 3 KERN - ST HOUR $130.93 345 87G3OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 87 - TEAMSTER GROUP 3 KERN - OT HOUR $167.62 346 87G3DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 87 - TEAMSTER GROUP 3 KERN - DT HOUR $204.32 347 87G5ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 87 - TEAMSTER GROUP 5 KERN - ST HOUR $131.34 348 87G5OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 87 - TEAMSTER GROUP 5 KERN - OT HOUR $168.23 349 87G5DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 87 - TEAMSTER GROUP 5 KERN - DT HOUR $205.11 760 220LBRCMST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON - ST HOUR $132.80 761 220LBRCMOT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON - OT HOUR $174.67 762 220LBRCMDT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON - DT HOUR $216.54 763 220LBRCM A1ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 1ST PERIOD - ST HOUR $61.92 764 220LBRCM A1OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 1ST PERIOD - OT HOUR $82.86 765 220LBRCM A1DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 1ST PERIOD - DT HOUR $103.79 766 220LBRCM A2ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 2ND PERIOD - ST HOUR $66.11 767 220LBRCM A2OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 2ND PERIOD - OT HOUR $89.15 768 220LBRCM A2DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 2ND PERIOD - DT HOUR $112.18 769 220LBRCM A3ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 3RD PERIOD - ST HOUR $70.28 770 220LBRCM A3OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 3RD PERIOD - OT HOUR $95.41 771 220LBRCM A3DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 3RD PERIOD - DT HOUR $120.54 772 220LBRCM A4ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 4TH PERIOD - ST HOUR $83.69 773 220LBRCM A4OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 4TH PERIOD - OT HOUR $110.91 774 220LBRCM A4DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 4TH PERIOD - DT HOUR $138.13 775 220LBRCM A5ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 5TH PERIOD - ST HOUR $107.83 776 220LBRCM A5OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 5TH PERIOD - OT HOUR $137.23 777 220LBRCM A5DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 5TH PERIOD - DT HOUR $166.62 778 220LBRCM A6ST------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 6TH PERIOD - ST HOUR $112.03 779 220LBRCM A6OT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 6TH PERIOD - OT HOUR $143.51 780 220LBRCM A6DT------HRS LAB - LOCAL 220 - LABORER CEMENT MASON APPRENTICE 6TH PERIOD - DT HOUR $175.00

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Randy McKeegan, Finance Director
DATE: August 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 6 to Agreement No. 2023-238 with J. L. Plank, Inc., dba Cen-Cal Construction (increase by $4,000,000, revised not to exceed $11,871,500; and extend the term by one year) to continue the supply of concrete construction.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of the amendment.

BACKGROUND:

On September 27, 2023, the City Council approved the annual contract for the supply of concrete construction with J. L. Plank, Inc., dba Cen-Cal Construction, in the amount of $1,511,500; renewable annually thereafter for four consecutive one-year periods. The City may exercise the option to allow contract price adjustments due to increases in the U.S. Department of Labor Producer Price Index for the related industry.

This contract is on call as needed, and is used by multiple departments within the City, including Water Resources Department, Fire Department, Recreation and Parks Department, and Public Works Department.

J.L. Plank, Inc., dba Cen-Cal Construction has agreed to extend its bid pricing with a five and one-half percent (5.5%) contract price increase, consistent with increases reflected in the U.S. Department of Labor Producer Price Index Series ID PCU23811X23811XP, Concrete Contractors Nonresidential Building WorkPrimary Products. Staff have previously reviewed and approved the requested adjustment, which is permissible in accordance with the terms and conditions of the original bid specifications.

Per the terms of the contract, five (5) amendments to increase the contract and/or to extend the contract have been approved as follows:
 Amendment 1 approved September 11, 2024; increased compensation by $1,560,000 for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $3,071,500 and extended the term by one year to September 26, 2025.
 Amendment 2 approved April 9, 2025; increased compensation by $500,000 for a revised not-toexceed amount of $3,571,500.  Amendment 3 approved June 11, 2025; increased compensation by $500,000 for a revised notto-exceed amount of $4,071,500.  Amendment 4 approved August 13, 2025; increased compensation by $2,500,000 for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $6,571,500 and extended the term by one year to September 26, 2026.  Amendment 5 approved February 25, 2026; increased compensation by $1,300,000 for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $7,571,500.

If approved, Amendment No. 6 will increase the contract compensation by $4,000,000, bringing the total not-to-exceed amount to $11,871,500 allowing the City to continue addressing concrete construction needs through the contract’s term ending September 26, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are budgeted in the various departments Enterprise Funds, Capital Projects Funds as well as General Fund operating accounts.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

Signed Amendment
Exhibit A

EXHIBIT A
Annual Contract for Concrete Construction
Bid No. 23-24-07

ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UOM
UNIT

PRICE EXTENDED PRICE
Increase
by
amount
New Unit
Price
Increase
by
amount
New Unit
Price
Increase
by
amount
New Unit
Price
1 Sidewalk, match all existing score marks 55,000 SF 5.80 319,000.00 0.17 5.97 0.16 6.13 0.34 6.47 2 Curb cut (handicap ramp) per City standard 15,000 SF 9.70 145,500.00 0.28 9.98 0.27 10.25 0.56 10.81 3 Standard curb, 6" x 12" 500 LF 17.00 8,500.00 0.49 17.49 0.47 17.97 0.99 18.95 4 6” gutter/driveways 20,000 SF 8.75 175,000.00 0.25 9.00 0.24 9.25 0.51 9.76 5 Standard curb & gutter combination, type a 1,250 LF 38.00 47,500.00 1.10 39.10 1.06 40.16 2.21 42.37 6 Standard curb & gutter combination, type b 6,100 LF 37.50 228,750.00 1.09 38.59 1.04 39.63 2.18 41.81 7 Standard catch basin Type A, without frame cover and angle iron 10 EA 4,100.00 41,000.00 118.90 4,218.90 113.91 4,332.81 238.30 4,571.11 8 Park curb, 6" x 6" 50 LF 13.50 675.00 0.39 13.89 0.38 14.27 0.78 15.05 9 Median curb Type M, full depth 1,000 LF 30.00 30,000.00 0.87 30.87 0.83 31.70 1.74 33.45 10 Median curb Type M-1 or M-2, tack or add on 1,000 LF 30.00 30,000.00 0.87 30.87 0.83 31.70 1.74 33.45 11 6" slab with #4 rebar - one foot on center 2,250 SF 9.95 22,387.50 0.29 10.24 0.28 10.51 0.58 11.09 12 Stamped concrete as per specifications 5,000 SF 8.25 41,250.00 0.24 8.49 0.23 8.72 0.48 9.20 13 Colored concrete slab - 4" 3,000 SF 5.85 17,550.00 0.17 6.02 0.16 6.18 0.34 6.52 14 Street light base, 3' sq. x 5' deep, 5 sack 1 EA 1,309.25 1,309.25 37.97 1,347.22 36.37 1,383.59 76.10 1,459.69 15 8" gutter with #4 rebar one foot on center, 6 sack mix 1,000 SF 13.55 13,550.00 0.39 13.94 0.38 14.32 0.79 15.11 16 8" retaining wall with #5 rebar 18" on center with maximm height of 3'. 6 sack mix per addendum No. 1 1,000 SF 31.50 31,500.00 0.91 32.41 0.88 33.29 1.83 35.12 17 Retaining wall additional vertical foot above 3’ 100 SF 41.50 4,150.00 1.20 42.70 1.15 43.86 2.41 46.27 18 Concrete collar/apron around manholes – 6 sack mix w/#4 rebar 50 EA 355.00 17,750.00 10.30 365.30 9.86 375.16 20.63 395.79 19 2 Sack slurry or CLSM 100 YD 313.25 31,325.00 9.08 322.33 8.70 331.04 18.21 349.24 20 4” Slurry with rock cobble median hardscape. See Scope of work for Specification on page 22. 1,000 SF 13.25 13,250.00 0.38 13.63 0.37 14.00 0.77 14.77 21 Standard catch basin top replacement Type A without lid, cover, and angle iron 5 EA 1,010.00 5,050.00 29.29 1,039.29 28.06 1,067.35 58.70 1,126.06 22 Extra charge for 6 sack concrete per yard 1000 EA 7.65 7,650.00 0.22 7.87 0.21 8.08 0.44 8.53 23 Extra concrete yardage 130 YD 175.50 22,815.00 5.09 180.59 4.88 185.47 10.20 195.67 24 3/8” pea gravel exposed aggregate cement concrete 1,000 SF 5.60 5,600.00 0.16 5.76 0.16 5.92 0.33 6.24 25 8" slab with 3/4" rebar one foot on center. 6 sack mix 2,000 SF 12.95 25,900.00 0.38 13.33 0.36 13.69 0.75 14.44 26 Concrete Mow Strip, 18"W x 6" D 100 LF 16.15 1,615.00 0.47 16.62 0.45 17.07 0.94 18.01 27 3/8” pea gravel exposed aggregate with colored concrete (City to choose) 1,000 SF 7.15 7,150.00 0.21 7.36 0.20 7.56 0.42 7.97 28 Concrete Footing 36" wide x 24" deep with 3 #5 rebar continuous and #5 rebar upright 18" on center 1,000 SF 23.85 23,850.00 0.69 24.54 0.66 25.20 1.39 26.59 29 12" long #4 rebar dowel installed with approved epoxy 400 EA 7.45 2,980.00 0.22 7.67 0.21 7.87 0.43 8.31 30 Concrete pumping - set up and concrete up to 10 yards 4 EA 1,915.00 7,660.00 55.54 1,970.54 53.20 2,023.74 111.31 2,135.05 31 Concrete pumping - each additional yard of concrete 3 YD 27.75 83.25 0.80 28.55 0.77 29.33 1.61 30.94 32 Installation of Detectable Warning Surface for Handicap Ramps with Contractor supplying the warning surfaces 5,050 SF 24.00 121,200.00 0.70 24.70 0.67 25.36 1.39 26.76 33 Monolithic poured curbed sidewalk up to 8” 10,000 SF 6.00 60,000.00 0.17 6.17 0.17 6.34 0.35 6.69

5.5% Increase
approved
8/26/2026
Effective
9-27-26 to 9-26-27

2.7% Increase
approved
8/13/2025
Effective
9-27-25 to 9-26-26
J.L. Plank, Inc. dba
Cen-Cal Construction 2.9% Increase
approved
9/11/2024
Bakersfield, CA
661-399-3759
661-399-3812 (Fax)
Effective
9-27-24 to 9-26-25

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: August 26, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-170
with Los Dos Hermanos Trash Crew LLC (increase compensation $200,000, revised not to exceed $275,000, and extend term to September 10, 2027) for tree trimming and bulky item services.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the amendments.

BACKGROUND:

Tree trimming and bulky item removal due to unmaintained vegetation and illegal dumping continue to present operational challenges. Overgrown trees and shrubbery in alleyways require trimming to ensure refuse collection vehicles can safely pass without damaging City equipment, trees, or other property. Lowhanging or overextended branches may obstruct access, preventing City crews from servicing entire alleyways until the obstruction is removed.

Additionally, bulky items illegally dumped within the public right-of-way create safety hazards and impede access for refuse collection and other City services, resulting in delays for residential and commercial customers. To address these challenges, the City has an existing contract with Los Dos Hermanos Trash Crew LLC.

Staff recommends increasing compensation by $200,000 for Los Dos Hermanos Trash Crew LLC, for a revised do not exceed amount of $275,000, and extending the Term to September 10, 2027 for tree trimming and bulky item removal services.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funding will be from the Refuse Enterprise Fund. There is no impact to the City General Funds.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Community Character & Quality of Life
ATTACHMENTS:

Amendment
-- Page 1 of 4 Pages --
AGREEMENT NO. 2025-170 (1)
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
AGREEMENT NO. 2025-170
This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 2025-170 is made and entered into on _____________, by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation (referred to herein as “CITY”), and LOS DOS HERMANOS TRASH CREW LLC a Limited Liability Company authorized to do business in California (referred to herein as “CONTRACTOR”).

R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2025, CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into Agreement No. 2025-170 in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) for tree trimming and bulky item removal services; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend Agreement No. 2024-170 to increase compensation by Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) for a total compensation not to exceed Two Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($275,000) and to extend the Term to September 10, 2027.

NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and CONTRACTOR mutually agree as follows:

1. Section 2 of Agreement No. 2025-170 entitled “Compensation” is hereby amended to read as follows:

2. COMPENSATION. Compensation for all work, services or products called for under this Agreement shall consist of a total payment not to exceed Two Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand DOLLARS ($275,000).

CITY will pay CONTRACTOR within 30 days after CONTRACTOR submits an itemized invoice for the portions of the Scope of Work completed and that invoice is approved by CITY. The Compensation will be the total amount paid to CONTRACTOR for performing the Scope of Work and includes, but is not limited to, all out-of-pocket costs and taxes. CITY will pay no other compensation to CONTRACTOR. In no case will CITY
compensate CONTRACTOR more than Two Hundred SeventyFive Thousand DOLLARS ($275,000) for performing the Scope of Work.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6519835A-2346-82FA-8110-12A0985836DE -- Page 2 of 4 Pages --

2. Section 3 of Agreement No. 2025-170 entitled “Term” is hereby amended to read as follows:

3. TERM. Unless terminated sooner, as set forth herein, this Agreement shall terminate on September 10, 2027 and shall be renewable thereafter for three (3) one-year periods.

3. Except as amended herein, all provisions of Agreement No. 2025-170 shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-170 to be executed the day and year first above written. “CITY” “CONTRACTOR”

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD LOS DOS HERMANOS TRASH CREW LLC
By:____________________________ By:_________________________________

KAREN GOH
Mayor Print Name: ________________________
Title:___________________________
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
By:____________________________

ZACHARY MEYER
Public Works Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTERSIGNED:

Deputy City Attorney II:_______________________ Finance Director: _____________________

ASHLEY ZAMBRANO RANDY MCKEEGAN
Insurance:____________
Docusign Envelope ID: 6519835A-2346-82FA-8110-12A0985836DE Angel Martinez
Owner
-- Page 3 of 4 Pages --
Attachment RFP-1 General Information Sheet
Tree Trimming & Bulky Item Removal Services
Public Works Department, Solid Waste Division
Bakersfield, California
Date: 7/31/26
Legal Name of Firm: Los Dos Hermanos Trash Crew LLC
Type of Organization: Individual
Individual, Partnership or Corporation
For corporations, the state in which the firm is incorporated:

Federal Employer I.D. Number: 99-3050045
Street Address: 13543 Meacham Road Bakersfield Ca, 93314 Mailing Address: Same
Telephone Number: 661-331-2205
Facsimile Number: __________________________________________________________ Contact Person: Martin Soto
Name
661-331-2205
Phone Number
[email protected]
E-Mail
Angel S. Martinez Owner D6686441
Name of Principal-in-charge Title License Number
Martin Soto CEO 7/31/26
Signature of an officer of the firm Title Date
Docusign Envelope ID: 6519835A-2346-82FA-8110-12A0985836DE -- Page 4 of 4 Pages --
Attachment RFP-4 Fee Schedule
Tree Trimming & Bulky Item Removal Services
Public Works Department, Solid Waste Division
Bakersfield, California
Tree Trimming and Bulky Item Removal Services for City of Bakersfield Solid Waste Division a. Tree trimming per hour rate $ 100.00
b. Tree trimming rate by location $ 95.00
c. Bulky item curbside pickup rate with no item (s) set out $ 15.00 d. Bulky item/curbside pickup rate per item. $ 25.00
e. Emergency call out per hour rate $ 290.00 First hour $200.00 per additional hour
Docusign Envelope ID: 6519835A-2346-82FA-8110-12A0985836DE

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: August 5, 2026
SUBJECT: Contract Change Order No.7 to Agreement No. 2024-192. with C.A Rasmussen Inc. ($92,583.43; revised not to exceed $16,538,880.19) for the Friant Kern Canal Multi-Use Path (Wards 3 & 4)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the change order.

BACKGROUND:

The work to be performed consists, in general, of a 6-mile-long multiuse path from the Kern River Channel to 7th Standard Road. The trail would run in a north-south orientation. The trail would be 12-feet-wide and constructed of asphalt with 4-foot-wide dirt shoulders. A chain-linked fence would be installed on both sides of the trail where fencing does not exist. There will be three new multiuse path crossings (bridges) within the Friant Kern Canal right of way and a fourth over the Burlington Northen Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right of way. The three-path crossings consist of a bridge crossing over the outfall of the Friant-Kern Canal located within the Kern River floodplain, a golf cart path undercrossing adjacent to the Links at Riverlakes Golf Course, and a bridge adjacent to Madison Grove Park spanning the Friant Kern Canal. A prefabricated pedestrian overcrossing steel structured bridge would be constructed over the BNSF railway. The trail would be used for alternative transportation and recreation; as well as serve as an interconnection to community parks, school, shopping centers, and the Kern River Parkway. The trail would increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety, promote active modes of transportation, and reduce traffic congestion.

Trail Improvements and Railroad Overcrossing
The 12-feet-wide asphalt trail runs from the Kern River to 7th Standard Road. Appropriate striping, pavement markings, and associated signage would be installed along the trail; existing poles would be utilized to the greatest extent practical. This package also includes the BNSF Railroad Overcrossing.

Three Crossings
The work to be performed consists, in general, of the construction of three multiuse path crossings within the Friant-Kern Canal right of way (Bureau of Reclamation’s right of away). The work includes the construction of a new pedestrian bridge crossing over the outfall of the Friant-Kern Canal located within the Kern River floodplain, the construction of a golf cart path undercrossing adjacent to the Links at Riverlakes Golf Course and within the Friant-Kern Canal right of way, and the construction of a pedestrian bridge crossing over the Friant-Kern Canal and adjacent to Madison Grove Park also within the Friant Canal right of way.

The items of work includes utility relocation, earthwork, rock slope protection, reinforced concrete construction, furnishing and installing prefabricated steel truss bridges, furnishing and installing precast concrete arch system, construction of drainage items, pavement repair, fencing, NPDES compliance, and dust control, all in compliance with the plans and special provision.

Change Order No. 7 provides for the adjustment of several contract item quantities that had to be either increased or decreased. These item adjustments will result in a net increase of $92,583.43

FISCAL IMPACT:

This project is funded by federal ATP Funds, federal CMAQ funds, and local funds.

The total cost increase for Contract Change Order No.7 is $92,583.43. This is the seventh change order on the project and reflects a total project cost increase of $339,826.46 (2.05 percent increase of the original contract amount) as illustrated below.

Original Contract Amount =

$ 16,199,053.73
Total of Previous Change Order approved by council = $ 247,243.03 Current Contract Change Order # 7 = $ 92,583.43
Amended Contract Amount after Change Order = $16,538,880.19 Net Increase to Date = $339,826.46
COUNCIL GOAL:

Community Character & Quality of Life
Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

Contract Change Order No.7

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: August 10, 2026
SUBJECT: Contract Change Order No. 55 to Agreement No. 2024-235 (7th Movement) with Granite Construction Company (increasing compensation by $75,000.00; revised not to exceed $28,177,546.72) for the Centennial Corridor EB58 to NB99 Loop Connector Project. (Wards 1 & 2)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of the change order.

BACKGROUND:

The 7
th Movement Project proposes to construct a new freeway connector ramp from eastbound State Route (SR) 58 freeway to northbound SR 99. At the SR58/SR99 Interchange, construct a new connector starting west of SR 99, on the south side of 58 with a bridge widening over SR 99, a new bridge spanning over Wible Road, and connecting to northbound SR 99. This project also includes the construction of a bike path from Commerce Drive to California Avenue with a pedestrian bridge over the Carrier Canal, permanent closure of the southbound SR 99 to Stockdale Avenue off-ramp, drainage improvements for the Elcia Drive and Real Road intersection, and installation of permanent barrier at the Ming Avenue to southbound SR 99 on-ramp. This Project was awarded in September of 2024 and has an estimated completion date of August of 2026.

Change Order No. 55 provides compensation to the contractor for additional costs associated with traffic management. Bid Item C4 – Maintain Traffic and Contract Change Order (CCO) No. 33 (Extension of Bid Item C4), which are paid at Force Account in accordance with the Special Provisions have been expended to date and this CCO authorizes an additional amount necessary to maintain traffic beyond the original budget and extension change order. Extra work will only be paid at Force Account approval by the Engineer. This change order results in a net increase of $75,000.00.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The sum of all change orders to date on this project reflects a total cost increase of $877,249.92 which results in a 3.21% increase of the original contract amount as illustrated below:

Original Contract Amount = $27,300,296.80
Previous Change Orders = $802,249.92
Current Change Order = $75,000.00
Amended Contract Agreement after CCOs = $28,177,546.72
Net Increase to date = $877,249.92
There is no General Fund impact associated with this change order.

Federal, State, and Local funding for this change order is available in project 25PWTR01 Centennial Corridor 7th Movement.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

Contract Change Order No. 55

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Bids TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Randy McKeegan, Finance Director
DATE: August 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Accept bid and approve contract with Kern Turf Supply, Inc. (not to exceed $250,000) for the annual contract to supply irrigation parts and supplies.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend acceptance of bid and approval of contract.

BACKGROUND:

Bids were solicited for an annual contract to supply irrigation parts and supplies. Six bids were received in response to solicitation. The bids solicited were based on a comprehensive list of commonly purchased irrigation parts with estimated quantities. City determines the lowest overall bidder by multiplying the supplier’s unit price for each of the items by the estimated number of units for each item.

This contract is primarily utilized by the Recreation and Parks Department. The intent of this contract is to provide a local supplier with stock on hand of common sprinkler parts for pick up by City staff for repairs to irrigation systems and new installations on small projects. The contract award is for a one-year period; renewable annually for four consecutive one-year periods at the City’s option and upon mutually agreeable terms.

The six bids submitted are listed below.

BIDDER AMOUNT
Kern Turf Supply, Inc.

Bakersfield, CA $173,079.05
Ewing Irrigation Products, Inc.

Bakersfield, CA $196,401.92
Horizon Distributors
Bakersfield, CA $203,787.12
Rain For Rent
Bakersfield, CA $273,415.14
SiteOne Landscape Supply
Westlake, OH $275,041.00
Maranatha Ace Hardware
Bakersfield, CA $380,774.79
Staff find the bid submitted by Kern Turf Supply, Inc., Bakersfield, Ca, to be acceptable and recommend approval of the contract for $250,000.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funds in the amount of $250,000 are budgeted in the Recreation and Parks Department’s operating budget for this contract. Although the low bid submitted by Kern Turf Supply, Inc. is below the amount budgeted, staff recommend awarding the contract in an amount not to exceed the available budget of $250,000.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Signed Agreement

2. Exhibit A

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Randy McKeegan, Finance Director
DATE: August 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Accept bid and approve contract with Burtch Construction (not to exceed $352,000) for the Annual Contract for Oil Transport & Spreading Services.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend acceptance of the bid and approval of contract.

BACKGROUND:

Bids were solicited from contractors to provide oil transport and oil distributing truck service for street sealant material purchased by the City. The proposed contract is for a one-year period; renewable annually for four consecutive one-year periods at the City’s option and upon mutually agreeable terms.

Two bids were received in response to the solicitation.

This contract will be utilized exclusively by the Public Works Department, Streets Division. Sealing material PMCQS1H, CSS-1H asphaltic emulsion and Topein C will be provided by the City under a separate contract; this contract is for transporting and spreading service only. The quantities used for bidding were based on departmental estimates for a daily 8-hour rate and a per hour after hours rate.

The three bids received as follows:

BIDDER AMOUNT
Burtch Construction
Bakersfield, CA $352,000
Kern Asphalt Paving & Sealing Co., Inc.

Bakersfield, CA $379,900
Staff find the bid submitted by Burtch Constructions, Bakersfield, CA, to be acceptable and recommend approval of the contract for $352,000.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funding sources including, but not limited to, Capital Outlay Fund, Gas Tax Fund and Utilities Surcharge Funds are budgeted for this contract.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Signed Agreement

2. Exhibit A

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Bids TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: August 7, 2026
SUBJECT: Street Improvements 2024-2025: Gosford Road from Panama Lane to Berkshire Road.

Accept bid and approve contract with Griffith Company ($391,735) for the project. (Wards 5 & 7) RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends acceptance of low bid and approval of contract.

BACKGROUND:

The work to be performed consists, in general, of street improvements along Gosford Road from Panama Lane to Berkshire Road. This roadway widening shall include earthwork/roadway excavation, clearing and grubbing, removing debris from the project area; relocating existing roadside signs, adjusting manholes; construction of a full depth pavement section which shall consist of hot mix asphalt over class II aggregate base; pavement striping and markings, and roadside signs.

This project was reviewed and designed at the highest level of consistency with the City’s Complete Streets Policy.

Item No.1. This project is locally funded through the Transportation Development Funds (TDF).

The Engineer’s Estimate for this project is $700,000.

On August 6, 2026, the City received six (6) bids for this project. All six bids were deemed acceptable.

Those acceptable bids are as follows:

Griffith Company
1128 Carrier Parkway Ave. in the amount of $391,735.00
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Burtch Construction
18815 Hwy 65 in the amount of $392,554.80
Bakersfield, CA 93303
Bowman Asphalt Inc.
3333 Gibson St. in the amount of $439,345.00
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Westrock General Engineering
7005 Downing Ave. in the amount of $439,999.00
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Granite Construction Company
3005 James Rd. in the amount of $443,849.00
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Energy Engineering & Consulting LLC.
6718 Walkers Glen Ln in the amount of $857,046.65
Bakersfield, CA 93313
Staff recommends acceptance of the bids and approval of the construction contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Griffith Company.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This project is fully funded through the Transportation Development Funds (TDF); therefore, there is no General Fund impact associated with the award of this contract. There are sufficient funds available for the award of this contract, contingencies, and construction engineering staff time.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

Agreement

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Bids TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: August 4, 2026
SUBJECT: Stonecreek Loop Cycle Track
Accept bid and approve contract with J.L. Plank Inc. dba Cen-Cal Construction for $528,825.00 (Ward 7) RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends acceptance of low bid and approval of contract.

BACKGROUND:

The proposed project will provide improved bicycle safety features primarily serving the Stonecreek community. Residents frequently make use of existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure for recreation and daily commutes. Located in direct proximity to the proposed project are 9 schools including, but not limited to, Stonecreek Jr High School, Panama Elementary School, and Ridgeview High School. Also located in the area are 8 religious worship centers including, but not limited to, Ridgeview Community Church, Gurdwara Guru Angad Darbar, and Daybreak Baptist Church. Proposed improvements will improve safety by providing a barrier to protect and increase the distance of cyclists and pedestrians from vehicle traffic.

The Stonecreek Loop Cycle Track is a pilot project comprised of established safety solutions with minor impact to existing infrastructure. If deemed successful, the safety improvements can easily be applied to numerous other locations throughout the municipality.

The work to be performed consists, in general, of installing a two-way cycle track with a concrete median and associated signage surrounding the Stonecreek Community, modifying the sidewalk at Stonecreek Park, and modifying existing pavement striping, all in conformance with the contract documents. The Engineer’s Estimate for this project is $907,000.

Item No. 1: On July 16, 2026, a total of two (2) bids were received. The bids are as follows:

J.L. Plank Inc. dba In the amount of $528,825.00
Cen-Cal Construction
31207 Denbeste Ct
Shafter, CA 93263
Kern County Custom Concrete In the amount of $890,914.34 7505 Terry John Ave
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Cen-Cal Construction is considered the lowest responsive bidder and staff recommends approval of the contract.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This project (T4K325) is fully funded by Public Safety & Vital Services (PSVS).

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
Safety and Resilience
Community Character & Quality of Life
ATTACHMENTS:

Agreement

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent – Miscellaneous TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: July 27, 2026
SUBJECT: Appropriate $1,257,480 from the State of California’s Highway Safety Improvements Program (HSIP) fund balance into the Public Works Department’s Capital Improvements Program within the HSIP fund for the project.(Wards 6 & 7) RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the approval of the appropriation.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Bakersfield previously secured federal funds for Median Improvements at various locations along Ashe Road and Wible Road. The initial authorization of the construction phase was awarded on June 30, 2026. The work to be performed consists, in general, of constructing Type “M” Median Curb, roadway excavation of existing asphalt concrete, removal of existing full depth median, adjustment of monuments, adjustment of manhole, installation of traffic striping and pavement markings, and installation of road signs.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This project is funded 90% through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP); while the local match funds the remaining 10%. Staff anticipates that there are sufficient funds available with this appropriation to cover the future contract award, City-controlled contingencies, and construction engineering staff time.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

None

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Miscellaneous TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: August 6, 2026
SUBJECT: Appropriate $6,504,298.17 Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (HHAP-6) State Grant Revenue to ECD Other Grant Awards Fund in the Development Services Operating Budget.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the appropriation.

BACKGROUND:

On February 24, 2025, the State of California released funding for Round 6 of the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (HHAP-6). HHAP-6 is a multi-year block grant that provides local communities with flexible funding to prevent and end homelessness. Funding is allocated to eligible cities, counties, and Continuums of Care based on the State’s funding formula and local homeless population.

HHAP-6 organizes eligible activities into four main categories: (1) permanent housing solutions; (2) homelessness prevention activities; (3) interim housing solutions; and (4) non-housing solutions. These funds support regional efforts to prevent homelessness, help people move into permanent housing, maintain needed interim housing, and provide services to people experiencing homelessness.

The City of Bakersfield received $6,504,298.17 in HHAP-6 funding. Proposed uses were developed through a regional planning process with the Bakersfield-Kern Regional Homeless Collaborative and the County of Kern and are based on identified regional needs.

At this time, staff is requesting that the City Council appropriate $6,504,298.17 Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (HHAP-6) State Grant Revenue to ECD Other Grant Awards Fund in the Development Services Operating Budget. This action is for appropriation of the grant funds only and does not approve individual projects, agreements, or subawards. Any items requiring separate City Council approval will be brought back to the City Council for consideration.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This action is receiving funds into the City as revenue, thus allowing the City not to use General Funds on homeless services and projects. Therefore, this provides the City General Fund savings and has no fiscal impact on general funds.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Community Character & Quality of Life
Safety and Resilience

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent-Miscellaneous TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin Albertson, Fire Chief
DATE: August 14, 2026
SUBJECT: Appropriate $80,000 Fire Safety Fund – Fire Recovery Fee to the Fire Department General Fund Operating Budget for the Fire Administration Office Lobby.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of the appropriation.

BACKGROUND:

The Fire Administration Office lobby is the department’s primary public-facing service point for permits, records, fire prevention guidance, and administrative assistance. As the department has modernized its operations and improved internal workflows, the limitations of the decades-old lobby have become increasingly apparent. The existing space no longer supports current service delivery methods or the security standards expected in a contemporary fire administration facility.

The lobby’s outdated layout restricts staff visibility, provides inadequate privacy for sensitive conversations, and lacks sufficient space to support digital permitting, public education outreach, and interagency coordination. Aging materials and non-compliant features further diminish the quality and equity of service provided to residents. Additionally, the current configuration does not meet modern security expectations for public safety facilities, creating challenges in managing public interactions and protecting staff and administrative work areas.

A remodel will modernize the lobby to improve customer service, enhance staff safety, and integrate technology more effectively. Updated design, improved circulation, secure staff areas, and a more welcoming environment will strengthen operational efficiency and better reflect the Fire Department’s commitment to safety, resilience, and high-quality public service. The proposed improvements will ensure the facility meets current needs, aligns with Council goals, and supports future operational demands.

Staff requests the appropriation of $80,000 Fire Safety Fund – Fire Recovery Fee to the Fire Department General Fund operating budget to fund the Fire Administration Office Lobby.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to the Fire Department General Fund, expenses will be covered by the Fire Safety Fund – Fire Recovery Fee.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Safety and Resilience
ATTACHMENTS:

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Successor Agency TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Randy McKeegan, Finance Director
DATE: August 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Receive and file Successor Agency payments from July 22, 2026, to August 11, 2026, in the amount of $747,995.10.
[Document Description]
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends report be received and filed.

BACKGROUND:

The City administers payment of Successor Agency enforceable obligation payments as authorized by the State Department of Finance (DOF) to further the dissolution of the former Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency. The Successor Agency has a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) approved by both the Bakersfield Oversight Board and the DOF. All payments of the Successor Agency must be on this approved listing in order to be valid and authorized payments of the Successor Agency.

A check register is provided which summarizes the transactions processed during the above referenced period. Additional details are provided below for each transaction.

Check #9998597 to U S BANK CR:US BANK TRUST NA for $462,807.60 is for debt service payments.

Check #9998598 to U S BANK TRUST for $285,187.50 is for debt service payments.

FISCAL IMPACT:
$747,995.10.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Innovative and Efficient City Government
ATTACHMENTS:

Oracle SA Admin Check Register 8.26
8/12/2026 AP - CHECK REGISTER - SUCCESSOR AGENCY
FROM
07/22/2026 - 08/11/2026
PAGE 1
Payment
Number Fund Vendor Name Check Date Check Total
9998597 2810 U S BANK CR:US BANK TRUST NA 7/23/2026 $ 462,807.60 9998598 2810 U S BANK TRUST 7/23/2026 $ 285,187.50
0 $747,995.10
E-Payables
Number
Vendor
Number Vendor Name E-Payable Date E-Payables Amount

0.00 0 $0.00
0 $747,995.10
Disbursement Total
S:\Accounting\LACEY\ADMIN-COUNCIL\2026\COUNCIL - SA\8.26.26\

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - PSVS TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brent Stratton, Chief of Police
DATE: August 10, 2026
SUBJECT: Master Memorandum of Understanding with Kern Behavioral Health and Recovery Services. (not to exceed $413,000) for the Joint Provisions of Services for the communications Center, Homeless Co-Response Program, Mobile Crisis Intervention Team and Traditional MET Programs with the Bakersfield Police Department.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the Master Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

BACKGROUND: The Bakersfield Police Department (BPD) and Kern Behavioral Health and Recovery Services (Kern BHRS) are using innovative strategies to partner on handling behavioral health (BH) matters in our community by establishing a Homeless Co-Response Program focusing on those suffering from mental health issues who are also experiencing homelessness. Homeless Co-Response units consist of a police officer and a BH Clinician working together in the field. These teams can increase service capacity, decrease response times and increase efficiency while also increasing the likelihood of obtaining a positive resolution.

The BPD and Kern BHRS conducted a pilot program and during this pilot program one clinician diverted approximately 70% of the 600 plus assigned calls, preventing a police officer response over 480 times to non-emergency calls. By implementing these strategies, we will decrease law enforcement contact with subjects in crisis who are better served by BH staff intervention and as a result decrease response times to other priority calls.

On August 31, 2022, the City and County of Kern, on behalf of Kern BHRS, entered into Agreement No. 2022-181 to solidify the joint provision of services between BPD and Kern BHRS, for a total annual amount of $405,000 ($135,000 per position), and a term date of June 30, 2023.

On August 8, 2023, the City and Kern BHRS entered into Amendment 1 to Agreement No. 2022-181 to increase funding by $405,000 for FY23/24 and $405,000 for FY24/25; for a revised total not to exceed amount of $1,215,000 and a term date of June 30, 2025.

On July 15, 2025, the City and Kern BHRS entered into Agreement No. 2025-155 in the amount of $405,000 and a term date of June 30, 2026, for Communications Center and Homeless Co-Response Programs.

The City now desires to enter into a new agreement with Kern BHRS in the amount of $413,000 and a term date of June 30, 2027, for joint provisions of services for the Communications Center, Homeless CoResponse Program, Mobile Crisis Response, Crisis Intervention Team and Traditional MET Programs with the Bakersfield Police Department
FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are budgeted and available within the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget to fully fund the total cost associated with this active and the agreement.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Safety and Resilience
ATTACHMENTS:

Signed Agreement
1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

KERN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND RECOVERY SERVICES
AND

THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AND THE BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT (BPD)

REGARDING THE JOINT PROVISION OF SERVICES FOR THE COMMUNICATIONS CENTER,

HOMELESS CO-RESPONSE, MOBILE CRISIS RESPONSE, CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM, AND

TRADITIONAL MET PROGRAMS
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (hereinafter “MOU”) is made and entered into on ____________ by and between the Kern County Behavioral Health and Recovery Services Department (hereinafter “KernBHRS” or “BHRS”) and the City of Bakersfield (hereinafter referred to as “Contractor” or “Party”), a municipal corporation and Charter City, on behalf of the Bakersfield Police Department whose principal place of business is located at 1601 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301.

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS:

A. KernBHRS staff is trained, qualified and experienced in providing behavioral and mental health services, including providing and responding to the KernBHRS crisis hotline, and providing and responding to the homeless population.

B. BPD staff is trained, qualified and experienced to respond to 911 calls, other calls for service and appropriately dispatch responses to medical and public safety emergencies through the BPD 911 Communications Center, including calls for service involving the homeless population.

C. Based on the Parties’ respective skills, training, and shared interest in appropriately and effectively addressing mental and behavioral health calls for service, including but not limited to calls for service related to unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness in the City, the Parties’ launched pilot programs to coordinate the services and expertise of Kern BHRS staff with BPD’s response to calls for service.

D. The Parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to utilize and coordinate the services and expertise of Kern BHRS staff in the 911 Communications Center of the Bakersfield Police Department, to assist with behavioral health calls and determine the appropriate level of response needed by Kern BHRS staff and BPD, previously referred to as the “Differential Response Pilot Program”.

E. The Parties also executed an MOU to mutually collaborate in reducing the number of unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness on city streets and causing nuisance or unsafe behaviors for the community by providing a multidisciplinary/multi-agency approach to calls for service involving mental and behavioral health needs of those individuals’ experiencing homelessness, referred to as the “Homeless Co-Response Pilot Program”.

F. The Parties desire to continue their collaboration in providing appropriate and effective responses to behavioral health calls and calls for service involving homeless individuals in need of services, and further desire to expand such programs as approved by each respective agency, through execution of this Master MOU.

G. The Parties desire to continue their collaboration through the Mobile Crisis Response (MCR) Program by screening calls for service received through the crisis hotline in an effort to provide the appropriate level of response and/or care in the least restrictive environment possible.

H. The Parties further desire to continue their collaboration through the Crisis Intervention Team by coordinating efforts to keep Law Enforcement Officers and community members safe at the scene of a mental health crisis. 2 I. The Parties further desire to continue their collaboration through use of Traditional Mobile Evaluation Team (MET) Services by dispatching MET to locations as requested by Law Enforcement to conduct on-site clinical assessments, provide appropriate crisis intervention services, and determine the most appropriate response.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED between the Parties hereto as follows:

1. TERM.

This MOU shall commence on July 1, 2026, and shall remain in effect through June 30, 2027, unless sooner terminated as hereinafter provided.

2. STANDARDS OF SERVICES.

The Parties hereby agree that the purpose of this MOU is to continue, expand and maintain the Communications Center and Homeless Co-Response programs initially established by MOU as pilot programs, as well as to formalize the continued collaboration and mutual expectations for the Mobile Crisis Response (MCR), Crisis Intervention Team (CIT), and Traditional Mental Evaluation Team (MET) programs. Each Party shall appropriately assign KernBHRS and BPD staff to provide and collaborate services to carry out each of the programs, and shall adhere to the standards of service as more particularly described in the Description and Standards of Service for each program, attached hereto and incorporated herein as follows:

EXHIBIT A: Communications Center Program;
EXHIBIT B: Homeless Co-Response Program;
EXHIBIT C: Mobile Crisis Response Program;
EXHIBIT D: Crisis Intervention Team Program;
EXHIBIT E: Traditional MET Program.

3. MODIFICATIONS OF THE MOU.

Material changes to this MOU may be modified in writing only, signed by the Parties in interest at the time of the modification.

4. COMPENSATION.

For performing the Scope and Standards of Service described above, the Parties hereby agree to the following compensation:

A. For the Communications Center Program, KernBHRS shall be reimbursed for its compensation paid for up to three (3) employees holding the position of FTE Behavioral Health Recovery Specialist I, II, or III assigned to the BPD Communications Center under this MOU, pursuant to Exhibit F - Funding Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein. City shall pay County within 30 days after County submits an itemized invoice for the services rendered, including overtime, and that invoice is approved by City. County shall submit invoices quarterly. In no case shall City pay County more than $413,000 annually for performing services pursuant to this MOU. Should KernBHRS receive amounts from private insurance or other payer sources for services rendered by the Behavioral Health Recovery Specialist assigned to the Comm Center, then KernBHRS shall reduce future amounts invoiced to BPD accordingly.

B. For the Homeless Co-Response, Mobile Crisis Response, Crisis Intervention, and Traditional MET Programs, no compensation or reimbursement shall be exchanged by either party to this MOU for the services performed under Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D, and Exhibit E. 3 5. CONFIDENTIALITY.

Both Parties will not, without the written consent of the other Party, communicate confidential information, designated in writing or identified in this MOU as such, to any third party and shall protect such information from inadvertent disclosure to any third party in the same manner that it protects its own confidential information, unless such disclosure is required in response to a validly issued subpoena or other process of law. Upon completion of this MOU, the provisions of this paragraph shall continue to survive.

6. HIPAA/HITECH COMPLIANCE.

A. During the term of this MOU, a Party may receive from the other Party, or may receive or create on behalf of the other Party, certain confidential health or Medi-Cal information (“Protected Health Information” or “PHI”). This PHI is subject to protection under state and federal law, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law 104-191 (“HIPAA”), the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, Public Law 111-005 (“the HITECH Act”), and regulations promulgated thereunder by the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services (the “HIPAA Regulations”) and other applicable laws. Parties represent that they have in place policies and procedures that will adequately safeguard any PHI it receives or creates, and each Party specifically agrees, on behalf of itself, its subcontractors, and agents, to safeguard and protect the confidentiality of PHI consistent with applicable law, including currently effective provisions of HIPAA, the HITECH Act, and the HIPAA Regulations.

B. For purposes of this section, PHI means any information, whether oral or recorded in any form or medium: (a) that relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health condition of an individual; the provision of health care to an individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual, and (b) that identifies the individual or with respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe the information can be used to identify the individual.

C. The parties acknowledge that state and federal laws relating to electronic data security and privacy are rapidly evolving and that amendment of this MOU may be required to provide for procedures to ensure compliance with such developments. The parties hereto specifically agree to take such action as is necessary to implement the requirements of HIPAA, the HITECH Act, and HIPAA Regulations and other applicable laws relating to the security or confidentiality of PHI. The Parties understand and agree that each Party must provide to the other, upon request, written evidence that the Party is in compliance with the HITECH Act and applicable HIPAA Regulations.

D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this MOU, either Party may terminate this MOU upon twenty (20) days' notice in the event: (a) a Party does not promptly provide written evidence of compliance with the HITECH Act and applicable HIPAA Regulations, or (b) a Party becomes aware that the other Party or any of its subcontractors or agents discloses PHI in a manner that is not authorized by by applicable law.

7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW.

Each Party and any subcontractors will observe and comply with all applicable County, State, and federal laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations now in effect or hereafter enacted, each of which are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference.

8. NON-DISCRIMINATION.

Both Parties agree to abide by all applicable federal and State laws prohibiting discrimination against any participant, volunteer, or any other person because of race, color, religion, handicap, sex, age, sexual orientation, or place of natural origin.

9. AUTHORITY TO BIND.

It is understood that neither Party in performance of any and all duties under this MOU, except as otherwise provided in this MOU, has authority to bind the other Party to any agreements or undertakings. 4 10. NOTICES.

A. Notices to be given by one Party to other under this MOU will be given in writing by personal delivery, by certified mail, return receipt requested, or express delivery service at the address specified below. Notices delivered personally shall be deemed received upon receipt; mailed or expressed notices shall be deemed received four (4) business days after deposit. A Party may change the address to which notice is to be given by giving notice as provided below.

Notice to Kern BHRS will be addressed as follows:

Kern Behavioral Health and Recovery Services
Attn: Director
PO Box 1000
Bakersfield, CA 93302-1000
Notice to BPD will be addressed as follows:

Bakersfield Police Department
Attn: Chief of Police
1601 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
B. Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to prevent or render ineffective delivery of notices required or permitted under this MOU by personal service.

11. NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES.

It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement of these terms and conditions and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, will be strictly reserved to both Parties. Nothing contained in this MOU will give or allow any claim or right of action whatsoever by any other third person. It is the express intention of both Parties that any such person or entity, other than the Parties to this MOU, receiving services or benefits under this MOU will be deemed an incidental beneficiary only.

12. MUTUAL HOLD HARMLESS.

The Parties shall hold each other harmless from any and all actual or alleged claims, demands, causes of action, liability, loss, damage and/or injury (to property or persons, including without limitation wrongful death), whether brought by either party, an individual or other entity, or imposed by a court of law or by administrative action of any federal, state, or local governmental body or agency, arising out of or incident to any acts, omissions, negligence, or willful misconduct of either Party, its personnel, employees, agents, contractors, or volunteers in connection with or arising out of the performance of this MOU.

13. POLITICAL-RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY.

A. No person performing any service or providing any goods designated under this Contract shall participate in any political or religious activity on County time or in any manner involving the use of county property or expenditure of public funds nor conveying the implication of County endorsement or support for a candidate for local, state, or federal office.

B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Contract shall be construed to unlawfully limit an individual’s Constitutional rights. Accordingly, the limitations contained in this section are for the sole purpose of preventing proselytizing and politicking while engaged in the performance of services under this Contract.
5 14. FINANCIAL SOLVENCY.

The Parties shall maintain adequate provisions against the risk of insolvency.

15. CHOICE OF LAW/VENUE.

The Parties hereto agree that the provisions of this MOU will be construed pursuant to the laws of the state of California. This MOU has been entered into and is to be performed in the County of Kern. Accordingly, the Parties agree that the venue of any action relating to this MOU shall be in the County of Kern.

16. NON-WAIVER.

No covenant or condition of this MOU can be waived except by the written consent of KernBHRS and BPD.

Forbearance or indulgence by KernBHRS or BPD in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of the covenant or condition to be performed by either Party. KernBHRS or BPD shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to KernBHRS or BPD under this MOU or by law or in equity despite said forbearance or indulgence.

17. ENFORCEMENT OF REMEDIES.

No right or remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to KernBHRS or BPD is exclusive of any other right or remedy herein or by law or equity provided or permitted, but each shall be cumulative of every other right, or remedy given hereunder, now or hereafter existing by law or in equity or by statute or otherwise and may be enforced concurrently or from time to time.

18. CAPTIONS AND INTERPRETATION.

A. Paragraph headings in this MOU are used solely for convenience and shall be wholly disregarded in the construction of this MOU.

B. No provision of this MOU shall be interpreted for or against a Party because that Party or its legal representative drafted such provision, and this MOU shall be construed as if jointly prepared by the Parties.

19. TIME OF ESSENCE.

Time is hereby expressly declared to be of the essence of this MOU and of each and every provision hereof, and each such provision is hereby made and declared to be a material, necessary and essential part of this MOU.

20. COUNTERPARTS.

This MOU may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instruments.

21. NON-COLLUSION COVENANT.

City represents and agrees that it has in no way entered into any contingent fee arrangement with any firm or person concerning the obtaining of this MOU with KernBHRS. City has not received any incentive or special payments, or considerations not related to the provision of services under this MOU.

22. ENTIRE MOU.

This document, including all attachments hereto, contains the entire MOU between the Parties relating to the services, rights, obligations, and covenants contained herein and assumed by the Parties respectively. No inducements, representations or promises have been made, other than those recited in this MOU. No oral promise, modification, change or inducement shall be effective or given any force or effect. 6 23. NEGATION OF PARTNERSHIP.

In the performance of all services under this MOU, the Parties acknowledge that they are, in fact and law, an independent contractor and not an agent, employer or employee of the other Party. County has and retains the right to exercise full supervision and control of the manner and methods of providing services to BPD under this MOU, and shall remain at all times the employer of the KernBHRS staff assigned to the BPD Comm Center pursuant to this MOU. City retains full supervision and control over the employment, direction, compensation and discharge of BPD staff assisting in the provision of services under this MOU. With respect to City's employees, if any, City shall be solely responsible for payment of wages, benefits and other compensation, compliance with all occupational safety, welfare and civil rights laws, tax withholding and payment of employee taxes, whether federal, state or local, and compliance with any and all other laws regulating employment.

24. SEVERABILITY.

Should any part, term, portion or provision of this MOU be decided finally to be in conflict with any law of the United States or the state of California, or otherwise be unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining parts, terms, portions, or provisions shall be deemed severable and shall not be affected thereby, provided such remaining portions or provisions can be construed in substance to constitute the MOU which the parties intended to enter into in the first instance.

25. TERMINATION.

Either Party may terminate this MOU, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other Party. In the event of termination of this MOU for any reason, both Parties will have no further obligation to pay for any services rendered or expenses incurred by the other Party after the effective date of the termination.

26. IMMEDIATE TERMINATION.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, both Parties will have the right to terminate this MOU effective immediately after giving written notice to the other Party in the event either Party determines that the other Party does not have the proper credentials, experience, or skill to perform the required services under this MOU; or in the event that continuation by either Party in the provision of services may result (i) in civil, criminal, or monetary penalties against that Party, (ii) in the breach of any federal or state or regulatory rule or regulation or condition of accreditation or certification, or (iii) the loss or threatened loss of that Party's ability to participate in any federal or state program.

27. SIGNATURE AUTHORITY.

Each Party represents that they have full power and authority to enter into and perform this MOU, and the person signing this MOU on behalf of each Party has been properly authorized and empowered to enter into this MOU. [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 7 IN WITNESS TO WHICH, each Party to this MOU has signed this MOU upon the date indicated, and agrees for itself, its employees, officers, partners, and successors, to be fully bound by all terms and conditions of this MOU.

APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: COUNTY OF KERN
Behavioral Health and Recovery Services Board of Supervisors By: _____________________________ By: ____________________________ Alison Burrowes, MA, LCSW, Director Chairman

BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
By:_____________________________ By: ____________________________ Brent Stratton, Chief of Police Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Office of the County Counsel
By:_____________________________
Kyle Holmes, Deputy County Counsel

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
By:_____________________________ By:____________________________ Ashley Zambrano, Deputy City Attorney Randy McKeegan, Finance Director [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 8 BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT

COMMUNICATIONS CENTER PROGRAM
EXHIBIT A – DESCRIPTION AND STANDARDS OF SERVICE
RESPONSIBILITES OF BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT:

BPD shall:

A. Transfer incoming behavioral health calls that do not require an emergency response, as determined by the sole discretion of the BPD dispatch staff receiving the calls, to the assigned KernBHRS staff member located in the BPD 911 Communications Center (Comm Center).

B. Stay on the line with callers until BPD staff confirms a transfer to KernBHRS staff is complete, pursuant to procedures as agreed upon by the Parties.

C. If KernBHRS staff is unavailable, and the call is deemed non-emergent by BPD staff, the caller may be placed in a call-back queue for KernBHRS staff to contact as soon as KernBHRS is available.

D. Dispatch BPD and Mobile Evaluation Team (MET) units (when available) if an in-person response is required for a behavioral health call.

E. Meet with KernBHRS administrative staff as agreed upon/needed by the Parties, to discuss program progress, concerns and/or issues pertaining to this agreement.

F. Assure that BPD dispatch staff who handle calls that may be transferred to the KernBHRS staff in the Comm Center have received LEAD (formerly known as Question, Persuade, Refer, “QPR”) training.

G. Allow KernBHRS IT staff to set up a computer station in the Comm Center.

H. Follow guidelines and procedures, as applicable and mutually developed and agreed upon by the Parties.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF KERN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND RECOVERY SERVICES KernBHRS shall:

A. Assign three (3) full-time employees employed by BHRS in the position of a MET trained Behavioral Health Recovery Specialist to be positioned in the BPD Comm Center for purposes of responding to behavioral health calls during a mutually agreed upon schedule for the duration of the agreement. The assigned KernBHRS staff shall be properly and competently trained and employed by BHRS to perform the duties of the position of Behavioral Health Recovery Specialist.

B. Accept all behavioral health calls transferred from BPD and utilize KernBHRS’ electronic health record database to determine the most appropriate response. Responses may include, but are not limited to the following:

1. Connecting the caller with their outpatient team if they are already associated with a team; or

2. Connecting the caller with a treatment provider; or

3. Dispatching the BPD Co-Response Team for a non-emergent welfare check; or

4. Dispatching BPD and MET staff to respond to the caller in person.

C. Upon request, provide BPD with information on upcoming crisis trainings. 9 D. Meet with BPD staff as agreed upon/needed by the Parties, to discuss program progress, concerns and/or issues pertaining to this MOU.

E. Upon request, provide LEAD training to BPD dispatch staff who handle calls that may be transferred to the KernBHRS staff member in the Comm Center.

F. Supply and utilize KernBHRS equipment, hardware, software and/or programs necessary to access electronic health information and assist callers in the Comm Center.

G. Submit claims and bill Medi-Cal for appropriate services rendered during a call.

H. Follow guidelines and procedures, as applicable and mutually developed and agreed upon by the Parties. [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 10 BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT

HOMELESS CO-RESPONSE PROGRAM
EXHIBIT B – DESCRIPTION AND STANDARDS OF SERVICE

RESPONSIBILITIES OF BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
BPD shall:

A. Assign full-time law enforcement officers, as needed, employed by City to be partnered with assigned KernBHRS staff during a mutually agreed upon schedule for the duration of the Homeless Co- Response Program. The assigned BPD officers shall be officers currently assigned to the City's Impact response team who have received Crisis Intervention Training (CIT). City shall remain the sole employer of BPD officers assigned under the Master MOU.

B. Utilize the Relational Outreach and Engagement Model (ROEM) to enhance engagement with individuals experiencing homelessness.

C. Jointly respond to calls for service, both emergency and non-emergency, involving reports of homelessness, public nuisances as a result of homelessness, and check the welfare calls involving people experiencing homelessness with mental and/or behavioral health needs, utilizing the assigned BPD and KernBHRS staff pursuant to the Master MOU. The parties acknowledge and understand that dispatching appropriate staff as set forth in the Master MOU shall be subject to availability of such staff to respond when calls for service are received.

D. Engage with homeless individuals requiring 5150 evaluations and transportation to the Psychiatric Evaluation Center/Crisis Stabilization Unit or Kern Medical Emergency Department (for those needing medical clearance).

E. Patrol areas and zones in BPD jurisdiction for response, outreach, and engagement opportunities for those experiencing homelessness.

F. Participate in KernBHRS's ROEM integrated care meetings to ensure collaboration and communication directly with KernBHRS homeless response teams regarding identified individuals in high need of services and support.

G. Regularly collaborate with and provide assistance to the KernBHRS's ROEM team.

H. Work with various community agencies addressing aspects of homelessness in the community, including but not limited to Flood Ministries, ROEM team, Conservator's Office, Code Enforcement, the Rapid Response Team, etc.

I. Track data and outcomes to determine the success of the Pilot Program.

J. Follow guidelines and procedures, as applicable and mutually developed and agreed upon by the Parties.

K. When not responding to calls involving homelessness, or providing outreach to individuals experiencing homelessness, respond to in-progress/general calls for service involving behavioral health needs.

RESPONSIBILITES OF KERN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND RECOVERY SERVICES KernBHRS shall:

A. Assign at least four (4) full-time staff employed by County to be partnered with assigned BPD officers during a mutually agreed upon schedule for the duration of the Homeless Co-Response Program. The assigned KernBHRS staff shall have a minimum of 2 years' experience working in crisis behavioral health services, be certified by the County Board of Supervisors to evaluate for W&IC 5150, be trained in the Evidenced Based Practice of Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training (ASIST), familiar with the various options for behavioral 11 health treatment with the County of Kern, and must be proficient in use of the KernBHRS electronic health record system (EHR).

B. Provide ROEM training to KernBHRS and BPD staff as requested.

C. Utilize the ROEM to enhance engagement with individuals experiencing homelessness.

D. Jointly respond to calls for service, both emergency and non-emergency, involving reports of homelessness, public nuisances as a result of homelessness, and check the welfare calls involving people experiencing homelessness with mental and/or behavioral health needs, utilizing the assigned BPD and KernBHRS staff pursuant to the Master MOU. The parties acknowledge and understand that dispatching appropriate staff as set forth in the Master MOU shall be subject to availability of such staff to respond when calls for service are received.

E. Utilize evidenced based skills and interventions with identified client population to dissuade negative behaviors impacting the community.

F. Engage with homeless individuals requiring 5150 evaluations and transportation to the PEC/CSU or Kern Medical ED (for those needing medical clearance).

G. Monitor areas and zones in BPD jurisdiction for response, outreach, and engagement opportunities for individuals experiencing homelessness.

H. Participate in ROEM integrated care meetings to ensure collaboration and communication directly with KernBHRS homeless response teams regarding identified individuals in high need of services and support.

I. Regularly collaborate with and provide assistance to the ROEM team.

J. Work with various community agencies addressing aspects of homelessness in the community, including but not limited to Flood Ministries, ROEM team, Conservator's Office, BPD, Code Enforcement, the Rapid Response Team, etc.

K. Track data and outcomes to determine the success of the Pilot Program.

L. Follow guidelines and procedures, as applicable and mutually developed and agreed upon by the Parties.

M. When not responding to calls involving homelessness, or providing outreach to individuals experiencing homelessness, respond to in-progress/general calls for service involving behavioral health needs. [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 12 BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT

MOBILE CRISIS RESPONSE PROGRAM
EXHIBIT C – DESCRIPTION AND STANDARDS OF SERVICE

RESPONSIBILITIES OF BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
BPD Shall:

A. Respond to and assist the Mobile Crisis Response (MCR) team with in-progress calls for service in which an individual is potentially suicidal, homicidal, or gravely disabled; provide crisis intervention; and W&IC 5150 evaluations to determine the disposition of the call, as a result of knowledge that a person is determined to be in imminent danger as a result of a mental health crisis.

B. Responds to calls for Welfare Checks, whenever requests are made by the MCR team, as a result of knowledge that a person is determined to be in imminent danger as a result of a mental health crisis.

C. Transport individuals as deemed appropriate by BPD if there is no medical aid needed and the individual presents a safety risk to others or self.

D. BPD Communications Center will receive and document the MCR team’s location and status within the CAD system.

E. Communications Center may dispatch a MCR team member, if available, to respond to in-progress calls for service in which an individual is potentially suicidal, homicidal, or gravely disabled; provide crisis intervention; and W&IC 5150 evaluations to determine the disposition of the call, as a result of the knowledge that a person is determined to be in imminent danger as a result of a mental health crisis.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF KERNBHRS
KernBHRS Shall:

A. Provide the Communications Center dispatcher their enroute and on scene location.

B. Notify the Communications Center dispatcher when a safety concern presents itself during a crisis call in the community.

C. Provide the necessary interventions for each appropriate referral received, including, but not limited to crisis evaluation, W&IC 5150/5585, consultation, case management, or linkage and referrals.

D. Provide an in-person crisis assessment, mitigating any immediate risk of danger to self or others, determining a short-term strategy for restoring stability, and identifying follow-up care, as appropriate.

E. Utilize crisis planning to ensure safety for individuals in crisis.

F. Provide or arrange for transportation, as necessary for persons receiving a crisis evaluation, to designated facility for continued psychiatric stabilization. This may include transportation by the MCR team, law enforcement, and/or ambulance.

G. Facilitate and coordinate a warm handoff to a higher level of care and/or community resources.

H. Track and maintain daily census information for services provided.

I. If available, an MCR team member may respond to in-progress calls for service in which an individual is potentially suicidal, homicidal, or gravely disabled; provide crisis intervention; and W&IC 5150 evaluations to determine the disposition of the call, as a result of knowledge that a person is determined to be in imminent danger as a result of a mental health crisis.
13 BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT

CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM PROGRAM
EXHIBIT D – DESCRIPTION AND STANDARDS OF SERVICE

RESPONSIBILITES OF BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
BPD Shall:

A. Designate a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) coordinator within the department, with the rank of Sergeant (or higher).

B. Actively participate in the CIT program to ensure that it remains a healthy, evolving program.

C. Emphasize the importance of treatment rather than incarceration of individuals with mental illness when appropriate.

D. Prioritize efforts to decrease injury rates for individuals experiencing a mental health crisis when law enforcement involvement is required.

E. Continue to educate and/or provide education to law enforcement officers about mental illness and how to improve skills in their interactions with individuals with mental illness, including but not limited to providing a forty (40) hour CIT class as needed.

F. Strengthen and encourage collaborative and positive relationships between law enforcement departments and behavioral health providers.

G. Participate in meetings to continuously evaluate CIT goals and outcome measures.

RESPONSIBILITES OF KERNBHRS
KernBHRS Shall:

A. Designate a CIT coordinator within the department.

B. Actively participate in the CIT program to ensure that it remains a healthy, evolving program.

C. Emphasize the importance of treatment rather than incarceration of individuals with mental illness.

D. Provide training and education to law enforcement on crisis de-escalation to decrease adverse outcomes with all parties involved.

E. Strengthen and encourage collaborative and positive relationships between law enforcement departments and behavioral health providers.

F. Continue to educate and/or provide education to law enforcement officers about mental illness and how to improve skills in their interactions with individuals with mental illness, including but not limited to providing a forty (40) hour CIT class as needed.

G. Participate in meetings to continuously evaluate CIT goals and outcome measures. 14 BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT

TRADITIONAL MOBILE EVALUATION TEAM
EXHIBIT E – DESCRIPTION AND STANDARDS OF SERVICE
Traditional KernBHRS Mobile Evaluation Team (MET) staff will respond to in-progress calls and hospital calls with the Bakersfield Police Department.

RESPONSIBILITES OF BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
BPD Shall:

A. If needed, request MET staff to respond to in-progress calls for service in which an individual is potentially suicidal, homicidal, or gravely disabled; provide crisis intervention; and W&IC 5150 evaluations to determine the disposition of the call.

B. Secure the location before MET intervenes.

C. Transport individuals presenting a safety risk to self or others as deemed appropriate by BPD.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF KERNBHRS
KernBHRS Shall:

A. Respond with Law Enforcement to in-progress calls for service in which an individual is potentially suicidal, homicidal, or gravely disabled; provide crisis intervention; and W&IC 5150 evaluations to determine the disposition of the call.

B. Utilize evidenced based skills and interventions with identified client population.

C. Provide linkage and coordination to behavioral health and/or community resources for minors, adults, senior adults, and veterans.

D. Transport individuals if safety or immediate medical attention is not a concern.

E. Work with various community agencies addressing aspects of homelessness in the community, including but not limited to Flood Ministries, Conservator’s Office, KCSO, Brundage Lane and M Street Navigation Centers, and Recovery Station, etc.

F. Track and maintain daily census information for services provided.

G. Advise and/or coordinate with the individual’s treatment provider, if applicable. 15 BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT

COMMUNICATIONS CENTER PROGRAM
EXHIBIT F – FUNDING SCHEDULE
JULY 1, 2026 – JUNE 30, 2027
BUDGET UNIT 4120 KERNBHRS REVENUE TOTAL FUNDING
FY 2026-2027 ALLOWED $413,000
MAXIMUM REIMBURSEMENT $413,00
For the three (3) FTE Behavioral Health Recovery Specialists assigned to the BPD Communications Center under this MOU, BHRS will be reimbursed as follows:

Position 1 – Behavioral Health Recovery Specialist III:
i. Annual Salary = $80,102
ii. Federal Payroll Taxes = $6,074.43
iii. Retirement = $44,614
iv. Medical Insurance = $15,523
v. Retiree Insurance = $1,315
vi. Overtime = $12,706.20
Position 2 – Behavioral Health Recovery Specialist III:
i. Annual Salary = $80,102
ii. Federal Payroll Taxes = $5,188.13
iii. Retirement = $40,077
iv. Medical Insurance = $15,523
v. Retiree Insurance = $1,315
vi. Overtime = $8,116.2
Position 3 – Behavioral Health Recovery Specialist I:
i. Annual Salary = $57,966
ii. Federal Payroll Taxes = $3,588.26
iii. Retirement = $23,521
iv. Medical Insurance = $15,523
v. Retiree Insurance = $0
vi. Overtime = $1,717.51
TOTAL = Not to Exceed $413,000 for three (3) assigned Behavioral Health and Recovery Specialist positions.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 16 [END OF MOU]

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - PSVS TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: July 1, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-196 with Flood Ministries (increase compensation $300,000, revised not to exceed $600,0000; and extend term to December 31, 2027) for the Community Vitality Family Reunification Initiative.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of amendment.

BACKGROUND:

On October 8, 2025, the City entered into Agreement 2025-196 with Flood Ministries to administer and operate the Community Vitality and Family Reunification (CVFR) Initiative. The program helps individuals experiencing homelessness reunite with family, friends, or other support networks by providing services such as transportation. The initiative prioritizes reunifying individuals experiencing homelessness with family and loved ones within and outside the Continuum of Care’s (CoC) boundary.

Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 2025-196 will increase compensation by $300,000 for one additional year of service, bringing the total compensation to $600,000 for two years of service, and extend the agreement term through December 31, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACT:

As part of FY 26-27, City Council approved $300,000 of Public Safety and Vital Services funding to the Community Vitality and Family Reunification Initiative.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Safety and Resilience
ATTACHMENT:

Amendment

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - PSVS TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: August 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 2025-176 with Be Finally Free (increase compensation by $175,000, revised not to exceed $375,000; and extend the term to December 31, 2026) for Community Connectors program services RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the amendment.

BACKGROUND:

On November 6, 2018, Measure N, the Public Safety and Vital Services Measure (PSVS) was passed by voters in an effort to address top community priorities, including an increase in homeless services through partnerships with service providers. The City acknowledges that addressing homelessness in the community requires focused outreach efforts to engage individuals living on the streets and assist them with accessing critical resources.

On June 7, 2025, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for qualified agencies to participate in the Community Connectors pilot program, and collaborate with the City’s Code Enforcement, Rapid Response Teams, and Bakersfield Police Department in targeted outreach, litter removal, and other supportive services in the Old Town Kern area.

On September 10, 2025, the City entered into Agreement No. 2025-176 with Be Finally Free for services outreach, engagement and beautification services related to the City’s Community Connectors pilot program.

On March 25, 2026, Agreement No. 2025-176 was amended to extend the term of the agreement to from March 31, 2026 to August 30, 2026.

The parties now mutually desire to amend Agreement No. 2025-176 to increase the compensation by an additional $175,000 (for a total compensation not to exceed $375,000) and extend the term of the Agreement to December 31, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The action is to amend a contract and add more time to perform these services, the cost to amend and extend the services is $175,000, this is budgeted in the department’s Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Safety and Resilience
Community Character & Quality of Life
ATTACHMENT:

Agreement No. 2025-176(2)

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Hearings TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: August 21, 2026
SUBJECT: Public hearing to consider the Planning Commission’s approval of General Plan Amendment and Zone Change No. 23-0560 and its proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.

McIntosh and Associates (applicant), on behalf of ATG Investments LLC (property owner), is proposing a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change on approximately 24.86 acres generally located on the southwest corner of Taft Highway and Ashe Road. The request includes:

1. Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

2. Resolution adopting a General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from HMR (High Medium Residential) to HR (High Density Residential) and GC (General Commercial).

3. First Reading of an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code by changing the official zoning classification from R-2 (Single Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) and R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Unit Dwelling) zones.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolutions and first reading of the ordinance.

BACKGROUND:

McIntosh and Associates, Inc. (applicant), on behalf of ATG Investments, LLC (property owner), is proposing a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) on approximately 24.86 acres located at 9737 Ashe Road (southwest corner of Taft Highway and Ashe Road); Assessor Parcel Number 184-260-

09. The request includes: (1) an amendment of the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use designation from HMR (High Medium Residential) to HR (High Density Residential) and GC (General Commercial) or more restrictive designation; and (2) a change in zone classification from R-2 (Single Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) and R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Unit dwelling) zone or more restrictive zone to facilitate the development of multi-family residential and commercial retail.

The project intends to develop 6.36 acres of commercial land on the northern portion of the parcel.

The project also intends to develop 18.50 acres as multi-family residential on the southern portion of the parcel; there are currently no renderings for this proposed R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Unit Dwelling). 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.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:

Staff prepared an initial study to review the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study determined that compliance with recommended mitigation measures, local ordinances, state laws, and construction to the standards of the Uniform Building Codes will reduce impacts to a less-thansignificant level. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with CEQA. The MND was circulated for a 30-day public and agency review period from March 30, 2026, through April 28, 2026 (SCH No. 2026031051).

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

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in The Bakersfield Californian and posted on the bulletin board in 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.

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

Tribal Consultation. In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 18, a letter was sent by staff on March 10, 2025, to inform the American Tribes about the proposed project and its site location. This notification marks the initiation of the 90-day consultation period mandated by SB 18. At present, no request for tribal consultation has been received.

Compatibility with Land Use Element. Staff has reviewed the proposal for compatibility with the applicable goals and policies contained within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Element and finds the following:

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

The project is consistent with this goal because it proposes a mix of commercial and multi-family residential uses that will provide housing opportunities while expanding access to retail, service, and employment opportunities within the project area. The inclusion of commercial uses supports the daily needs of future residents and surrounding neighborhoods, while the multi-family residential component advances State objectives to increase housing supply and residential density within incorporated cities.

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

The project is consistent with this goal because the proposed commercial and multi-family residential uses are compatible with the surrounding urban development pattern. The project provides an integrated mix of residential and commercial uses that complements nearby development while supporting the continued growth of the surrounding area.

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 the proposed commercial and multi-family residential development or, if the project is approved, will be provided through the developer's fair-share payment of applicable development impact fees and any required infrastructure improvements. Therefore, the project is consistent with this goal.

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

The project includes a multi-family residential component that expands the variety of housing types and densities available within the area. The addition of higher-density residential development, integrated with complementary commercial uses, promotes a balanced land use pattern and provides additional housing opportunities. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy.

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 project is consistent with this policy because it incorporates commercial services on-site while providing multi-family residential development in proximity to existing employment centers, public services, transportation routes, and recreational amenities. The mixed-use design reduces the distance between housing and commercial services and enhances access to daily needs through the existing circulation network.

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 within an urbanized area where commercial and residential development is anticipated. The proposed mixed-use development provides adequate land area for new commercial and multi-family residential uses that are consistent with the General Plan's land use objectives. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:

The project was considered by the Planning Commission on July 16, 2026. No individuals or agencies were present at the hearing that opposed the request. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the project to the City Council. Two Commissioners were absent. The Planning Commission’s findings are contained in Resolution Nos. 62-26, 63-26, and 64-26.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The action to approve the zone change and general plan amendment does not have any impact to the General Fund. However, if this site develops to its full land use economic potential, it will have a positive impact on generating revenue for the City General Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Community Character & Quality of Life
Reliable Infrastructure
CONCLUSIONS:

Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Consistency with Surrounding Development. The project would provide increased residential density and commercial services.

Consistency with General Plan/Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan related to residential and commercial development, as noted above. Should the applicant submit site development plans, they will be reviewed for compliance with requirements and regulations as set forth in the Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) and City Development Standards.

Overall Recommendation. The project has been found to be consistent with General Plan policies and City Zoning Ordinance requirements. For these reasons, City staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of General Plan Amendment and Zone Change No. 23-0560.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Attachment A: Resolutions
• Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. • Resolution adopting a General Plan Amendment No. 23-0560 • Resolution adopting Zone Change No. 23-0560

2. Attachment B: Map Set
• GPA/ZC Aerial
• GPA/ZC Zone Classification
• GPA/ZC General Plan Designation

3. Attachment C: Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments

4. Attachment D: Planning Commission Resolutions
• MND with Attachments
• GPA with Attachments
• ZC with Attachments

5. Attachment E: Planning Commission Staff Report

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE

LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

GENERAL PLAN AND ZONE CHANGE, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TAFT HIGHWAY AND ASHE ROAD (9737
ASHE ROAD) (GPA/ZC NO. 23-0560).

WHEREAS, McIntosh and Associates, Inc. (applicant), on behalf of ATG Investments, LLC (property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment of the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from HMR (High Medium Residential) to HR (High Density Residential) on 18.50 acres and GC (General Commercial)on 6.36 acres or more restrictive designation; and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the zone classification from R-2 (Single Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) to R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Unit dwelling) zone on 18.50 acres and C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 6.36 acres or more restrictive zone on a total of 24.86 acres generally located on the southwest corner of Taft Highway and Ashe Road. (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a public review period from March 30, 2026, through April 28, 2026, in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 16, 2026, and with no one wishing to speak in support or opposition, approved Resolution No. 64-26, which recommended that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, August 26, 2026 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the proposed Negative Declaration as required by Government Code Section 65355, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by City staff and the Planning Commission; and

WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s deliberation, and action.

WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings:

1. All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation, 20 days prior to the hearing.

2. The provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff determined that the proposal is a project under CEQA.

3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval as the Project will not significantly impact the physical environment.

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

1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true andcorrect.

2. The Planning Commission’s findings as contained in its Resolution No. 64-26 are hereby adopted.

3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is hereby adopted subject to the mitigation measures found in Exhibit A for the Project located on the map as shown in Exhibit B, both of which are incorporatedherein. o0o

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on the 26th day of August 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: _Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Koman, Bashirtash, Kaur NOES: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER:

JULIE DRIMAKIS, CMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED:

By

KAREN GOH
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit: A Mitigation Measures
B Location Map
AK | S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\01_Hearing Documents & Noticing Documents\CC_8.26.26\02_Council CEQA Resolution No 23-0560.docx

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 1 of 39

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakersfield’s Development Services Department, Planning Division, has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures.

PROJECT NO. (or Title): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 23-0560 COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: March 30, 2026
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: April 28, 2026
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:

1. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer shall submit documentation to the Planning Division that they are compliant with air quality control measures and rules required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The documentation shall specify that the Project has complied with the SJVAPCD’ Indirect Source Rule (Rule 9510).

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

2. Prior to ground disturbance and/or construction activities, the applicant/developer shall consult with and follow all California Department of Fish and Wildlife and United States Fish and Wildlife Service requirements related to listed plants and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Applicant/developer shall have a qualified professional conduct and prepare a biological resource clearance survey no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities for the detection of listed, or otherwise special-status species, likely to be impacted by any project-related activity. a. If known or natal dens are detected during the survey, protective measures enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) shall be initiated. If the identified dens are unavoidable, pursuant to the guidelines, the CDFW and USFWS shall be contacted for additional guidance and take authorization. b. 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 nonraptors – 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).
0 BAKERSFIELD
THE SOUND OF ?)wtdJ/Wj ~
Exhibit A

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 2 of 39

Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

3. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period, a cultural awareness training program shall be provided to all new construction workers within one week of employment at the project site. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a qualified cultural resources specialist.

4. If buried paleontological or cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural and/or paleontological resource specialist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the findings and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and excavation. All reports, correspondence, and determinations regarding the discovery shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Information System’s Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University Bakersfield.

5. During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code 5097.97, and Senate Bill 447 shall be followed. In the event of the discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5© shall guide Native American consultation.

Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:

6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall 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.

Exhibit A
RE A A
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
C-1
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2

BOGART DR

COMMONWEALTH
AVE

WHALEBACK AVEPACKWOOD DR

MONHEGAN
WAY

FLAMENCO
WAY

WELLFLEET DR

HATHAWAY AVE

PHILBIN WAY

FENCL CT

ASHE RD ASHE RD

TAFT HWY
GPA/ZC 23-0560
R-2 to C-2
HMR to GC
GPA/ZC 23-0560
R-2 to R-3
HMR to HR
±
0 260 520
US Feet
Zoning
R-1 Single-Unit Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. minlot size
R-1-4.5 Single-Unit Dwelling
4,500 sq.ft. minlot size
E Estate
10,000sq.ft. minlot size
R-S Residential Suburban
24,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit
R-S-( ) Residential Suburban
1,2.5, 5or10 min lot size
R-2 Limited MultipleFamily Dwelling
4,500 sq.ft. minlot size (single family)
6,000 sq.ft. minlot size (multifamily)
2,500 sq.ft. lotarea/dwelling unit
R-3 MultipleFamily Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. minlot size
1,250 sq.ft. lotarea/dwelling unit
R-4 High Density MultipleFamily Dwelling
6,000sq.ft. minlot size
600 sq.ft. lot area/dwellingunit
R-H Residential Holding
20 acre min lot size
A Agriculture
6,000 sq.ft. minlot size
A-20A Agriculture
20acre min lot size
A-WR Agriculture-Water Recharge
Combining
PUD Planned Unit Development
TT Travel Trailer Park
MH Mobilehome
C-O Professional & Administrative Office
C-1 NeighborhoodCommercial
C-2Regional Commercial
C-CCommercial Center
C-B Central Business
PCD Planned Commercial Development
M-1 Light Manufacturing
M-2 General Manufacturing
M-3 Heavy Industrial
P Automobile Parking
RE Recreation
ChChurch Overlay
OS Open Space
HOSP Hospital Overlay
AD Architectural Design Overlay
FP-PFloodplain Primary
FP-S Floodplain Secondary
AA Airport Approach
DI Drilling Island
PEPetroleum Extraction Combining
SC Senior Citizen Overlay
HD Hillside Development Combining
WM West Ming Specific Plan
General Plan Amendment/
Zone Change
No. 23-0560

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Exhibit B

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AN

AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF THE

METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN FROM HMR (HIGH

MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL) TO HR (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) OR A MORE RESTRICTIVE DESIGNATION

GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TAFT HIGHWAY AND ASHE ROAD (9737 ASHE ROAD) (GPA/ZC NO. 23-0560).

WHEREAS, McIntosh and Associates, Inc. (applicant), on behalf of ATG Investments, LLC (property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment of the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from HMR (High Medium Residential) to HR (High Density Residential) on18.50 acres and GC (General Commercial)on 6.36 acres or more restrictive designations; and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the zone classification from R-2 (Single Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) to R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Unit dwelling) zone on 18.50acres and C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 6.36 acres or more restrictive zones on a total of 24.86 acres generally located on the southwest corner of Taft Highway and Ashe Road. (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 16, 2026, and with no one wishing to speak in support or opposition, approved Resolution No. 62-26, which recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, August 26, 2026, at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the approval of the amendment as required by Government Code Section 65355, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code;and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s deliberation and action.

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

1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true andcorrect.

2. The Planning Commission's findings as contained in its Resolution No. 62-26 are hereby adopted.

3. The Project is hereby approved located on the map as shown in Exhibit A, of which is incorporated herein.

4. The Project approved herein is hereby made part of the 3rd amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for calendar year 2026 in accordance with Government Code Section 65358 (b). o0o
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on the 26th of August 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: _ Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Koman, Bashirtash, Kaur NOES: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER:

JULIE DRIMAKIS, MMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED:

By

KAREN GOH
Mayor of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment Map
AK |S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\01_Hearing Documents & Noticing Documents\CC_8.26.26\03_Council GPA Resolution No 23-0560.docx BOGART
DR

COMMONWEALTH
AVE

WHALEBACK AVEPACKWOOD DR

MONHEGAN
WAY

FLAMENCO
WAY

WELLFLEET DR

HATHAWAY AVE

PHILBIN WAY

FENCL CT

ASHE RD ASHE RD

TAFT HWY
RR
LR
HMR

OS-P OS-P
LR
LR
LMR
LR
LR
GC
LMR
GPA/ZC 23-0560
R-2 to C-2
HMR to GC
GPA/ZC 23-0560
R-2 to R-3
HMR to HR
±
0 260 520
US Feet
Land Use
RR Rural Residential

2.5 gross acres/dwelling unit
ER Estate Residential
1 dwelling unit/net acre
SR Suburban Residential
≤4 dwelling units/net acre
SR/LR
County: ≤ 4 dwelling units/net acre
City: ≤ 7.26 dwelling units/net acre
LR Low Density Residential
≤ 7.26 dwelling units/net acre
LMR Low Medium Density Residential
> 4 but ≤ 10 dwelling units/net acre
HMR High Medium Density Residential
>7.26 units but
≤17.42 dwelling units/net acre
HR High Density Residential
>17.42 units but
≤72.6 dwelling units/net acre
HC Highway Commercial
GC General Commercial
MC Major Commercial
OC Office Commercial
MUC Mixed Use Commercial
LI Light Industrial
SI Service Industrial
HI Heavy Industrial
P Public Facilities
PS Public/Private Schools
PT Public Transportation Corridors
P-SW Solid Waste Facilities
OS Open Space
OS-P Parks and Recreation
OS-S Slopes exceeding 30%
R-IA Resource -
Intensive Agriculture
20 acre minimum parcel size
R-EA Resource -
Extensive Agriculture
20 acre minimum parcel size
80 acre min (Williamson Act)
R-MP Resource -
Minerals & Petroleum
5 acre minimum parcel size
UER Urban Estate Residential
Western Rosedale Plan

0.5 acre net minimum parcel size
WM West Ming Specific Plan
General Plan Amendment/
Zone Change
No. 23-0560

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Exhibit A
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 OF THE BAKERSFIELD

MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION
FROM R-2 (SINGLE LOT SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING) TO C-2
(REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) AND R-3 (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIUNIT DWELLING) ZONE OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE, GENERALLY

LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TAFT HIGH AND ASHE
ROAD (9737 ASHE ROAD) (GPA/ZC NO. 23-0560).

WHEREAS, McIntosh and Associates, Inc. (applicant), on behalf of ATG Investments, LLC (property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment of the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from HMR (High Medium Residential) to HR (High Density Residential) on 18.50 acres and GC (General Commercial)on 6.36 acres or more restrictive designations; and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the zone classification from R-2 (Single Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) to R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Unit dwelling) zone on 18.50 acres and C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 6.36 acres or more restrictive zones on a total of 24.86 acres generally located on the southwest corner of Taft Highway and Ashe Road. (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 16, 2026, and with no one wishing to speak in support or opposition, approved Resolution No. 63-26 which recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, August 26, 2026, at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the approval of the amendment as required by Government Code Section 65355, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the Project, including the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s deliberation and action; and
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

SECTION 1.

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

1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true andcorrect.

2. The Planning Commission's findings as contained in its Resolution No. 63-26 are hereby adopted.

3. The Project is hereby approved incorporating the change into the official zoning map as described in Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.06.020 as specifically described in Exhibit A and located on the map as shown in Exhibit B, all of which are incorporated herein.

SECTION 2.

This ordinance must bepostedin accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code and will become effective not less than 30 days from and after the date of its passage. o0o
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance 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, MMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED:

By

KAREN GOH
Mayor of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney

By:

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibits: A Legal Description
B Zone Change Map
AK | S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\01_Hearing Documents & Noticing Documents\CC_8.26.26\04_Council ZC Resolution No 23-0560.docx

RE A A
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
C-1
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2

BOGART DR

COMMONWEALTH
AVE

WHALEBACK AVEPACKWOOD DR

MONHEGAN
WAY

FLAMENCO
WAY

WELLFLEET DR

HATHAWAY AVE

PHILBIN WAY

FENCL CT

ASHE RD ASHE RD

TAFT HWY
GPA/ZC 23-0560
R-2 to C-2
HMR to GC
GPA/ZC 23-0560
R-2 to R-3
HMR to HR
±
0 260 520
US Feet
Zoning
R-1 Single-Unit Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. minlot size
R-1-4.5 Single-Unit Dwelling
4,500 sq.ft. minlot size
E Estate
10,000sq.ft. minlot size
R-S Residential Suburban
24,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit
R-S-( ) Residential Suburban
1,2.5, 5or10 min lot size
R-2 Limited MultipleFamily Dwelling
4,500 sq.ft. minlot size (single family)
6,000 sq.ft. minlot size (multifamily)
2,500 sq.ft. lotarea/dwelling unit
R-3 MultipleFamily Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. minlot size
1,250 sq.ft. lotarea/dwelling unit
R-4 High Density MultipleFamily Dwelling
6,000sq.ft. minlot size
600 sq.ft. lot area/dwellingunit
R-H Residential Holding
20 acre min lot size
A Agriculture
6,000 sq.ft. minlot size
A-20A Agriculture
20acre min lot size
A-WR Agriculture-Water Recharge
Combining
PUD Planned Unit Development
TT Travel Trailer Park
MH Mobilehome
C-O Professional & Administrative Office
C-1 NeighborhoodCommercial
C-2Regional Commercial
C-CCommercial Center
C-B Central Business
PCD Planned Commercial Development
M-1 Light Manufacturing
M-2 General Manufacturing
M-3 Heavy Industrial
P Automobile Parking
RE Recreation
ChChurch Overlay
OS Open Space
HOSP Hospital Overlay
AD Architectural Design Overlay
FP-PFloodplain Primary
FP-S Floodplain Secondary
AA Airport Approach
DI Drilling Island
PEPetroleum Extraction Combining
SC Senior Citizen Overlay
HD Hillside Development Combining
WM West Ming Specific Plan
General Plan Amendment/
Zone Change
No. 23-0560

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit B

BOGART DR

COMMONWEALTH
AVE

WHALEBACK AVEPACKWOOD DR

MONHEGAN
WAY

FLAMENCO
WAY

WELLFLEET DR

HATHAWAY AVE

PHILBIN WAY

FENCL CT

ASHE RD ASHE RD

TAFT HWY
GPA/ZC 23-0560
R-2 to C-2
HMR to GC
GPA/ZC 23-0560
R-2 to R-3
HMR to HR
Copyright nearmap 2015
±
0 260 520
US Feet
AERIAL
General Plan Amendment/
Zone Change
No. 23-0560

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
RE A A
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
C-1
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2

BOGART DR

COMMONWEALTH
AVE

WHALEBACK AVEPACKWOOD DR

MONHEGAN
WAY

FLAMENCO
WAY

WELLFLEET DR

HATHAWAY AVE

PHILBIN WAY

FENCL CT

ASHE RD ASHE RD

TAFT HWY
GPA/ZC 23-0560
R-2 to C-2
HMR to GC
GPA/ZC 23-0560
R-2 to R-3
HMR to HR
±
0 260 520
US Feet
ZONING
Commercial Zone Designations
C-1 Limited Commercial
Resource Zone Designations
A Agricultural
Residential Zone Designations
R-1 Single-Unit Dwelling - 2.1-6 dwelling units/net acre R-2 Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling Zone - 6.1-13 dwelling units/net acre
Other/Public Zone Designations
RE Recreation
General Plan Amendment/
Zone Change
No. 23-0560

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

BOGART DR

COMMONWEALTH
AVE

WHALEBACK AVEPACKWOOD DR

MONHEGAN
WAY

FLAMENCO
WAY

WELLFLEET DR

HATHAWAY AVE

PHILBIN WAY

FENCL CT

ASHE RD ASHE RD

TAFT HWY
RR
LR
HMR

OS-P OS-P
LR
LR
LMR
LR
LR
GC
LMR
GPA/ZC 23-0560
R-2 to C-2
HMR to GC
GPA/ZC 23-0560
R-2 to R-3
HMR to HR
±
0 260 520
US Feet
Land Use

RESIDENTIAL
LMR - Low Medium Density Residential:
> 4 units but ≤ 10 dwelling units/net
acre
HMR - High Medium Density Residential:
> 7.26 units but ≤ 17.42 dwelling
units/net acre
LR - Low Density Residential: ≤ 7.26
dwelling units/net acre
RR - Rural Residential: 2.5 gross acres/
dwelling unit

COMMERCIAL
GC - General Commercial

OPEN SPACE
OS-P - Parks and Recreation
General Plan Amendment/
Zone Change
No. 23-0560

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 1 of 39

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakersfield’s Development Services Department, Planning Division, has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures.

PROJECT NO. (or Title): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 23-0560 COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: March 30, 2026
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: April 28, 2026
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:

1. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer shall submit documentation to the Planning Division that they are compliant with air quality control measures and rules required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The documentation shall specify that the Project has complied with the SJVAPCD’ Indirect Source Rule (Rule 9510).

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

2. Prior to ground disturbance and/or construction activities, the applicant/developer shall consult with and follow all California Department of Fish and Wildlife and United States Fish and Wildlife Service requirements related to listed plants and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Applicant/developer shall have a qualified professional conduct and prepare a biological resource clearance survey no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities for the detection of listed, or otherwise special-status species, likely to be impacted by any project-related activity. a. If known or natal dens are detected during the survey, protective measures enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) shall be initiated. If the identified dens are unavoidable, pursuant to the guidelines, the CDFW and USFWS shall be contacted for additional guidance and take authorization. b. 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 nonraptors – 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).
0 BAKERSFIELD
THE SOUND OF ?)wtdJ/Wj ~

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 2 of 39

Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

3. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period, a cultural awareness training program shall be provided to all new construction workers within one week of employment at the project site. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a qualified cultural resources specialist.

4. If buried paleontological or cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural and/or paleontological resource specialist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the findings and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and excavation. All reports, correspondence, and determinations regarding the discovery shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Information System’s Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University Bakersfield.

5. During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code 5097.97, and Senate Bill 447 shall be followed. In the event of the discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5© shall guide Native American consultation.

Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:

6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall 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.

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 3 of 39

INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

1. Project (Title & No.): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 23-0560

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

3. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Ashley Knight, Assistant Planner (661) 326-3673

4. Project Location: The project is located at 9737 Ashe Road, generally located at the southwest corner Taft Highway and Ashe Road, within a 24.86-acre parcel (APN: 184-260-09), in southwest Bakersfield, California.

5. Applicant (name and address): McIntosh and Associates Attn: Isabella Herrera
10800 Stockdale Highway, Suite 103
Bakersfield, CA 93311

6. General Plan Designation: HMR (High Medium Residential)

7. Zoning: R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) Zone

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

McIntosh and Associates (applicant), representing ATG Investment LLC (property owner), is proposing a commercial development and higher-density residential. The Project would consist of five (5) commercial pads at the northeast corner of Taft Highway and Ashe Road, and multi-family residential to the south of the proposed commercial development.

1. General Plan Amendment (GPA) of the land use element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (General Plan) from HMR (High Medium Residential) to HR (High Residential) on

18.50 acres and GC (General Commercial on 6.36 acres;

2. Zone Change (ZC) from an R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) to R-3 (Medium Density MultiUnit Dwelling) on 18.50 acres and R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) to C-2 (General Commercial on 6.36 acres.

The project involves developing a 24,323-square-foot multi-tenant commercial center on 6.36 acres and 499 low-rise apartments on 18.50 acres.

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

The proposed project site is on approximately 25 acre parcel that is vacant and undeveloped.

Surrounding properties to the north is an outdoor sports recreation center, the east, is zoned C-1 and R-1

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 4 of 39

and is undeveloped, and the property to the west has truck parking and single-family dwellings. The parcel to the south is an undeveloped residential parcel.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement):

Agency Approvals and Decisions
Subsequent City of Bakersfield Approvals
Development Services Department
Public Works Department
• Issue grading permits.
• Issue building permits.
• Accept public right-of-way dedications.
• Approve road improvement plans.
• Issue encroachment permits.
• Approve proposed sewer connections and
improvements.

Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits
Regional Water Quality Control Board • Issue a Construction Activity General Construction Permit.
• Confirm Compliance with National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and
Waste Discharge Requirements.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District
• Approve Indirect Source Rule compliance.

California Water Service Bakersfield
District
• Approve proposed water connections and
improvements.

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 6 of 39

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be crossreferenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 7 of 39

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the Project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact. The project is located within City limits at the southwest corner of Ashe Road and Taft Highway. The existing visual environment in the area adjacent to the project is undeveloped residential to the south, single-family residential and truck and trailer parking to the west, an outdoor recreation center to the north, and undeveloped residential to the east. The project does not conflict with any applicable vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements or design criteria of federal, state, or local agencies. The project site is located within an area having slopes of 0 to 2 % in any direction. The area is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as visually important or “scenic.” The construction of residential and commercial uses at the site would be in character and compatible with existing urban land uses in the vicinity and is a natural extension of the urban growth occurring in the project area. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts are less than significant.
b. No impact. There are no trees, rock outcrops, or historic buildings located at the project site.

Additionally, the project site is not located adjacent to or near any officially designated or potentially eligible scenic highways to be listed on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System (Caltrans 2017). The closest section of highway eligible for state scenic highway designation is State Route (SR) 14 (Caltrans 2017), located in Kern County over 60 miles to the east. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
c. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to responses I.a, I.b, and I.d. As described, the project site consists of and is surrounded by undeveloped land. There are no local vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements, or design criteria that are applicable to the project. Additionally, the area is not regarded or designated within the MBGP as being visually 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 8 of 39

important or designated “scenic.” Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality in urbanized areas, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. This project involves incremental urban growth within the City of Bakersfield’s jurisdiction. This project would be required to comply with City development standards, including Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 17 (zoning ordinance), Title 15 (buildings and construction), and California Code of Regulations Title 24 (building code). Together, these local and state requirements oblige compliance with current lighting standards that minimize unwanted light or glare to spill over into neighboring properties. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a. Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project site is not designated by the California Department of Conservation as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. Therefore, the project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 9 of 39

b. No impact. The project site is currently zoned R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) for residential uses, meaning it is not an agricultural zone and is not under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c. No impact. As discussed in II.b, the project site is zoned for residential uses. No lands within or immediately adjacent to the project site are zoned forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. d. No impact. As discussed in II.c, no lands within or immediately adjacent to the project are zoned forest land or timberland and do not contain any forested areas. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest. e. Less-than significant impact. Please refer to responses II.a through II.d. This project proposes residential and commercial uses in an area designated for urban development by the General Plan. Though the immediate adjacent area is designated for urban development there are ongoing agricultural uses as legal-non-conforming uses in proximity to the project, which would not experience conflicts in operation due to the proposed development. In addition, there are no forestlands in proximity to the project that would experience conflicts in operation due to the proposed development. Therefore, the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY:

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) jurisdiction, in the San Joaquin Valley Air 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 10 of 39

Basin (SJVAB). As such, air quality impacts from the project are controlled through policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the General Plan. The SJVAPCD has adopted an Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) and is required to submit a “Rate of Progress” document to the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) that demonstrates past and planned progress toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants.

The SJVAB is classified by the state as being in severe nonattainment for the state 1-hour ozone standard as well as in nonattainment for the state particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The SJVAB is also classified as an extreme nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 standard, and attainment/maintenance for the federal carbon monoxide (CO) and PM10 standards.

The SJVAPCD requires local jurisdictions to design all developments in ways that reduce air pollution from vehicles, which is the largest single category of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley and from other stationary sources. They do so through the permitting authority under the New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule (Rule 2201) and the Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate (Rule 2010). Other regulations and policy that require compliance with air quality strategies for new commercial developments include, but are not limited to, Title 24 efficiency standards, Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards, 2005 building energy efficiency standards, Assembly Bill 1493 motor vehicle standards, and compliance with the General Plan Air Quality Conservation Element.

An Air Quality (AQ) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Analyses Letter Report, provided by Trinity Consultants 2024, was completed for the project. The AQIA concluded that the proposed emissions from the Project are below the SJVAPCD’s established emissions impact thresholds, and that the primary source of emissions from the Project will be motor vehicles that are licensed through the State of California and whose emissions are already incorporated into the CARB San Joaquin Valley Emissions Inventory. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, the applicable air quality plan.

As shown in the table below, the SJVAPCD has established the following specific criteria pollutants thresholds of significance:

Pollutant/Precursor
Construction
Emissions
Emissions (tons/year)
Operational Emissions
Permitted Equipment
and Activities
Emissions
(tons/year)
Non-Permitted
Equipment and
Activities
Emissions
(tons/year)
CO 100 100 100
NOx 10 10 10
VOC 10 10 10
SOx 27 27 27
PM10 15 15 15
PM2.5 15 15 15
Source: Trinity Consultants 2024.

Construction of the project would result in air pollutant emissions. Emissions from construction would result from fuel combustion and exhaust from equipment, as well as vehicle traffic, grading, 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 11 of 39

and the use of toxic materials (e.g., lubricants). The following table provides estimated construction emissions from the project. It was assumed in developing construction emission calculations that the implementation of effective and comprehensive dust control measures under Regulation VIII – PM10 Fugitive Prohibitions – would be used during construction.

The following table provides the estimated construction emissions from the project:

Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SO2
Unmitigated
2025 0.37 2.23 4.39 0.88 0.31 0.01
2026 1.93 1.13 2.68 .43 0.31 0.00
Maximum Annual Emissions 1.93 2.23 4.39 0.88 0.31 0.01
Mitigated
2025 0.37 2.23 4.39 0.68 0.23 0.01
2026 1.93 1.13 2.68 0.43 0.13 0.00
Maximum Annual Emissions 1.93 2.23 4.39 0.68 0.23 0.01
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Trinity Consultants 2024.

As shown in the above table, construction emissions are not predicted to exceed SJVAPCD significance threshold levels.

Project operations would also result in air pollutant emissions. The main source of emissions would be from vehicular traffic associated with the project site. The following table provides estimated post-project operational emissions from the project:

Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 3.73 3.58 39.02 0.11 10.88 2.79
Area 2.58 0.03 2.64 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.04 0.70 0.32 0.00 0.06 0.06
Water - - - - - -
Waste - - - - - -
Refrig. - - - - - -
Total Emissions 6.35 4.31 41.98 0.11 10.94 2.84
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Trinity Consultants 2024.

As shown in the above table, post-project operational emissions are not predicted to exceed SJVAPCD significance threshold levels.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure 1, the project would not conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, the applicable air quality plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. Less-than-significant impact. Under the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, any project that would have individually significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have significant cumulative 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 12 of 39

air quality impacts. Impacts of local pollutants are cumulatively significant when the combined emissions from the project and other planned projects exceed air quality standards. The following table shows the project’s contribution to cumulative emissions calculated for both Kern County and the greater SJVAB:
2025 Emissions Projections – Proposed Project, Kern County. And SJVAB Emissions Inventory Pollutants (tons/year)
ROG NOX PM10
Proposed Project 6.35 4.31 10.94
Kern County 24,645 12,556 14,089
SJVAB 110,997 55,334 98,112
Proposed Project Percent of Kern County 0.029% 0.034% 0.078% Proposed Project Percent of SJVAB 0.006% 0.008% 0.011%
Kern County Percent of SJVAB 19.50% 22.69% 14.36%
Source: CARB 2024b
As shown in the above table, the project does not pose a significant increase to estimated cumulative emissions for criteria pollutants in nonattainment within Kern County and the greater SJVAB. The project’s regional contribution to cumulative impacts would be negligible (well less than 1% for all pollutants under consideration) and does not pose a substantial increase to basin emissions. Therefore, the project’s contribution is not cumulatively considerable.

Additionally, the GAMAQI, citing CEQA Guidelines Section15064(h)(3), states on page 66 that “[a] Lead Agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located” (SJVAPCD 2015).

This project would also be required, when applicable, to follow air quality control measures and rules required by the SJVAPCD, which include, but are not limited to, SJVAPCD Rule 2010 (Permits Required), SJVAPCD Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule), SJVAPCD Rule 4102 (Nuisance), and SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Rule), each of which is discussed below.

SJVAPCD Rule 2010 requires any person constructing, altering, replacing, or operating any source operation which emits, may emit, or may reduce emissions to obtain an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate from the SJVAPCD Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO). The project will comply with this rule by obtaining authorization from APCO prior to commencing construction on the project.

SJVAPCD Rule 2201 requires review and offset of stationary sources of air pollution and no net increase in emissions above specified thresholds from new and modified stationary sources of all nonattainment pollutants and their precursors. This is achieved by using mechanisms as approved by the SJVAPCD, such as emission trade-offs by which a permit to construct or operate any source pollution is granted. The project will comply with this rule by demonstrating compliance when obtaining authorization from APCO under Rule 2010. For example, compliance with Rule 2201 may include using Best Available Control Technology and providing emission offsets. 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 13 of 39

SJVAPCD Rule 4102 protects the health and safety of the public by prohibiting discharge from any source whatsoever of air contaminants that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or other annoyance to any considerable number of people. The project will comply with this rule by not discharging air contaminants or other materials, which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or other annoyance to any considerable number of people.

SJVAPCD Rule 9510 requires the reduction of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate matter smaller than ten microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10) associated with construction and operational activities of development projects occurring within the San Joaquin Valley. Rule 9510 applies to new development projects that would equal or exceed specific size limits called applicability thresholds (e.g., developing more than 2,000 square feet of commercial space, 25,000 square feet of light industrial space, 10,000 square feet of heavy industrial space, or 50 residential units). The project is subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9510 because it exceeds the applicability threshold for developing more than 25,000 square feet of light industrial space.

Accordingly, the project must reduce a portion of the emissions occurring during construction and operational phases through on-site measures or pay off-site mitigation fees. The objective of this rule is to reduce construction NOX and PM10 emissions by 20% and 45%, respectively, as well as to reduce operational NOX and PM10 emissions by 33.3% and 50%, respectively, when compared to unmitigated projects. The SJVAPCD uses CalEEMod (California Emission Estimator Model) to estimate emissions of NOX and PM10 for potential land uses. Examples of measures that may be implemented to reduce emissions pursuant to this rule include, but are not limited to, incorporating energy efficiency beyond Title 24 requirements, providing bicycle lanes throughout a project, using cleaner fleet construction vehicles, providing employee incentives for using alternative transportation, and building in proximity to existing or planned bus stops. When a development project cannot reduce its NOX and PM10 emissions to the level required by Rule 9510, then the difference must be mitigated through the payment of an off-site emissions reduction fee. One hundred percent (100%) of all off-site mitigation fees are used by the SJVAPCD to fund emission reduction projects through its Incentives Programs, achieving emission reductions on behalf of the project.

Because the air quality modeling indicates that the project’s regional contribution to cumulative impacts would be negligible, and the project would comply with the requirements of the SJVAPCD attainment plans and rules, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Therefore, based on these anticipated activity levels, the project construction activities would not exceed construction thresholds, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less-than-significant impact. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities associated with a land use that could result in a sensitive receptor experiencing sustained exposure to said air pollution. Population groups considered sensitive receptors include young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, and/or people who are more sensitive than the general population. Sensitive receptors can be expected to reside in locations such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers.

The project is located near the southwest corner of Taft Highway and Ashe Road. The nearest sensitive receptors are residential uses of single-family residential tracts and multiple-family dwellings, with the nearest being a single-family residence located east adjacent to the project site. The nearest school is Ridgeview High School and Panama Elementary School, northeast of the project. There are no other known hospitals or nursing homes within a one-mile radius. Based on the predicted operational emissions and activity types, the project is not expected to have any adverse impacts on any known sensitive receptor via prolonged exposure to air pollutants 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 14 of 39

(Trinity Consultants 2024). Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the impacts are less than significant. d. Less-than-significant impact. The proposed project consists of residential and commercial retail development that does not include activities listed in Table 6 of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI or exceed any thresholds, based on SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, to be considered a source of objectionable odors or odorous compounds. Furthermore, the project’s emissions estimates do not indicate that it would adversely impact surrounding receptors (Trinity Consultants 2024).

Therefore, the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site has the potential to result in significant impacts to special-status wildlife species. Field surveys identified one natal San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) den complex, two “known” SJKF complexes, and one potential den within the study area. Consequently, direct and indirect impacts, in the form of “incidental take” of a protected 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 15 of 39

species, are expected because of project development. Removal of natal and “known” SJKF dens requires formal state and federal authorization.

While the project was not included in the southwest focus area for the Tipton kangaroo rat under previous conservation plans, and recent modeling (Cypher 2021) ranks the site outside of primary suitability tiers, suitable habitat (Rank 4) exists approximately 0.5 miles east. Trapping would be required to confirm the presence or absence of small mammal species on-site.

The project is subject to the federal and state Endangered Species Acts (FESA and CESA). To ensure compliance, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is required to determine specific Avoidance and Mitigation Measures for take authorization.

Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 2, the project would not 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 CDFW or USFWS, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. No impact. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities located at the site (Pruett 2025). This project is not located within, or adjacent to, the Kern River riparian habitat area, nor within the Kern River flood plain, or along a canal which has been identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
c. No impact. No features, identified in wetland categories, appear on the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory mapping (USFWS 2021) on the proposed, modified project site (Pruett 2025). Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. d. Less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated. No migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites were identified during the literature search or field study. The project is not expected to interfere substantially with the movement of any native fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. However, the project site and its immediate vicinity may provide nesting habitat for bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code.

While no active nursery sites were observed during the site visit, there is potential for migratory birds to nest on or near the site in the future. To ensure the protection of these species and maintain compliance with the MBTA, the project will be subject to specific avoidance and survey protocols during the nesting season.

Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measure 2, the project would not 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, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. e. No impact. 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.
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 16 of 39

f. No impact. 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.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
a. No impact. A pedestrian field survey was completed for the project site by a qualified cultural resources specialist from Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates. A records search for the site and the surrounding area was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates 2024). Upon the completion of this survey, it was determined that there are no historical resources on-site. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. It was concluded that the project site has no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites present (Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates 2024).

However, there is still the potential to unearth previously unknown archaeological resources at the site, and grading and other ground-disturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources. Mitigation Measure 4 requires that construction workers are provided with cultural awareness training. Mitigation Measure 5 requires ceasing work and investigating any discovery if previously unknown archaeological resources are unearthed during construction. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4 and 5, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, making impacts less than significant with mitigations incorporated.
c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. There are no known human remains present at the Project site (Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates 2024). The project could inadvertently uncover, or damage, previously unknown human remains. Mitigation Measure 6 requires that if any human remains are found at the site during construction, work would cease, and the remains would be handled pursuant to applicable law. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 6, the project would not significantly disturb any human remains, making impacts less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□ □
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 17 of 39

VI. ENERGY: Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The applicant is proposing two separate projects, a commercial retail development and multiple-family residential development project. Project construction would require temporary energy demands typical of other commercial and residential projects that occur throughout the state and this development’s construction would not result in inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources beyond typical commercial and residential construction. All new construction within the City of Bakersfield must adhere to adopted building standards, including California Code of Regulations Title 24, which outlines energy efficiency standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings to ensure that they do not wastefully, inefficiently, or unnecessarily consume energy. Therefore, the Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation, and impacts are less than significant. b. Less than significant impact. The City does not have an adopted plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As mentioned above, all new development projects within the City are required to adhere to adopted building standards related to energy efficiency. Additionally, the City encourages applicants/developers to go beyond the required standards and engage in programs such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), which is a green building rating system that provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings. Other encouraged programs available to applicants/developers are Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards and 2005 building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 18 of 39

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion
a. The following discusses the potential for the project to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects because of various geologic hazards. The City is within a seismically active area.

According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these major active fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge-Kern County, Garlock, Pond Poso, and White Wolf faults. There are additional smaller faults suspected of occurring within the Bakersfield area, which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge-Kern County) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides. i. No Impact. Ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of a fault during an earthquake. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map, the project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. ii. Less than significant impact. The City is within a seismically active area. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (specifically Seismic Zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake construction standards. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking, and impacts are less than significant. iii. Less than significant impact. The most common seismic-related ground failure is liquefaction and lateral spreading. In both cases, during periods of ground motion caused by an event such as an earthquake, loose materials transform from a solid state to nearliquid state because of increased pore water pressure. Such ground failure generally requires a high-water table and poorly draining soil for such this to occur. The project site 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
□
~
□
□
~
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 19 of 39

is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Public supply wells in Kern County are at depths between 600 and 800 feet below land surfaces (USGS 2016), meaning that groundwater levels are not close enough to the surface to result in sufficiently saturated soils suitable for liquefaction. In addition, future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and impacts are less than significant. iv. No impact. In Kern County, the common types of landslides induced by earthquake occur on steeper slopes found in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon; in these areas, landslides are generally associated with bluff and stream bank failure, rockslide, and slope slip on steep slopes. The project site is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides.
b. Less than significant impact. Construction of the site would temporarily disturb soils, which could loosen soils. However, the proposed development entails paving over these soils with impervious surfaces, meaning the project site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion. In addition, the relatively low precipitation that occurs in the project area (on average about 7 to 10 inches/year) results in surface runoff that is intermittent and temporary in nature. The erosion potential at the site, low average rainfall, and the fact that soils are well drained does not make the site susceptible to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, and impacts are less than significant. c. Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the soils at the project site would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides.

Subsidence is part of the baseline condition in the project area due to historic groundwater pumping and the resultant subsidence that occurs with such activities. The project would not substantially contribute to this baseline condition because the projected water use has been conditionally approved by the California Water Service Company Bakersfield District (the District).

The site has been considered by the District against its current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and it was concluded that the City has sufficient existing capacity to service the project.

Therefore, the project has already been considered in the groundwater analysis in the UWMP and would not exacerbate subsidence in the area beyond the baseline condition.

Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low-density materials that collapse and compact under the addition of water or excessive loading. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because of the project, and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, making impacts less than significant. d. Less-than-significant impact. The soils identified on or around the project site, primarily fine sandy loams, do not have a high potential to be expansive. Additionally, future structures proposed on the site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property, and impacts are less than significant.
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 20 of 39

e. No impact. The project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because the project would connect to existing City sewer services in the area. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Paleontological sensitivity is determined by the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. Because paleontological resources typically occur in the substratum soil horizon, surface expressions are often not visible during a pedestrian survey. Paleontological sensitivity is derived from known fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit. The project site is entirely underlain by alluvial fan deposits of the late Holocene age, which presumably transition in the subsurface into older, Pleistocene-age deposits. Therefore, the project would not indirectly or directly destroy a unique paleontological resource, and impacts are less than significant.

Due to the presence of alluvial deposits, there is the potential to unearth previously unknown paleontological resources at the site, and grading and other ground-disturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4, the project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. 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.
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 21 of 39

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.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
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?
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 22 of 39

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The Project proposes a commercial center and multiple-family residential, 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 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. 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.
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 23 of 39

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. The project would not impair implementation of 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. 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.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
d. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? e. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 24 of 39

f. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
g. Impede or redirect flood flows?
h. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
i. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. Construction would include ground-disturbing activities that would temporarily disturb and potentially loosen soils. However, during operation, the soils would be paved over with impervious surfaces such that the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion.

The City owns and maintains a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). The project’s operational urban storm water discharges are covered under the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board (“CVRWQCB”) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Order No. R5-2016-0040; NPDES No. CAS0085324) (MS4 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.
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 25 of 39

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 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. 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 were 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 the 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. 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 26 of 39

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern of the City.

The project does not include a long and linear feature, such as a freeway, railroad track, block wall, etc., that would have the potential to divide a community. The project consists of the 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. The project is 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.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project site is not within the administrative boundaries of an oilfield and there are no oil wells found on the site (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 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 27 of 39

of a locally important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project would generate both short-term construction noise and operational noise. The first type of short-term construction noise would result from 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.
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 28 of 39

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.
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.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project result in:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project would accommodate population growth in this area through the development of a new commercial shopping center and 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.
b. Less than significant impact. The proposed project site undeveloped residential. The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 29 of 39

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
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.
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 30 of 39

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 facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools. iv. 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.
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.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION: Would the project result in:
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion
a. No impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 31 of 39

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
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project result in:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact 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.
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 32 of 39

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. 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. 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 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 33 of 39

(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.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project result in:

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project requires a GPA and therefore, request for consultation letters were sent to a list of tribal contacts received from the Native American Heritage Commission in compliance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18). In the letters, the City stated that the applicable tribes may request consultation with the City regarding the preservation of, and/or mitigation of impacts to, California Native American cultural places in connection with the project. To date, none of the tribes have responded to the request. Therefore, the project would 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. 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.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 34 of 39

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
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. 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 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 35 of 39

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. 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.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRES: Would the project result in:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The project is 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. 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 36 of 39

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 Metropolitan 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.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Would the project result in:
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of life of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project, 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 1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 37 of 39

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(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that 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.
1:1
~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 38 of 39

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: February 4, 2026.

Bakersfield. 2023. Wastewater Treatment Plants. Available:
<http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/gov/depts/public_works/sewer/wastewater_treatment_plants.htm>.

Accessed: February 4, 2026.

CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2023. Cortese List Data Resources. Available:
<https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/>. Accessed: February 4, 2026.

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-maps/ >.

Accessed: February 4, 2026.

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2022. California State Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available:<
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1a acaa>. Accessed: February 4, 2026.

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: February 4, 2026.

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

Available:< https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp >. Accessed: February 4, 2026.

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

Available: < https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp>. Accessed: February 4, 2026.

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

Available:<https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>. Accessed: February 4, 2026.

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: February 4, 2026.

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

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

Accessed: February 4, 2026.

Kern County. 2012. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. November. -~ ~

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 39 of 39

Kern County. 2017. Lake Isabella Flood Area. Available:< https://kernpublicworks.com/building-andcode/floodplain-management/lake-isabella-flood-area/>. Accessed: February 4, 2026.

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

Pruett Biological Resource Consulting. 2025. Biological Resource Evaluation, General Plan Amendment/Zone Change Assessor Parcel Number 184-260-09 CA. January.

Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates. 2024. A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Southwest Corner Of Taft Highway And Ashe Road, Bakersfield, California. December.

Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers. 2025. Traffic Study GPA/ZC Southwest Corner of Taft Highway (SR 119) & Ashe Road. December.

Trinity Consultants. 2024. Air Quality Impact Analysis. Taft Hwy and Ashe Rd Commercial Development.

December.
-~ ~

BAKERSFIELD

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd
Commercial Development
Bakersfield, CA
Prepared For:

McIntosh & Associates
10800 Stockdale Hwy, Suite 103
Bakersfield, CA 93390
Prepared By:

Tiffany Wang – Senior Consultant
Jonathan Garcia – Associate Consultant

TRINITY CONSULTANTS
4900 California Avenue, Suite 420A
Bakersfield, CA 93309
661-282-2200
December 2024
Project 230505.0287
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1

2. INTRODUCTION 2-1

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

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

3. SETTING 3-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5-1

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

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

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

5.4 Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (CO) – Mobile Sources ................................................ 5-3 Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants ii

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

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

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

7. MITIGATION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED MEASURES 7-1

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

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

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

8. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 8-1

9. REFERENCES 9-1
APPENDIX A. EXISTING AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA A-1
APPENDIX B. PROJECT EMISSION CALCULATIONS B-1
APPENDIX C. CARB 2020 AND 2025 ESTIMATED EMISSION INVENTORIES C-1 APPENDIX D. HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT MODELING FILES D-1
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Regional Location 2-1
Figure 2-2. Project Location 2-2
Figure 2-3. Project Master Plan 2-3
Figure 2-4. Project Site Topography 2-4
Figure 3-1. SJVAPCD Monitoring Network 3-4
Figure 6-1. City of Bakersfield Zoning 6-3
Figure 6-2. TAZ Analysis Map 6-4
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Federal & California Air Quality Standards 3-2 Table 3-2. SJVAB Attainment Status 3-3
Table 3-3. Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area 3-5 Table 3-4. Bakersfield, California Weather Data 3-8
Table 4-1. SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance 4-1
Table 4-2. Measures of Significance - Toxic Air Contaminants 4-2 Table 4-3. Short-Term Project Emissions 4-4
Table 4-4. Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions 4-6 Table 4-5. Sensitive Receptors Located < 2 Miles from Project 4-6 Table 4-6. Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP 4-8 Table 4-7. Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year) 4-11 Table 4-8. Select CARB GHG Emission Reduction Strategies 4-12 Table 5-1. Comparative Analysis Based on SJV Air Basin 2020 Inventory - Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5-2. Emission Inventory SJVAB 2025 Projection - Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5-3. Emission Inventory SJVAB - Kern County Portion 2025 Projection - Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5-4. 2025 Emissions Projections - Proposed Project, Kern County, and SJVAB 5-3 Table 6-1. TAZ Analysis Area Projected Growth Analysis 6-5 Table 6-2. Percent Increase/Decrease on TAZ Analysis Area 6-5 Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 1-1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Trinity Consultants has completed an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) for the Taft Hwy and Ashe Rd commercial and residential project (Project). The Project will be located at southwest corner of the intersection of Taft Hwy and Ashe Rd in Bakersfield, CA.

The proposed Project’s construction would include the following criteria pollutant emissions: reactive organic gases (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Project operations would generate air pollutant emissions from mobile sources (vehicle activity from residents), energy sources, and area sources (incidental activities related to architectural coating and landscape maintenance). Project construction and operational activities would also generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Criteria and GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.28 (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2022), which is the most current version of the model approved for use by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

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

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

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 2-1

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Purpose
This AQIA was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD 2015), the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department’s (KCPD) Air Quality Preparation Guidelines (KCPD 2009), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines (CEQA 2023).

2.2 General Project Description
The Taft Hwy-Ashe Rd (Project) includes the construction of 5.9 acres of mixed retail and commercial and 499 low-rise apartments. The Project is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Ashe Road and Taft Highway Drive in Bakersfield, California.

The exact development start date is still unknown; however, construction is tentatively expected to start in January of 2025 and end in September of 2026. Figure 2-1 depicts the regional location, and Figure 2-2 depicts an aerial view of the Project location.

Figure 2-1. Regional Location
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 2-2
Figure 2-2. Project Location
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 2-3
Figure 2-3 depicts the Project’s Master Plan for providing detailed location of the proposed commercial and residential development.

Figure 2-3. Project Master Plan
Figure 2-4 depicts the Project site’s topography based on Kern County Web Map Service (Kern County GIS 2024). The Project site is located at an elevation of approximately 350 feet above mean sea level and is surrounded by residential and agricultural land uses.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 2-4
Figure 2-4. Project Site Topography
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-1

3. SETTING
Protection of the public health is maintained through the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards for various atmospheric compounds and the enforcement of emissions limits for individual stationary sources. The Federal Clean Air Act requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

NAAQS have been established for ozone (O3), CO, NO2, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5, and lead (Pb). California has also adopted ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for these "criteria" air pollutants. CAAQS are more stringent than the corresponding NAAQS and include standards for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride (chloroethene), and visibility reducing particles. The U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required each state to identify areas that were in non-attainment of the NAAQS and to develop State Implementation Plans (SIP's) containing strategies to bring these non-attainment areas into compliance. NAAQS and CAAQS designation/classification for Kern County are presented in Section 3.1 below.

Responsibility for regulation of air quality in California lies with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the 35 local air districts with oversight responsibility held by the EPA. CARB is responsible for regulating mobile source emissions, establishing CAAQS, conducting research, managing regulation development, and providing oversight and coordination of the activities of the 35 air districts. The air districts are primarily responsible for regulating stationary source emissions and monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations. CARB also determines whether air basins, or portions thereof, are “unclassified,” in “attainment” or in “non-attainment” for the NAAQS and CAAQS relying on statewide air quality monitoring data.

3.1 Air Quality Standards
The Project area is located within Kern County’s portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB or Basin).

Kern County is included among the eight counties that comprise the SJVAPCD. The SJVAPCD acts as the regulatory agency for air pollution control in the Basin and is the local agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions for the Project area. Table 3-1 provides the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-2
Table 3-1. Federal & California Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time

NAAQS CAAQS
Concentration
O3
8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)
a 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3
)
1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3
)
CO
8-hour 9 ppm (10 µg/m3) 9 ppm (10 µg/m3)
1-hour 35 ppm (40 µg/m3) 20 ppm (23 µg/m3)
NO2
Annual Average 53 ppb (100 µg/m3) 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3)
1-Hour 100 ppb (188.68 µg/m3) 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3)
SO2
3-Hour 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3) 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3)
1-Hour 75 ppb (196 µg/m3) 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3)
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 20 µg/m3
24-Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 9 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
24-Hour 35 µg/m3
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 µg/m3
Pbd
Rolling Three-Month
Average 0.15 µg/m3
30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3
H2S 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3)
Vinyl Chloride
(chloroethene) 24-Hour 0.010 ppm (26 µg/m3
)
Visibility Reducing
particles
8 Hour (1000 to 1800
PST)
b
ppm = parts per million
ppb = parts per billion
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic
meter
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic
meter
Source: CARB 2016, SJVAPCD 2024b
a. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm
b. In 1989, CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standards and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-3
Under the provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act, the Kern County portion of the SJVAB has been classified as nonattainment/extreme, nonattainment/severe, nonattainment, attainment/unclassified, attainment, or unclassified under the established NAAQS and CAAQS for various criteria pollutants. Table 3-2 provides the SJVAB’s designation and classification based on the various criteria pollutants under both NAAQS and CAAQS.

Table 3-2. SJVAB Attainment Status
Pollutant NAAQSa CAAQSb
O3, 1-hour Revoked
f Nonattainment/Severe
O3, 8-hour Nonattainment/Extremee Nonattainment
PM10 Attainmentc Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainmentd Nonattainment
CO Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified
NO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
SO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Pb (Particulate) No Designation/Classification Attainment H2S No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particulates No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
Source: SJVAPCD 2022a
Note:
a. See 40 CFR Part 81
b. See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
c. On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan. d. The Valley is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009). e. Though the Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour O3 standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010). f. Effective June 15, 2005, the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour O3 standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010). Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour O3 nonattainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-4
The SJVAPCD, along with CARB, operates an air quality monitoring network that provides information on average concentrations of those pollutants for which Federal or State agencies have established NAAQS and CAAQS, respectively. The monitoring stations in the San Joaquin Valley are depicted in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1. SJVAPCD Monitoring Network
Source: SJVAPCD 2022b
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-5

3.2 Existing Air Quality
For the purposes of background data and this air quality analysis, this analysis relied on data collected in the last three years for the CARB monitoring stations that are located in the closest proximity to the project site.

Table 3-3 provides the background concentrations for O3, particulate matter of 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), CO, NO2, SO2, and Pb. Information is provided for Bakersfield – 5558 California Avenue, Oildale – 3311 Manor Street, Edison, and Bakersfield – Municipal Airport monitoring stations for 2020 to 2022. No data is available for H2S, vinyl chloride or other toxic air contaminants in Kern County.

Table 3-3. Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area Maximum Concentration Days Exceeding Standard
Pollutant and
Monitoring Station Location 2021 2022 2023 2021 2022 2023 O3 – 1-hour CAAQS (0.09 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.090 0.093 0.088 0 0 0 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.100 0.108 0.098 6 6 3 Edison 0.116 0.126 0.107 23 19 16
O3 – 8-hour CAAQS (0.070 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.081 0.076 0.079 11 7 7 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.090 0.087 0.085 30 45 26 Edison 0.099 0.096 0.092 70 63 54
O3 – 8-hour NAAQS (0.070 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.080 0.076 0.079 11 4 7 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.090 0.086 0.084 29 45 25 Edison 0.098 0.096 0.091 66 61 52
PM10 – 24-hour CAAQS (50 µg/m3
)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 439.3 133.0 180.2 124 135 106 Oildale – 3311 Manor Street 423.0 146.3 266.0 129 127 102 PM10 – 24-hour NAAQS (150 µg/m3
)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 437.5 134.7 181.3 3 0 1 Oildale – 3311 Manor Street 421.4 149.4 270.4 2 0 1
PM2.5 - 24-hour NAAQS (35 µg/m3
)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 72.3 58.1 63.7 40 34 9 Bakersfield – Golden State Highway 78.5 58.6 58.0 43 33 9 CO - 8-Hour CAAQS & NAAQS (9.0 ppm)
No data collected * * * * * *
NO2 - 1-Hour CAAQS (0.18 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.057 0.053 0.057 0 0 0 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.068 0.058 0.063 0 0 0 NO2 - 1-Hour NAAQS (0.10 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.057 0.054 0.058 0 0 0 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.068 0.059 0.064 0 0 0 SO2 – 24-hour Concentration - CAAQS (0.04 ppm) & NAAQS (0.14 ppm) No data collected * * * * * *
Pb - Maximum 30-Day Concentration CAAQS (1500 ng/m3
)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 9.9 10.8 9.5 * * *
Source: CARB 2024a
Notes: ppm= parts per million
* There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-6
The following is a description of criteria air pollutants, typical sources and health effects and the recently documented pollutant levels in the project vicinity.

3.2.1 Ozone (O3)
The most severe air quality problem in the San Joaquin Valley is high concentrations of O3. High levels of O3 cause eye irritation and can impair respiratory functions. High levels of O3 can also affect plants and materials.

Grapes, lettuce, spinach and many types of garden flowers and shrubs are particularly vulnerable to O3 damage. O3 is not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is a secondary pollutant produced through photochemical reactions involving hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Significant O3 generation requires about one to three hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. For this reason, the months of April through October comprise the "ozone season." O3 is a regional pollutant because O3 precursors are transported and diffused by wind concurrently with the reaction process. The data contained in Table 3-3 shows that the Bakersfield and Edison area exceeded the 1-hour average ambient O3 CAAQS and the 8-hour average ambient O3 NAAQS and CAAQS during the 2021 through 2023 period.

3.2.2 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
Both State and Federal particulate standards now apply to particulates under 10 microns (PM10) rather than to total suspended particulate (TSP), which includes particulates up to 30 microns in diameter. Continuing studies have shown that the smaller-diameter fraction of TSP represents the greatest health hazard posed by the pollutant; therefore, EPA has recently established NAAQS for PM2.5. The project area is classified as attainment for PM10 and non-attainment for particulates under 2.5 microns (PM2.5) for NAAQS.

Particulate matter consists of particles in the atmosphere resulting from many kinds of dust and fumeproducing industrial and agricultural operations, from combustion, and from atmospheric photochemical reactions. Natural activities also increase the level of particulates in the atmosphere; wind-raised dust and ocean spray are two sources of naturally occurring particulates. The largest sources of PM10 and PM2.5 in Kern County are vehicle movement over paved and unpaved roads, demolition and construction activities, farming operations, and unplanned fires. PM10 and PM2.5 are considered regional pollutants with elevated levels typically occurring over a wide geographic area. Concentrations tend to be highest in the winter, during periods of high atmospheric stability and low wind speed. In the respiratory tract, very small particles of certain substances may produce injury by themselves or may contain absorbed gases that are injurious. Particulates of aerosol size suspended in the air can both scatter and absorb sunlight, producing haze and reducing visibility. They can also cause a wide range of damage to materials.

Table 3-3 shows that PM10 levels regularly exceeded the CAAQS but not the NAAQS at the two monitoring stations over the three-year period of 2021 through 2023. Table 3-3 shows that PM2.5 NAAQS were exceeded during the 2021 through 2023 period. Similar levels can be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site.

3.2.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. Wind speed and atmospheric mixing also influence CO concentrations; however, under inversion conditions prevalent in the San Joaquin Valley, CO concentrations may be more uniformly distributed over a broad area.

Internal combustion engines, principally in vehicles, produce CO due to incomplete fuel combustion. Various industrial processes also produce CO emissions through incomplete combustion. Gasoline-powered motor Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-7
vehicles are typically the major source of this contaminant. CO does not irritate the respiratory tract but passes through the lungs directly into the blood stream. By interfering with the transfer of oxygen to the blood, CO deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen, which can exacerbate cardiovascular disease and lead to symptoms such as fatigue, headaches, and dizziness. CO is not known to have adverse effects on vegetation, visibility, or materials.

Table 3-3 reports no CO data is available for the three-year period from 2021 through 2023; historically Bakersfield area data for CO has been below the CAAQS and NAAQS.

3.2.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Hydrocarbons
Kern County has been designated as an attainment area for the NAAQS for NO2. NO2 is the "whiskey brown" colored gas readily visible during periods of heavy air pollution. Mobile sources and oil and gas production account for nearly all of the County's NOx emissions, most of which is emitted as NO and converted into NO2.

Combustion in motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries and other industrial operations are the primary sources in the region. Railroads and aircraft are other potentially significant sources of combustion air contaminants. Oxides of nitrogen are direct participants in photochemical smog reactions. The emitted compound, nitric oxide, combines with oxygen in the atmosphere in the presence of hydrocarbons and sunlight to form NO2 and O3. NO2, the most significant of these pollutants, can color the atmosphere at concentrations as low as 0.5 ppm on days of 10-mile visibility. NOx is an important air pollutant in the region because it is a primary receptor of ultraviolet light, which initiates the reactions producing photochemical smog. It also reacts in the air to form nitrate particulates.

Motor vehicles are the major source of reactive hydrocarbons in the basin. Other sources include evaporation of organic solvents and petroleum production and refining operations. Certain hydrocarbons can damage plants by inhibiting growth and by causing flowers and leaves to fall. Levels of hydrocarbons currently measured in urban areas are not known to cause adverse effects in humans. However, certain members of this contaminant group are important components in the reactions, which produce photochemical oxidants.

Table 3-3 shows that the Bakersfield area did not exceed the 1-hour average ambient NO2 NAAQS and CAAQS during the 2021 through 2023 period. Hydrocarbons are not currently monitored.

3.2.5 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Kern County has been designated as an attainment area for the NAAQS for SO2. SO2 is the primary combustion product of sulfur, or sulfur containing fuels. Fuel combustion is the major source of this pollutant, while chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing facilities are minor contributors. Gaseous fuels (natural gas, propane, etc.) typically have lower percentages of sulfur containing compounds than liquid fuels such as diesel or crude oil. SO2 levels are generally higher in the winter months. Decreasing levels of SO2 in the atmosphere reflect the use of natural gas in power plants and boilers.

At high concentrations, SO2 irritates the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations, when respirated in combination with particulates, SO2 can result in greater harm by injuring lung tissues. Sulfur oxides (SOx), in combination with moisture and oxygen, results in the formation of sulfuric acid, which can yellow the leaves of plants, dissolve marble, and oxidize iron and steel. SOx can also react to produce sulfates that reduce visibility and sunlight.

Table 3-3 shows no data has been reported over the three-year period in Kern County.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-8

3.2.6 Lead (Pb) and Suspended Sulfate
Ambient Pb levels have dropped dramatically due to the increase in the percentage of motor vehicles that run exclusively on unleaded fuel. Ambient Pb levels in Lost Hills are well below the ambient standard and are expected to continue to decline; the data reported in Table 3-3 only shows the highest concentration as the number of days exceeding standards are not reported. Suspended sulfate levels have stabilized to the point where no excesses of the State standard are expected in any given year.

3.3 Climate
The most significant single control on the weather pattern of the San Joaquin Valley is the semi-permanent subtropical high-pressure cell, referred to as the "Pacific High." During the summer, the Pacific High is positioned off the coast of northern California, diverting ocean-derived storms to the north. Hence, the summer months are virtually rainless. During the winter, the Pacific High moves southward allowing storms to pass through the San Joaquin Valley. Almost all of the precipitation expected during a given year occurs from December through April. During the summer, the predominant surface winds are out of the northwest.

Air enters the Valley through the Carquinez strait and flows toward the Tehachapi Mountains. This up-valley (northwesterly) wind flow is interrupted in early fall by the emergence of nocturnal, down-valley (southeasterly) winds which become progressively more predominant as winter approaches. Wind speeds are generally highest during the spring and lightest in fall and winter. The relatively cool air flowing through the Carquinez strait is warmed on its journey south through the Valley. On reaching the southern end of the Valley, the average high temperature during the summer is nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Relative humidity during the summer is quite low, causing large diurnal temperature variations. Temperatures during the summer often drop into the upper 60s. In winter, the average high temperatures reach into the mid-50s and the average low drops to the mid-30s. In addition, another high-pressure cell, known as the "Great Basin High," develops east of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range during winter. When this cell is weak, a layer of cool, damp air becomes trapped in the basin and extensive fog results. During inversions, vertical dispersion is restricted, and pollutant emissions are trapped beneath the inversion and pushed against the mountains, adversely affecting regional air quality. Surface-based inversions, while shallow and typically short-lived, are present most mornings. Elevated inversions, while less frequent than ground-based inversions, are typically longer lasting and create the more severe air stagnation problems. The winter season characteristically has the poorest conditions for vertical mixing of the entire year.

Meteorological data for various monitoring stations is maintained by the Western Regional Climate Center.

Meteorological data for the Project site is expected to be similar to the data recorded at the Bakersfield monitoring station. This data is provided in Table 3-4, which contains average precipitation data recorded at the Wasco monitoring station. Over the 79-year period from October of 1937 through June of 2016 (the most recent data available), the average annual precipitation was 6.17 inches.

Table 3-4. Bakersfield, California Weather Data
Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for the Period 10/01/1937 to 6/09/2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Avg. Maximum
Temp (F) 57.4 63.6 69.0 75.7 84.2 92.1 98.6 96.7 91.0 80.5 67.3 57.8 77.8 Avg. Minimum
Temp (F) 38.5 42.1 45.4 49.7 56.6 63.3 69.2 67.7 63.1 54.0 44.1 38.5 52.7 Average Total
Precipitation (in.) 1.04 1.16 1.12 0.67 0.21 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.10 0.30 0.59 0.85 6.17 Average Snowfall
(in.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-9
Percent of possible observations for period of record:

Max. Temp.: 99.6% Min. Temp.: 99.6% Precipitation: 99.7% Snowfall: 92.4% Snow Depth: 92.2% Source: Western Regional Climate Center, 2024.

3.4 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases

3.4.1 Global Climate Change
“Global climate change” refers to change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms, lasting for decades or longer. The term “global climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but “global climate change” is preferred by some scientists and policy makers to “global warming” because it helps convey the notion that in addition to rising temperatures, other changes in global climate may occur. Climate change may result from the following influences:
► Natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun;
► Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation); and/or ► Human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, and desertification).

As determined from worldwide meteorological measurements between 1990 and 2005, the primary observed effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric temperature of 0.36 degree Fahrenheit (°F) per decade. Climate change modeling shows that further warming could occur, which could induce additional changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system, ecosystems, and the environment of California could include higher sea levels, drier or wetter weather, changes in ocean salinity, changes in wind patterns or more energetic aspects of extreme weather (e.g., droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and increased intensity of tropical cyclones).

Specific effects from climate change in California may include a decline in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, erosion of California’s coastline, and seawater intrusion in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Human activities, including fossil fuel combustion and land use changes, release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other compounds cumulatively termed greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs are effective at trapping radiation that would otherwise escape the atmosphere. This trapped radiation warms the atmosphere, the oceans, and the earth’s surface (USGCRP, 2014). Many scientists believe “most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” (IPCC, 2017). The increased amount of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere is the alleged primary result of human-induced warming.

GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources, or formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. They include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and O3. In the last 200 years, substantial quantities of GHGs have been released into the atmosphere, primarily from fossil fuel combustion. These human-induced emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, therefore enhancing the natural greenhouse effect. The GHGs resulting from human activity are believed to be causing global climate change. While human-made GHGs include CO2, CH4, and N2O, some (like chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs]) are completely new to the atmosphere. GHGs vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), the comparative ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere. The GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-10
heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).

Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources of CH4 production include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Human activity accounts for the majority of the approximately 500 million metric tons of CH4 emitted annually. These anthropogenic sources include the mining and burning of fossil fuels; digestive processes in ruminant livestock such as cattle; rice cultivation; and the decomposition of waste in landfills. The major removal process for atmospheric CH4, the chemical breakdown in the atmosphere, cannot keep pace with source emissions; therefore, CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising.

Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2008 were 30.1 billion metric tons of CO2e and have increased considerably since that time (United Nations, 2011). It is important to note that the global emissions inventory data are not all from the same year and may vary depending on the source of the data (U.S. EPA, 2019). Emissions from the top five emitting countries and the European Union accounted for approximately 70% of total global GHG emissions in 2014. The United States was the number two producer of GHG emissions behind China.

The primary GHG emitted by human activities was CO2, representing approximately 76% of total global GHG emissions (U.S. EPA, 2019).

In 2017, the United States emitted approximately 6.5 million metric tons of CO2e. Of the six major sectors nationwide (electric power industry, transportation, industry, agriculture, commercial, and residential), the electric power industry and transportation sectors combined account for approximately 57% of the GHG emissions; the majority of the electrical power industry and all of the transportation emissions are generated from direct fossil fuel combustion. Between 1990 and 2017, total United States GHG emissions rose approximately 1.3% (U.S. EPA, 2019).

Worldwide, energy-related CO2 emissions are expected to increase at an average rate of 0.6% annually between 2018 and 2050, compared with the average growth rate of 1.8% per year from 1990 to 2018. Much of the increase in these emissions is expected to occur in the developing world where emerging economies, such as China and India, fuel economic development with fossil fuel energy. Developing countries’ emissions are expected to grow above the world average at a rate of approximately 1% annually between 2018 and 2050 and surpass emissions of industrialized countries by 2025 (U.S. EIA, 2019).

CARB is responsible for developing and maintaining the California GHG emissions inventory. This inventory estimates the amount of GHGs emitted into and removed from the atmosphere by human activities within the state of California and supports the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Climate Change Program. CARB’s current GHG emission inventory covers the years 2000 through 2017 and is based on fuel use, equipment activity, industrial processes, and other relevant data (e.g., housing, landfill activity, and agricultural lands).

In 2017, emissions from statewide emitting activities were 424 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMT CO2e), which is 5 MMT CO2e lower than 2016 levels. 2017 emissions have decreased by 14% since peak levels in 2004 and are 7 MMT CO2e below the 1990 emissions level and the State’s 2020 GHG limit. Per capita GHG emissions in California have dropped from a 2001 peak of 14.1 tonnes per person to 10.7 tonnes per person in 2017, a 24% decrease (CARB 2019).

CARB estimates that transportation was the source of approximately 40% of California’s GHG emissions in 2017, followed by electricity generation at 15%. Other sources of GHG emissions were industrial sources at 21%, residential plus commercial activities at 10%, and agriculture at 8% (CARB 2019).

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-11
CARB has projected the estimated statewide GHG emissions for the year 2020, which represent the emissions that would be expected to occur with reductions anticipated from Pavley I and the Renewables Electricity Standard (30 MMT CO2e total), will be 509 MMT of CO2e (CARB, 2014). GHG emissions from the transportation and electricity sectors as a whole are expected to increase at approximately 36% and 20% of total CO2e emissions, respectively, as compared to 2009. The industrial sector consists of large stationary sources of GHG emissions and the percentage of the total 2020 emissions is projected to be 18% of total CO2e emissions.

The remaining sources of GHG emissions in 2020 are high global warming potential gases at 6%, residential and commercial activities at 10%, agriculture at 7%, and recycling and waste at 2%.

3.4.2 Effects of Global Climate Change
Changes in the global climate are assessed using historical records of temperature changes that have occurred in the past. Climate change scientists use this temperature data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from past climate changes in rate and magnitude.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. In its Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC predicted that the global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100 could range from 1.1 degree Celsius (°C) to 6.4 °C (8 to 10.4 °Fahrenheit) (IPCC, 2013). Global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios (IPCC, 2014). The IPCC concluded that global climate change was largely the result of human activity, mainly the burning of fossil fuels. However, the scientific literature is not consistent regarding many of the aspects of climate change, the actual temperature changes during the 20th century, and contributions from human versus non-human activities.

Effects from global climate change may arise from temperature increases, climate sensitive diseases, extreme weather events, and degradation of air quality. There may be direct temperature effects through increases in average temperature leading to more extreme heat waves and less extreme cold spells. Those living in warmer climates are likely to experience more stress and heat-related problems. Heat-related problems include heat rash and heat stroke, drought, etc. In addition, climate-sensitive diseases may increase, such as those spread by mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects. Such diseases include malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. Extreme events such as flooding and hurricanes can displace people and agriculture. Global warming may also contribute to air quality problems from increased frequency of smog and particulate air pollution.

According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team (CAT) Report, several climate change effects can be expected in California over the course of the next century (CalEPA, 2006). These are based on trends established by the IPCC and are summarized below.
► A diminishing Sierra snowpack declining by 70% to 90%, threatening the state’s water supply. ► A rise in sea levels, resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences. During the past century, sea levels along California’s coast have risen about seven inches. If emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher anticipated warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. Sea level rises of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. (Note: This condition would not affect the Proposed Project area, as it is a significant distance away from coastal areas.) ► An increase in temperature and extreme weather events. Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events and heat waves in California.

More heat waves can exacerbate chronic disease or heat-related illness.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-12
► Increased risk of large wildfires if rain increases as temperatures rise. Wildfires in the grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of southern California are estimated to increase by approximately 30% toward the end of the 21st century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant fuel available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter, drier climate could promote up to 90% more northern California fires by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation. ► Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4 °F under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25% to 35% increase in the number of days that ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas (see below).
► Increased vulnerability of forests due to forest fires, pest infestation, and increased temperatures. ► Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk. ► Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85% more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today’s conditions. This is more than twice the increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range. This increase in air quality problems could result in an increase in asthma and other health-related problems.
► A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests. Climate change can cause an increase in wildfires, an enhanced insect population, and establishment of non-native species. ► Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. ► Increased ground-level ozone formation due to higher reaction rates of ozone precursors.

3.4.3 Global Climate Change Regulatory Issues
In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the impacts of global warming and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established an agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions, including methane. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of GHGs in the United States. The plan consists of more than 50 voluntary programs. Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. The Montreal Protocol stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete O3 in the stratosphere (chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs], halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) were phased out by 2000 (methyl chloroform was phased out by 2005).

On September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (the Act) was enacted by the State of California. The legislature stated, “Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California.” The Act caps California’s GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. The Act defines GHG emissions as all of the following gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. This agreement represents the first enforceable statewide program in the U.S. to cap all GHG emissions from major industries that includes penalties for non-compliance. While acknowledging that national and international actions will be necessary to fully address the issue of global warming, AB32 lays out a program to inventory and reduce GHG emissions in California and from power generation facilities located outside the state that serve California residents and businesses.

AB32 charges CARB with responsibility to monitor and regulate sources of GHG emissions in order to reduce those emissions. CARB has adopted a list of discrete early action measures that can be implemented to reduce GHG emissions. CARB has defined the 1990 baseline emissions for California and has adopted that baseline as the 2020 statewide emissions cap. CARB is conducting rulemaking for reducing GHG emissions to achieve the emissions cap by 2020. In designing emission reduction measures, CARB must aim to minimize costs, maximize benefits, improve, and modernize California’s energy infrastructure, maintain electric system Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-13
reliability, maximize additional environmental and economic co-benefits for California, and complement the state’s efforts to improve air quality.

Subsequent legislation by the California legislature has included Senate Bill (SB) 32, which expanded upon AB32 to reduce GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 levels by 2030; AB197 which increased the legislative oversight of the CARB by adding two legislatively appointed non-voting members to the CARB Board and provided additional protection to disadvantaged communities; SB350, which increased California’s renewable energy electricity procurement goal and SB100, which established a landmark policy requiring renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 100 percent of electrical retail sales to end use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve state agencies by 2045.

Global warming and climate change have received substantial public attention for more than 20 years. For example, the United States Global Change Research Program was established by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to enhance the understanding of natural and human-induced changes in the Earth’s global environmental system, to monitor, understand, and predict global change, and to provide a sound scientific basis for national and international decision-making. Even so, the analytical tools have not been developed to determine the effect on worldwide global warming from a particular increase in GHG emissions, or the resulting effects on climate change in a particular locale. The scientific tools needed to evaluate the impacts that a specific project may have on the environment are even farther in the future.

The California Supreme Court’s most recent CEQA decision on the Newhall Ranch development case, Center for Biological v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (November 30, 2015, Case No. 217763), determined that the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not substantiate the conclusion that the GHG cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The EIR determined that the Newhall Ranch development project would reduce GHG emissions by 31 percent from business as usual (BAU). This reduction was compared to the California’s target of reducing GHG emissions statewide by 29 percent from business as usual. The Court determined that “the EIR’s deficiency stems from taking a quantitative comparison method developed by the Scoping Plan as a measure of the greenhouse gas reduction effort required by the state as a whole, and attempting to use that method, without adjustments, for a purpose very different from its original design.” In the Court’s final ruling it offered suggestions that were deemed appropriate use of the BAU methodology:

1. Lead agencies can use the comparison to BAU methodology if they determine what reduction a particular project must achieve in order to comply with statewide goals,

2. Project design features that comply with regulations to reduce emissions may demonstrate that those components of emissions are less that significant, and

3. Lead agencies could also demonstrate compliance with locally adopted climate plans or could apply specific numerical thresholds developed by some local agencies.

Kern County, the Lead CEQA agency for this Project, has not developed specific thresholds for GHGs. As discussed in Section 4.1, the SJVAPCD, a CEQA Trustee Agency for this Project, has developed thresholds to determine significance of a proposed project – either implement Best Performance Standards or achieve a 29% reduction from BAU (a specific numerical threshold). However, the SJVAPCD has established their BAU and baseline emissions based on the years 2002-2004 and 2020, respectively. The 2020 projected baseline has passed, and at this time, no new guidance has been approved for determining BAU and projected baseline for the next target year. Therefore, the 29% reduction from BAU cannot be applied to the subject Project in order to determine significance. Additionally, a Best Performance Standards threshold has not been established. For this Project, compliance with locally adopted climate plans will be used to determine level of significance for GHG. Therefore, the GHG analysis for this Project follows the suggestions from the Court’s Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 3-14
ruling on the Newhall Ranch development project in order to determine significance using the project design features.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-1

4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.1 Significance Criteria
To determine whether a proposed Project could create a potential CEQA impact, local, State, and Federal agencies have developed various means by which a project’s impacts may be measured and evaluated. Such means can generally be categorized as follows:
► Thresholds of significance adopted by air quality agencies to guide lead agencies in their evaluation of air quality impacts under the CEQA.
► Regulations established by air districts, CARB and EPA for the evaluation of stationary sources when applying for Authorities to Construct, Permits to Operate and other permit program requirements (e.g., New Source Review).
► Thresholds utilized to determine if a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the ambient air quality standards or other concentration-based limits. ► Regulations applied in areas where severe air quality problems exist.

Summary tables of these emission-based and concentration-based thresholds of significance for each pollutant are provided below along with a discussion of their applicability.

4.1.1 Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Air Quality Impacts under CEQA In order to maintain consistency with CEQA, the SJVAPCD (2015) adopted guidelines to assist applicants in complying with the various requirements. According to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, a project would have potentially significant air quality impacts when the project:
► Creates a conflict with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan; ► Causes a violation of any air quality standard or generates substantial contribution towards exceeding an existing or projected air quality standard;
► Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is designated non-attainment under a NAAQS and CAAQS (including emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for O3 precursors);
► Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or ► Creates objectionable odors that affect a substantial number of people.

The SJVAPCD GAMAQI thresholds are designed to implement the general criteria for air quality emissions as required in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Paragraph III (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations §15064.7) and CEQA (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. al). SJVAPCD’s specific CEQA air quality thresholds are presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Criteria Pollutant Significance Level
Construction Operational
CO 100 tons/yr 100 tons/yr
NOx 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
ROG 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
SOx 27 tons/yr 27 tons/yr
PM10 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
PM2.5 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
Source: SJVAPCD 2015
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-2

4.1.2 Thresholds for Ambient Air Quality Impacts
CEQA Guidelines – Appendix G (Environmental Checklist) states that a project that would “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation” would be considered to create significant impacts on air quality. Therefore, an AQIA should determine whether the emissions from a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the NAAQS or CAAQS (presented above in Table 3-1) when added to existing ambient concentrations.

The EPA has established the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to determine what comprises “significant impact levels” (SIL) to NAAQS attainment areas. A project’s impacts are considered less than significant if emissions are below PSD SIL for a particular pollutant. When a SIL is exceeded, an additional “increment analysis” is required. As the Project would not include modification to the stationary source under NSR, it would not be subject to either PSD or NSR review. The PSD SIL thresholds are used with ambient air quality modeling for a CEQA project to address whether the Project would “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.” Ambient air quality emissions estimates below the PSD SIL thresholds would result in less than significant ambient air quality impacts for both a project and cumulative CEQA impact analysis. The SJVAB is classified as non-attainment for the O3 NAAQS and, as such, is subject to “non-attainment new source review” (NSR). PSD SILs and increments are more stringent than the CAAQS or NAAQS and represent the most stringent thresholds of significance.

4.1.3 Thresholds for Hazardous Air Pollutants
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states, “From a health risk perspective there are basically two types of land use projects that have the potential to cause long-term public health risk impacts:
► Type A Projects: Land use projects that will place new toxic sources in the vicinity of existing receptors, and
► Type B Projects: Land use projects that will place new receptors in the vicinity of existing toxics sources” (SJVAPCD 2015).

Table 4-2 presents the thresholds of significance used with toxic air contaminants when evaluating hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

Table 4-2. Measures of Significance - Toxic Air Contaminants Agency Level Description
Significance Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Impacts Under CEQA

SJVAPCD
Carcinogens Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or exceeds 20 in one million.

NonCarcinogens
Acute: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the
Maximally Exposed Individual.

Chronic: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the
Maximally Exposed Individual.

Source: SJVAPCD 2015

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Threshold of Significance
Attachment A of Kern County’s Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports states “the following threshold are defined for purposes of determining cumulative effects as the baseline for “considerable”. “Projects in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District…will be subject to the following significance thresholds”. The thresholds outlined in the guidelines mirror the individual project Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-3
significance thresholds of 15 tons per year for PM10 and 10 tons per year for NOX and ROG. Therefore, owing to the inherently cumulative nature of air quality impacts, the threshold for whether a project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact is simply whether the project would exceed project-level thresholds.

4.1.5 Global Climate Change Thresholds of Significance
On December 17, 2009, SJVAPCD adopted Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD 2009); which outlined the SJVAPCD’s methodology for assessing a project’s significance for GHGs under CEQA. The following criteria was outlined in the document to determine whether a project could have a significant impact:
► Projects determined to be exempt from the requirements of CEQA would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions and would not require further environmental review, including analysis of project specific GHG emissions. Projects exempt under CEQA would be evaluated consistent with established rules and regulations governing project approval and would not be required to implement BPS.
► Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.

Such plans or programs must be specified in law or approved by the lead agency with jurisdiction over the affected resource and supported by a CEQA compliant environmental review document adopted by the lead agency. Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program would not be required to implement BPS.
► Projects implementing Best Performance Standards would not require quantification of project specific GHG emissions. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. ► Projects not implementing Best Performance Standards would require quantification of project specific GHG emissions and demonstration that project specific GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29%, compared to Business-as-Usual (BAU), including GHG emission reductions achieved since the 2002-2004 baseline period. Projects achieving at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG. ► Notwithstanding any of the above provisions, projects requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for any other reason would require quantification of project specific GHG emissions. Projects implementing BPS or achieving at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.

4.2 Project Related Emissions
This document was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. The GAMAQI identifies separate thresholds for a project’s short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) emissions.

Project emissions were estimated for the following project development stages:
► Short-term (Construction and Demolition) – Construction emissions for the proposed project were estimated in CalEEMod, taking into account the proposed construction schedules, default values for construction equipment, and the building square footage for each structure type. The project includes 6,455 square feet (sf) for a fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru, 5,020 sf for a convenience market with gasoline pumps, 4,200 sf for a bank, 8,648 sf for a strip mall, a 179-space parking lot, and 499 lowrise apartment units.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-4
► Long-term (Operations) – Long term emissions were also estimated in CalEEMod using model default values for operations of a 6,455 square feet (sf) of fast-food restaurant with drive thru, a 5,020 sf convenience market with gasoline pumps, a 4,200 sf bank, 8,650 sf strip mall, a 179-space parking lot, and 499 low rise apartment units.

4.2.1 Short-Term Emissions
The construction emissions were based on the default CalEEMod equipment list for the proposed Project’s land use type and development intensity and applying model defaults as well as a conservative analysis approach. Construction emissions were estimated under the assumption that the residential development would begin construction in January 2025. The dates entered into the CalEEMod program represent the earliest construction timeline, which would estimate the worst-case emissions as construction equipment technology and emissions improve over time; therefore, all estimated emission totals are conservative and reflect a reasonable and legally sufficient estimate of potential impacts. All construction equipment activity levels assumed were based on the CalEEMod default values for type and number of equipment and hours per day.

SJVAPCD’s required measures for all projects were also applied:
► C-10-A: Water exposed areas 3 times per day
► C-11: Limit vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour.

Table 4-3 presents the Project’s short-term emissions based on the anticipated construction period.

Table 4-3. Short-Term Project Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated
2025 Construction Emissions 0.37 2.23 4.39 0.01 0.88 0.31 2026 Construction Emissions 1.93 1.13 2.68 0.00 0.43 0.13 Maximum Annual Emissions 1.93 2.23 4.39 0.01 0.88 0.31
Mitigated
2025 Construction Emissions 0.37 2.23 4.39 0.01 0.68 0.23 2026 Construction Emissions 1.93 1.13 2.68 0.00 0.43 0.13 Maximum Annual Emissions 1.93 2.23 4.39 0.01 0.68 0.23
Significance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded for a Single Year
After Mitigation? No No No No No No
Source: Trinity Consultants 2024
Note: 0.00 could represent < 0.00
As calculated with CalEEMod, the estimated short-term construction-related emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD significance threshold levels during any given year and would therefore be less than significant.

4.2.2 Long-Term Operations Emissions
Long-term emissions are caused by operational mobile, area, and energy sources. Long-term emissions would consist of the following components:

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-5

4.2.2.1 Fugitive Dust Emissions
Operation of the Project site at full build-out is not expected to present a substantial source of fugitive dust (PM10) emissions. The main source of PM10 emissions would be from vehicular traffic associated with the Project site.

PM10, on its own as well as in combination with other pollutants, creates a health hazard. The SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII establishes required controls to reduce and minimize fugitive dust emissions. The following SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations apply to the proposed Project (and all projects):
► Rule 4102 – Nuisance – prohibits a facility from posing as a nuisance to surrounding receptors and can impose penalties for nuisance issues such as dust, smoke, excess emissions, etc. Compliance with this rule ensures that the area around the Project site will not be adversely impacted by such issues. ► Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions
• Rule 8011 - General Requirements – this rule is to reduce ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM10) by requiring actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate anthropogenic (human-caused) fugitive dust emissions.
• Rule 8021 - Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities – restricts generation of airborne dust and visibility impacts from these activities. Places limits on opacity and equipment operation under certain adverse weather conditions. • Rule 8041 - Carryout and Trackout – requires that equipment and vehicles leaving the construction site control the amount of dirt, soil or mud that is tracked offsite and onto public roadways. This helps eliminate or minimize dust generation and opacity degradation. • Rule 8051 - Open Areas – limits fugitive dust from open areas, i.e., areas on a construction site that are not actively being constructed upon but may generate wind-blown dust.

The Project would comply with applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations, the local zoning codes, and additional emissions reduction measures recommended later in this analysis, in Section 7, Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures.

4.2.2.2 Exhaust Emissions
Project-related transportation activities from residents would generate mobile source ROG, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 exhaust emissions. Exhaust emissions would vary substantially from day to day but would average out over the course of an operational year. The variables factored into estimating total Project emissions include: level of activity, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of residents and visitors.

4.2.2.3 Projected Emissions
The proposed Project is expected to have long-term air quality impacts as shown in Table 4-4. The outputs from the CalEEMod runs are available in Appendix B. Mitigation measures implemented within CalEEMod include:
► E-10-B. Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power1 1 This measure requires electricity to be generated from onsite PV systems.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-6
Table 4-4. Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 T PM2.5 T
Mobile 3.73 3.58 39.02 0.11 10.88 2.79
Area 2.58 0.03 2.64 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.04 0.70 0.32 0.00 0.06 0.06
Water - - - - - -
Waste - - - - - -
Refrig. - - - - - -
Total Emissions 6.35 4.31 41.98 0.11 10.94 2.84
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Trinity Consultants 2024
Note: 0.00 could represent < 0.00; SOx is assumed to be equivalent to SO2.

As shown in Table 4-4, operation-related emissions, as calculated by CalEEMod (see Appendix B), would be less than the SJVAPCD significant threshold levels. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact during Project operations.

4.3 Potential Impact on Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside, such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers. There are 3 known non-residential sensitive receptors within 2 miles of the Project site shown below in Table 4-5.

Table 4-5. Sensitive Receptors Located < 2 Miles from Project Receptor Type of Facility Distance from
Project in Miles
Direction from
Project
Panama Elementary School K-6 1.12 E
Douglas J. Miller Elementary School Elementary School 1.65 N Stonecreek Jr High School Jr High School 1.96 NE

4.4 Potential Impacts to Visibility to Nearby Areas
Visibility impact analyses are intended for stationary sources of emissions which are subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements in 40 CFR Part 60; they are not usually conducted for area sources. Because the Project’s PM10 emissions increase is predicted to be less than the PSD threshold levels, an impact at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation within 100 kilometers of the Project (including San Rafael Wilderness, Domeland Wilderness, Edwards Air Force Base, China Lake Naval Weapons Station, and the entire R-2508 Airspace Complex) is extremely unlikely. Therefore, based on the Project’s predicted less-than significant PM10 emissions, the Project would be expected to have a less than significant impact to visibility at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation.

4.5 Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide
Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. CO concentrations are also influenced by wind speed and atmospheric mixing. CO Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-7
concentrations may be more uniformly distributed when inversion conditions are prevalent in the valley. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations along a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels for sensitive receptors, e.g. children, the elderly, hospital patients, etc. This localized impact can result in elevated levels of CO, or “hotspots” even though concentrations at the closest air quality monitoring station may be below NAAQS and CAAQS.

The localized Project impacts depend on whether ambient CO levels in the Project vicinity would be above or below NAAQS. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if a project’s emissions would exceed of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a state standard, a project’s emissions are considered significant if they would increase one-hour CO concentrations by 10 ppm or more or eight-hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. There are two criteria established by the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI by which CO “Hot Spot” modeling is required:

1. A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity would be reduced to LOS E or F; or

2. A traffic study indicates that the project would substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.

A traffic generation assessment impact study was prepared by Ruettgers and Schuler (2024). The study shows the location and traffic increase anticipated from this Project; impacted intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at a LOS of C or better with mitigation. Therefore, CO “Hotspot” Modeling was not conducted for this Project and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed.

4.6 Predicted Health Risk Impacts
GAMAQI recommends that Lead Agencies consider situations wherein a new or modified source of HAPs is proposed for a location near an existing residential area or other sensitive receptor when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs.

The proposed Project would result in emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and would be located near existing residents and workers; therefore, an assessment of the potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of hazardous air pollutants from the proposed Project is required.

To predict the potential health risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project, ambient air concentrations were predicted with dispersion modeling to arrive at a conservative estimate of increased individual carcinogenic risk that might occur as a result of continuous exposure over a

4.8-year construction timeline. Similarly, predicted concentrations were used to calculate non-cancer chronic and acute hazard indices (HIs), which are the ratio of expected exposure to acceptable exposure. The basis for evaluating potential health risk is the identification of sources with increased HAPs.

Health risk is determined using the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) software distributed by the CARB; HARP2 requires peak 1-hour emission rates and annual-averaged emission rates for all pollutants for each modeling source (CARB 2015). Assumptions used to calculate the emission rates for the proposed Project are outlined below.

The most recent version of EPA’s AMS/EPA Regulatory Model - AERMOD was used to predict the dispersion of emissions from the proposed Project. The analysis employed all of the regulatory default AERMOD model keyword parameters, including elevated terrain options.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-8
For construction health impacts, diesel combustion emissions from diesel on-site construction equipment was modeled as an area source for on-site construction activity on the property. Diesel particulate matter was calculated using CalEEMod for on-site construction equipment. A unit emission rate of 1 grams/second (g/sec) was inputted into AERMOD for the area source. For operational health impacts, toxic emissions were calculated from diesel truck combustion, gasoline station operations, and fast-food cooking operations. A unit emission rate of 1 grams/second (g/sec) was inputted into AERMOD for each source.

Discrete receptors were placed on houses and businesses within close proximity of the Project site. Receptor grids were placed over the more densely populated areas mostly to the east and south of the Project site. A total of 1,225 discrete off-site receptors were analyzed. Elevated terrain options were employed even though there is not complex terrain in the Project area.

SJVAPCD-provided, AERMET UStar processed meteorological datasets for the Bakersfield monitoring station, calendar years 2018 through 2022 was input to AERMOD (SJVAPCD 2023). This was the most recent available dataset available at the time the modeling was conducted. Rural dispersion parameters were used because the operation and the majority of the land surrounding the facility is considered "rural" under the Auer land use classification method (Auer 1978).

Plot files generated by AERMOD were uploaded to the Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Assessment Tool (ADMRT) program in the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP2) (CARB 2015). ADMRT post-processing was used to assess the potential for excess cancer risk and chronic and acute non-cancer effects using the most recent health effects data from the California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). HARP2 site parameters were set for the mandatory minimum pathways of inhalation, soil ingestion, dermal, and mother’s milk. Risk reports were generated using the derived OEHHA analysis method for carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic chronic and acute risk. Site parameters are included in the HARP2 output files. Total cancer risk was predicted for each receptor. A hazard index was computed for chronic and acute non-cancer health effects for each applicable endpoint and each receptor.

SJVAPCD has set the level of significance for carcinogenic risk at twenty in one million, which is understood as the possibility of causing twenty additional cancer cases in a population of one million people. The level of significance for chronic and acute non-cancer risk is a hazard index of 1.0. All receptors were modeled as residential receptors with a 2-year exposure for construction and 70-year exposure for operations. This is conservative since all on-site receptors and business receptors would be exposed for less than 2 years during construction. SJVAPCD requires a 70-year exposure to evaluate impacts to residential receptors.

The carcinogenic risk and the health hazard index (HI) for chronic and acute non-cancer risk at the point of maximum impact (PMI) do not exceed the significance levels of twenty in one million (20 x 10-6) and 1.0, respectively for the proposed Project. The PMIs are identified by receptor location and risk and are provided in Table 4-6. The electronic AERMOD and HARP2 output files are provided in Appendix D.

Table 4-6. Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP
Value UTM East UTM North
Excess Cancer Risk 5.56E-06 310988.5 3904579.5 Chronic Hazard Index 3.61E-03 Acute Hazard Index 1.38E-02 311339.4 3904755.6
As shown above in Table 4-6, the maximum predicted cancer risk for the proposed Project is 5.56E-06. The maximum chronic non-cancer hazard index for the proposed Project is 3.61E-03. The maximum acute noncancer hazard index for the proposed Project is 1.38E-02. Since the PMI remained below the significance Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-9
threshold for cancer, chronic, and acute risk, this Project would not have an adverse effect to any of the surrounding communities.

The potential health risk attributable to the proposed Project is determined to be less than significant based on the following conclusions:

1. Potential carcinogenic risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of twenty in a million at each of the modeled receptors; and

2. The hazard index for the potential chronic non-cancer risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of 1.0 at each of the modeled receptors.

3. The hazard index for the potential acute non-cancer risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of 1.0 at each of the modeled receptors.

Therefore, the potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

4.7 Potential Impacts from Valley Fever
The proposed project has the potential to generate fugitive dust and suspend Valley Fever spores with the dust that could then reach nearby sensitive receptors. It is possible that onsite workers could be exposed to Valley Fever spores as fugitive dust is generated during construction. In order to mitigate potential risk, the proposed Project would provide training and personal protective respiratory equipment to construction workers and provide information to all construction personnel and visitors about Valley Fever. Therefore, the exposure to Valley Fever would be minimized. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, dust from the construction of the proposed project would not add significantly to the existing exposure level of people to this fungus, including construction workers, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

4.8 Potential Impacts from Asbestos
Naturally occurring asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading of development projects, and at mining operations.

Serpentinite and/or ultramafic rock are known to be present in 44 of California's 58 counties. These rocks are particularly abundant in the counties associated with the Sierra Nevada foothills, the Klamath Mountains, and Coast Ranges. However, according to information provided by the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, the project site is not located in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be present (CDCDMG, 2000). Therefore, impacts associated with exposure of construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors to asbestos would be less than significant.

4.9 Odor Impacts and Mitigation
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states “An analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for both of the following two situations:

1. Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and

2. Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources.” (SJVAPCD 2015).

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-10
The GAMAQI also states, “The District has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. These are presented in Table 6 (Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources), along with a reasonable distance from the source within which, the degree of odors could possibly be significant. [Table 6] can be used as a screening tool to qualitatively assess a project’s potential to adversely affect area receptors.” (SJVAPCD, 2015). Because the Project is a residential site and the anticipated activities for the Project site are not listed in Table 6 of the GAMAQI as a source that would create objectionable odors, the Project is not expected to be a source of objectionable odors.

Based on the provisions of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, the proposed Project would not exceed any screening trigger levels to be considered a source of objectionable odors or odorous compounds (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Furthermore, there does not appear to be any significant source of objectionable odors in close proximity that may adversely impact the Project site when it is in operation. Additionally, the Project emissions estimates indicate that it would not be expected to adversely impact surrounding receptors. As such, the proposed Project would not be a source of any odorous compounds nor would it likely be impacted by any odorous source.

4.10 Impacts to Ambient Air Quality
As stated in the GAMAQI (2015, p 96-97), SJVAPCD has developed screening levels for requiring an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA). The SJVAPCD recommends that an AAQA be performed for all criteria pollutants when emissions of any criteria pollutant resulting from project construction or operational activities exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level, after compliance with Rule 9510 requirements and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures.

As shown in Table 4-4, average daily emissions for construction and operational activities associated with this Project would not exceed 100 pounds per day. Therefore, an AAQA is not required for this Project.

4.11 Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
In the decade after South Coast AQMD adopted the Interim GHG Significance Threshold, several new laws and executive orders were adopted that require additional reductions in years after 2020. For instance, Senate Bill 32 (Lara, 2016) requires that GHG emissions be 40% less than 1990 levels by 2030. More drastic still, Senate Bill 100 (de Leon, 2018) which was signed by the Governor recently requires 100% zero-carbon electricity by 2045. On the day SB 100 was signed into law, the Governor also signed Executive Order B-55- 18 which commits California to total, economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. Clearly, the 2008 Guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today’s standards which propose a grand vision that, if achieved, would fundamentally change how business is conducted and citizens live in the State. Thus, as discussed in the most recent updates to the Scoping Plan, objectives of the Scoping Plan affect entire sectors of the economy and it no longer makes sense to evaluate GHG emissions on a project-level.

For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in Table 4-7 are primarily for disclosure purposes because impact analysis for the Project follows the approach certified by South Coast AQMD in the Final Negative Declaration for the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plant – Crude Oil Storage Capacity Project on December 12, 2014 (South Coast AQMD, 2014). The approach used by South Coast AQMD to assess GHG impacts from that project recognizes that consumers of electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by requiring providers and importers of electricity and fuel to participate in the GHG Cap-and-Trade Program and other Programs (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, renewable portfolio standard, etc.). Each such sector-wide program exists within the framework of AB 32 and its descendant laws the purpose of which is to achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-11
In summary, the Project would generate GHGs from electricity use and combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near the top of the supply-chain. As such, each citizen of California (including the operator of the Project) will have no choice but to purchase electricity and fuels produced in a way that is acceptable to the California market. Thus, Project GHG emissions will be consistent with the relevant plan (i.e., AB 32 Scoping Plan). The Project would meet its fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative impact of global climate change because the proposed Project will be purchasing energy from the California market.

Thus, the Project would have a less than significant impact on applicable GHG reduction plans.

Nonetheless, GHG emissions impacts from implementing the Project were calculated at the Project-specific level for construction and operations as explained in the previous paragraphs. Impact analysis for the Project follows the approach certified by South Coast AQMD in the Final Negative Declaration for the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plant – Crude Oil Storage Capacity Project on December 12, 2014 (South Coast AQMD, 2014). In summary, this approach takes into account the cumulative nature of the energy industry and recognizes that consumers of electricity and diesel fuel are in effect regulated by higher level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Table 4-7. Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year)
Source CO2 CH4 N2O R CO2e
Mitigated Construction Emissions
Construction Emissions 1,625 0.04 0.08 1.62 1,651
Mitigated Operational Emissions
Mobile Emissions 9,823.31 0.40 0.36 14.89 9,955
Area Emissions 6.54 0.00 0.00 - 6.56
Energy Emissions 985 0.10 0.01 - 989
Water Emissions 15.93 0.76 0.02 - 40.41
Waste Emissions 42.07 4.20 0.00 - 147.19
Refrigerant Emissions - - - 174.62 174.62
Total Project Operational Emissions 10,873 5.47 0.38 189.51 11,313 Annualized Construction Emissions1 54.18 0.00 0.00 0.05 55.06 Project Emissions 10,927 5.47 0.39 189.56 11,368
*Note: 0.00 could represent <0.00
Per South Coast AQMD’s Methodology
The Project will not result in the emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), or sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), the other gases identified as GHG in AB32. The proposed Project will be subject to any new regulations developed by CARB to address GHG emissions.

4.11.1 Feasible and Reasonable Mitigation Relative to Global Warming CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce the impacts from construction and operations on air quality. The SJVAPCD’s “Non-Residential On-Site Mitigation Checklist” was utilized in preparing the mitigation measures and evaluating the projects features. These measures include using controls that limit the exhaust from construction equipment and using alternatives to diesel when possible. Additional reductions would be achieved through the regulatory process of the air district and CARB as required changes to diesel engines are implemented which would affect the product delivery trucks and limits on idling.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 4-12
While it is not possible to determine whether the Project individually would have a significant impact on global warming or climate change, the Project would potentially contribute to cumulative GHG emissions in California as well as related health effects. The Project emissions would only be a very small fraction of the statewide GHG emissions. However, without the necessary science and analytical tools, it is not possible to assess, with certainty, whether the Project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable, within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15065(a)(3) and 15130. CEQA, however, does note that the more severe environmental problems the lower the thresholds for treating a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts as significant.

Given the position of the legislature in AB32 which states that global warming poses serious detrimental effects, and the requirements of CEQA for the lead agency to determine that a project not have a cumulatively considerable contribution, the effect of the Project’s CO2 contribution may be considered cumulatively considerable. This determination is “speculative,” given the lack of clear scientific evidence or other criteria for determining the significance of the Project’s contribution of GHG to the air quality in the SJVAB.

The strategies currently being implemented by CARB may help in reducing the Project’s GHG emissions and are summarized in the table below.

Table 4-8. Select CARB GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Strategy Description of Strategy
Vehicle Climate Change Standards
AB 1493 (Pavley) required the state to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of climate change emissions emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Regulations were adopted by CARB in Sept. 2004.

Diesel Anti-Idling In July 2004, CARB adopted a measure to limit diesel-fueled retail motor vehicle idling.

Other Light-Duty Vehicle
Technology
New standards would be adopted to phase in beginning in the 2017 model year.

Alternative Fuels: Biodiesel Blends CARB would develop regulations to require the use of 1% to 4% Biodiesel displacement of California diesel fuel.

Alternative Fuels: Ethanol Increased use of ethanol fuel.

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission
Reduction Measures
Increased efficiency in the design of heavy-duty vehicles and an educational program for the heavy-duty vehicle sector.

Not all of these measures are currently appropriate or applicable to the proposed Project. While future legislation could further reduce the Project’s GHG footprint, the analysis of this is speculative and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, will not be further evaluated in this AQIA.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 notes that sometimes the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-byproject basis. Global climate change is this type of issue. The causes and effects may not be just regional or statewide, they may also be worldwide. Given the uncertainties in identifying, let alone quantifying the impact of any single project on global warming and climate change, and the efforts made to reduce emissions of GHGs from the Project through design, in accordance with CEQA Section 15130, any further feasible emissions reductions would be accomplished through CARB regulations adopted pursuant to AB32. The Project will comply with all local and statewide air quality and climate plans; therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 5-1

5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
By its very nature, air pollution has a cumulative impact. The District’s nonattainment status is a result of past and present development within the SJVAB. Furthermore, attainment of ambient air quality standards can be jeopardized by increasing emissions-generating activities in the region. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of the regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, present, and future development within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. When assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect, the Lead Agency shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects [CCR §15064(h)(1)]. Per CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3) a Lead Agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located. (SJVAPCD 2015)
Attachment A of Kern County’s Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports states “The following threshold are defined for purposes of determining cumulative effects as the baseline for “considerable”. Projects in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District…will be subject to the following significance thresholds”. The thresholds outlined in the guidelines mirror the individual project significance thresholds of 15 tons per year for PM10 and 10 tons per year for NOX and ROG. Therefore, owing to the inherently cumulative nature of air quality impacts, the threshold for whether a project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact is simply whether the project would exceed project-level thresholds. Based on the analysis conducted for this Project, it is individually less than significant. This AQIA, however, also considered impacts of the proposed Project in conjunction with the impacts of other projects previously proposed in the area. The following cumulative impacts were considered:
► Cumulative O3 Impacts (ROG and NOx) from numerous sources within the region including transport from outside the region. O3 is formed through chemical reactions of ROG and NOx in the presence of sunlight.
► Cumulative CO Impacts produced primarily by vehicular emissions. ► Cumulative PM10 Impacts from within the region and locally from the various projects. Such projects may cumulatively produce a significant amount of PM10 if several projects conduct grading or earthmoving activities at the same time; and
► Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Impacts on sensitive receptors.

5.1 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
The most recent, certified SJVAB Emission Inventory data available from the SJVAPCD is based on data gathered for the 2020 annual inventory2. This data will be used to assist the SJVAPCD in demonstrating attainment of Federal 1-hour O3 Standards (SJVAPCD 2007). Table 5-1 provides a comparative look at the impacts proposed by the proposed Project to the SJVAB Emissions Inventory. 2 SJVAPCD Emissions for Aggregated Stationary, Area-Wide, Mobile, and Natural Sources Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 5-2
Table 5-1. Comparative Analysis Based on SJV Air Basin 2020 Inventory - Tons per Year ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Kern County - 2020 22,739.5 16,315.5 39,274.0 547.5 14,636.5 4,270.5 SJVAB - 2020 114,938.5 72,014.5 241,630.0 2,336.0 99,389.5 24,966.0 Proposed Project 6.35 4.31 41.98 0.11 10.94 2.84
Proposed Project’s % of Kern 0.028% 0.026% 0.107% 0.020% 0.075% 0.067% Proposed Project’s % of SJVAB 0.006% 0.006% 0.017% 0.005% 0.011% 0.011% Note: This is the latest inventory available as of December 2024 Source: CARB 2024b
As shown in Table 5-1 the proposed Project does not pose a substantial increase to basin emissions, as such basin emissions would be essentially the same if the Project is approved.

Table 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 provide CARB Emissions Inventory projections for the year 2025 for both the SJVAB and the Kern County portion of the air basin. Looking at the SJVAB Emissions predicted by the CARB year 2025 emissions inventory, the Kern County portion of the air basin is a moderate source of the emissions. The proposed Project produces a small portion of the total emissions in both Kern County and the entire SJVAB.

Table 5-2. Emission Inventory SJVAB 2025 Projection - Tons per Year ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Total Emissions 110,996.5 55,334.0 229,658.0 2,336.0 98,112.0 24,272.5 Percent Stationary Sources 27.66% 13.13% 3.35% 76.56% 4.46% 10.83% Percent Area-Wide Sources 54.95% 7.52% 26.21% 9.38% 91.07% 77.74% Percent Mobile Sources 17.40% 79.35% 70.44% 12.50% 4.50% 11.43% Total Stationary Source Emissions 30,696.5 7,263.5 7,701.5 1,788.5 4,380.0 2,628.0 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 60,991.5 4,161.0 60,188.5 219.0 89,352.0 18,870.5 Total Mobile Source Emissions 19,308.5 43,909.5 161,768.0 292.0 4,416.5 2,774.0 Source: CARB 2024b
Note: Total may not add due to rounding
Table 5-3. Emission Inventory SJVAB - Kern County Portion 2025 Projection - Tons per Year ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Total Emissions 21,644.5 12,556.0 37,449.0 511.0 14,089.0 4,015.0 Percent Stationary Sources 47.22% 17.15% 7.89% 85.71% 9.84% 28.18% Percent Area-Wide Sources 36.59% 5.23% 14.81% 7.14% 84.46% 60.91% Percent Mobile Sources 16.02% 77.62% 77.29% 14.29% 5.70% 10.91% Total Stationary Source Emissions 10,220.0 2,153.5 2,956.5 438.0 1,387.0 1,131.5 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 7,920.5 657.0 5,548.0 36.5 11,899.0 2,445.5 Total Mobile Source Emissions 3,467.5 9,745.5 28,944.5 73.0 803.0 438.0 Source: CARB 2024b
Note: Total may not add due to rounding
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 5-3
Table 5-4. 2025 Emissions Projections - Proposed Project, Kern County, and SJVAB ROG NOx PM10
Proposed Project 6.35 4.31 10.94
Kern County 21,645 12,556 14,089
SJVAB 110,997 55,334 98,112
Proposed Project Percent of Kern County 0.029% 0.034% 0.078% Proposed Project Percent of SJVAB 0.006% 0.008% 0.011%
Kern County Percent of SJVAB 19.50% 22.69% 14.36%
Source: CARB 2024b
As shown above, the proposed Project would pose an inconsequential impact on regional O3 and PM10 formation. The regional contribution to these cumulative impacts would be negligible and additionally, the Project would not exceed cumulatively considerable thresholds since the Project would be less than thresholds outlined in Kern County’s Guidelines for Preparing an Air Quality Assessment for Use in Environmental Impact Reports. Therefore, this Project would not be considered cumulatively considerable in its contribution to regional O3 and PM10 impacts.

5.2 Cumulative Local Air Quality Impacts
Tentative development projects within a one-mile radius of the proposed Project area were identified; however, the details provided for these projects do not provide enough information to accurately estimate their potential emissions. The cumulative projects are typically listed only as geographical reference to demonstrate the construction activity within a one-mile radius of the proposed Project. The number and sizes of these projects are of no particular significance since the cumulative considerable thresholds established by Kern County are based on Project specific thresholds which are inherently cumulative in nature.

As details regarding the various cumulative projects were not readily available, emissions estimates were not calculated. As these projects are either currently under construction or, at a minimum, approved by the planning department for consistency with applicable regulation, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that they are in conformance with the regional AQAP.

The cumulative projects have already been approved or are pending approval; it is assumed that these projects are in conformance with the regional AQAP. Additionally, the proposed Project would generate lessthan-significant impacts to criteria air pollutants; the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3); (SJVAPCD 2015).

5.3 Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants
The GAMAQI also states that when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs, “impacts of local pollutants (CO, HAPs) are cumulatively significant when modeling shows that the combined emissions from the project and other existing and planned projects will exceed air quality standards.” Because the Project would not be a significant source of HAPs, the proposed Project would also not be expected to pose a significant cumulative CO or HAPs impact.

5.4 Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (CO) – Mobile Sources
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI has identified CO impacts from impacted traffic intersections and roadway segments as being potentially cumulatively considerable. Traffic increases and added congestion caused by a project Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 5-4
can combine to cause a violation of the SJVAPCD’s CO standard also known as a “Hotspot”. There are two criteria established by the GAMAQI by which CO “Hot Spot” modeling is required:
► A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E or F; or ► A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.

A traffic generation assessment impact study was prepared by Ruettgers and Schuler (2024). The study shows the location and traffic increase anticipated from this Project; impacted intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at a LOS of C or better with mitigation. Therefore, CO “Hotspot” Modeling was not conducted for this Project and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 6-1

6. CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN
Air quality impacts from proposed projects within Kern County are controlled through policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the Kern County General Plan (KCPD 2009). In order to demonstrate that a proposed project would not cause further air quality degradation in either the SJVAPCD’s plan to improve air quality within the air basin or the federal requirements to meet certain air quality compliance goals, each project should also demonstrate consistency with the SJVAPCD’s adopted Air Quality Attainment Plans (AQAP) for O3 and PM10. The SJVAPCD is required to submit a “Rate of Progress” document to CARB that demonstrates past and planned progress toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires air pollution control districts with severe or extreme air quality problems to provide for a 5% reduction in non-attainment emissions per year. The AQAP prepared for the San Joaquin Valley by the SJVAPCD complies with this requirement. CARB reviews, approves or amends the document and forwards the plan to the EPA for final review and approval within the SIP.

Air pollution sources associated with stationary sources are regulated through the permitting authority of the SJVAPCD under the New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule (SJVAPCD Rule 2201). Owners of any new or modified equipment that emits, reduces, or controls air contaminants, except those specifically exempted by the SJVAPCD, are required to apply for an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate (SJVAPCD Rule 2010). Additionally, best available control technology (BACT) is required on specific types of stationary equipment and are required to offset both stationary source emission increases along with increases in cargo carrier emissions if the specified threshold levels are exceeded (SJVAPCD Rule 2201, 4.7.1). Through this mechanism, the SJVAPCD would ensure that all stationary sources within the project area would be subject to the standards of the SJVAPCD to ensure that new developments do not result in net increases in stationary sources of criteria air pollutants.

6.1 Required Evaluation Guidelines
State CEQA Guidelines and the Federal Clean Air Act (Sections 176 and 316) contain specific references on the need to evaluate consistencies between the proposed project and the applicable AQAP for the project site.

To accomplish this, CARB has developed a three-step approach to determine project conformity with the applicable AQAP:

1. Determination that an AQAP is being implemented in the area where the project is being proposed.

The SJVAPCD has implemented the current, modified AQAP as approved by CARB.

2. The proposed project must be consistent with the growth assumptions of the applicable AQAP. The proposed Project land use type was not anticipated in the current growth assumptions. Therefore, growth assumptions in the Kern County General Plans will be modified with the approval of the proposed Project.

3. The project must contain in its design all reasonably available and feasible air quality control measures.

The proposed project incorporates various policy and rule-required implementation measures that will reduce related emissions.

The CCAA and AQAP identify transportation control measures as methods to further reduce emissions from mobile sources. Strategies identified to reduce vehicular emissions such as reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, and traffic congestion, in order to reduce vehicular emissions, can be implemented as control measures under the CCAA as well. Additional measures may also be implemented through the building process such as providing electrical outlets on exterior walls of structures to encourage use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment or measures such as electrical outlets for electrical systems on diesel trucks to reduce or eliminate idling time.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 6-2
As the growth represented by the proposed Project will be updated in the Kern County General Plan and incorporated into the AQAP, conclusions may be drawn from the following criteria:

1. That, by definition, the proposed emissions from the Project are below the SJVAPCD’s established emissions impact thresholds;

2. That the primary source of emissions from the Project will be motor vehicles that are licensed through the State of California and whose emissions are already incorporated into CARB’s San Joaquin Valley Emissions Inventory.

Based on these factors, the Project appears to be consistent with the AQAP.

6.2 Consistency with the Kern County Council of Government’s Regional Conformity Analysis
The Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) Regional Conformity Analysis (Kern COG 2022) Determination demonstrates that the regional transportation expenditure plans (Destination 2042 Regional Transportation Plan and Federal Transportation Improvement Program) in the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley air quality attainment areas would not hinder the efforts set out in CARB’s SIP for each area’s non-attainment pollutants (CO, O3, and PM10). The analysis uses an adopted regional growth forecast, governed by both the adopted Kern COG Policy and Procedure Manual and a Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Kern and Kern COG (representing itself and outlying municipal member agencies).

The Kern COG Regional Conformity Analysis considers General Plan Amendments (GPA) and zone changes that were enacted at the time of the analysis as projected growth within the area based on land use designations incorporated within the Kern County General Plan. Land use designations that are altered based on subsequent GPAs that were not included in the Regional Conformity Analysis were not incorporated into the Kern COG analysis. Consequently, if a proposed project is not included in the regional growth forecast using the latest planning assumptions, it may not be said to conform to the regional growth forecast. Under the current City of Bakersfield Zoning, the Project site is designated as “R-2: Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling” (see Figure 6-1).

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 6-3
Figure 6-1. City of Bakersfield Zoning
Item 2 under Section 3 – Model Maintenance Procedure, of the Kern COG Regional Transportation Modeling Policy and Procedure Manual states “Land Use Data – General Plan land capacity data or “Build -out capacity” is used to distribute the forecasted County totals, and may be updated as new information becomes available, and is revised in regular consultation with local planning departments.” The adopted growth forecast for the project site is distributed to Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) (see Figure 6- 2). In order to evaluate the impacts to the proposed Project area, a one-mile radius analysis was conducted that included TAZ 220, 271, 671, 706, 735, 741, 898, 899, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 911, 913, 915, and 917. This places the Project site at the center of the analysis area and provides a conservative evaluation of the TAZ data. Kern COG has predicted an increase of 82% for households and 79% in employment between 2020 and 2035. Residential forecast for the TAZ analysis area appears to be sufficient to account for 100% of the planned population growth attributed to the proposed Project. To be considered “consistent” and, therefore, in conformance with the AQAP, these increases would need to occur over the same time as the adopted growth forecast. Since the proposed development requires a GPA and zone change, the existing growth forecast will be modified to reflect these changes. Based on these factors, the Project appears to be in conformance with the AQAP.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 6-4
Figure 6-2. TAZ Analysis Map
Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 6-5
Table 6-1 provides the projected growth rates for the TAZ analysis area.

Table 6-1. TAZ Analysis Area Projected Growth Analysis3 Years 2020 2035 2046
Households 1,773 3,230 3,499
Employment 440 789 758
Table 6-2 provides the percent increase/decrease for the analysis area population, households, and employment.

Table 6-2. Percent Increase/Decrease on TAZ Analysis Area Years Percent Increase / Decrease
Households Employment
2020* 0 0
2035 82% 79%
2046 8% -4%
*Baseline year of 2020 was valued at “0” to measure net percent increase/decrease. 3 Kern Council of Governments Regional Conformity Analysis Data, 2022 Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 7-1

7. MITIGATION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED MEASURES
As the estimated construction and operational emissions from the proposed Project would be less than significant, no specific mitigation measures would be required. However, to ensure that Project is in compliance with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations and emissions are further reduced, the applicant should implement and comply with a number of measures that are either recommended as a “good operating practice” for environmental stewardship or they are required by regulation. Some of the listed measures are regulatory requirements or construction requirements that would result in further emission reductions through their inclusion in Project construction and long-term design. The following measures either have been applied to the Project through the CalEEMod model and would be incorporated into the Project by design or would be implemented in conjunction with SJVAPCD rules as conditions of approval.

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

7.2 Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust
In addition, the GAMAQI guidance document lists the following measures as approved and recommended for construction activities. These measures are recommended:
► Maintain all construction equipment as recommended by manufacturer manuals. ► Shut down equipment when not in use for extended periods. ► Use electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 7-2
► Curtail use of high-emitting construction equipment during periods of high or excessive ambient pollutant concentrations.
► All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce NOx emissions. ► On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.
► On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.
► All construction workers shall be encouraged to shuttle (car-pool) to retail establishments or to remain on-site during lunch breaks.
► All construction activities within the project area shall be discontinued during the first stage smog alerts. ► Construction and grading activities shall not be allowed during first stage O3 alerts. First stage O3 alerts are declared when the O3 level exceeds 0.20 ppm (1-hour average).

7.3 Other Measures to Reduce Project Impacts
The following measures are recommended to further reduce the potential for long-term emissions from the Project. These measures are required as a matter of regulatory compliance:
► The Project design shall comply with applicable standards set forth in Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code to minimize total consumption of energy.
► Applicants shall be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures in the AQAP, SJVAPCD Rules, Traffic Control Measures, Regulation VIII and Indirect Source Rules for the SJVAPCD. ► The developer shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4601 - Architectural Coatings, during the construction of all buildings and facilities. Application of architectural coatings shall be completed in a manner that poses the least emissions impacts whenever such application is deemed proficient. ► The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4641 during the construction and pavement of all roads and parking areas within the project area. Specifically, the applicant shall not allow the use of:
• Rapid cure cutback asphalt;
• Medium cure cutback asphalt;
• Slow cure cutback asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.3); or Emulsified asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.4).
• The developer shall comply with applicable provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review).

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 8-1

8. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The proposed Project would have short-term air quality impacts due to construction activities as well as vehicular emissions. Both of these impacts would be mitigated and were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation.

The proposed Project would result in long-term air quality impacts due to operational and related mobile source emissions. These impacts were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation.

The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative short-term and long-term impacts to air quality. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to these impacts would be mitigated, are below thresholds of significance, and would not be considered cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts were found to be less than significant.

The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative long-term impacts to global climate change. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to these impacts will be mitigated to the extent feasible and are considered less than significant.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 9-1

9. REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model™ (CalEEMod), version 2022.1.28, released October 2024.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2024a. website – Background Emissions Data. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam, accessed December 2024.
--------. 2019. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. 2019.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2017/ghg_inventory_trends_00-17.pdf --------. 2024b. Almanac Emission Projection Data.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/2021/emssumcat.php, accessed December 2024. --------. 2016. “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” May 4, 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf
--------. 2015. Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) User Guide. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//toxics/harp/docs2/harp2admrtuserguide.pdf, accessed December 2024.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2006. Climate Action Team (CAT) Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04- 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. 2023. (Public Resources Code 21000 to 21177) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 – 15387).
--------. 2018. Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form, Final Text. December 28, 2018.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf ---------. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.

Kern County GIS. 2024. Bakersfield, CA. Interactive County Map (GIS Tool) | Kern County, CA, Accessed December 2024.

Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG). December 2022. Draft Air Quality Conformity Analysis.

Kern County Planning Department (KCPD). 2009. Kern County General Plan Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2022a. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm, accessed November 2024.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants 9-2
----------. 2022b. Air Monitoring Location Map. http://valleyair.org/aqinfo/air-monitoring.htm, accessed November 2024.
----------. 2023. UStar Meteorological Datasets for Bakersfield 2018-2022. https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Tox_Resources/AirQualityMonitoring.htm#met_data ----------. 2019. APR 1925 Policy for District Rule 2201 AAQA Modeling. March 10, 2019. ----------. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015. ----------. 2007. SJVAB Emissions Inventory to Demonstrating Attainment of Federal 1-hour O3 Standards, SJVAPCD. September 2007.

United Nations, 2011. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/(2011_E)%20MDG%20Report%202011_Book%20LR.pdf United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2019. International Energy Outlook 2019. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/ieo2019.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2019. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–2017. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gasemissions-and-sinks. April 11, 2019.

United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/, accessed December 2024.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2024. Bakersfield, California, Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 10/01/1937 to 6/09/2016. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca0444, accessed December 2024.

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants A-1
APPENDIX A. EXISTING AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA

Taft Hwy & Ashe Rd / Air Quality Impact Analysis
Trinity Consultants B-1
APPENDIX B. PROJECT EMISSION CALCULATIONS
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
1 / 86
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
2 / 86

3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.6. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.10. Paving (2026) - Mitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.12. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
3 / 86

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
4 / 86

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
5 / 86

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
6 / 86

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
7 / 86

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
8 / 86

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name McIntosh Tash/Ashe
Construction Start Date 1/1/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 18.0
Location 35.266565045887134, -119.07538467267167
County Kern-San Joaquin
City Bakersfield
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2892
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.28

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
9 / 86
Convenience 5.02 1000sqft 0.98 5,020 0.00 — — —
Market with Gas
Pumps
Bank (with
Drive-Through)

4.20 1000sqft 0.82 4,200 0.00 — — —
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

3.20 1000sqft 0.63 3,200 0.00 — — —
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

3.25 1000sqft 0.64 3,255 0.00 — — —
Strip Mall 3.60 1000sqft 0.70 3,600 0.00 — 12.0 —
Strip Mall 5.05 1000sqft 0.99 5,048 0.00 — 17.0 —
Apartments Low
Rise
499 Dwelling Unit 18.5 528,940 0.00 — 1,607 —
Parking Lot 179 Space 1.61 0.00 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Energy E-10-B Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
10 / 86
Unmit. 173 14.1 41.5 0.04 0.46 5.00 5.46 0.42 1.19 1.62 — 9,238 9,238 0.32 0.47 23.0 9,409 Mit. 173 14.1 41.5 0.04 0.46 5.00 5.46 0.42 1.19 1.62 — 9,238 9,238 0.32 0.47 23.0 9,409 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.38 31.7 32.8 0.06 1.37 19.9 21.2 1.26 10.2 11.4 — 8,629 8,629 0.27 0.47 0.60 8,775 Mit. 3.38 31.7 32.8 0.06 1.37 5.32 6.69 1.26 2.68 3.93 — 8,629 8,629 0.27 0.47 0.60 8,775 %
Reduced
— — — — — 73% 68% — 74% 66% — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.6 12.2 24.0 0.03 0.43 4.37 4.80 0.39 1.33 1.73 — 6,007 6,007 0.14 0.29 5.91 6,101 Mit. 10.6 12.2 24.0 0.03 0.43 3.32 3.75 0.39 0.87 1.26 — 6,007 6,007 0.14 0.29 5.91 6,101 %
Reduced
— — — — — 24% 22% — 35% 27% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.93 2.23 4.39 0.01 0.08 0.80 0.88 0.07 0.24 0.31 — 994 994 0.02 0.05 0.98 1,010 Mit. 1.93 2.23 4.39 0.01 0.08 0.61 0.68 0.07 0.16 0.23 — 994 994 0.02 0.05 0.98 1,010 %
Reduced
— — — — — 24% 22% — 35% 27% — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Annual)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d

10.0 10.0 100 27.0 — — 15.0 — — 15.0 — — — — — — —
Unmit. No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —
Mit. No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
11 / 86
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.90 14.1 41.5 0.04 0.46 5.00 5.46 0.42 1.19 1.62 — 9,238 9,238 0.32 0.47 23.0 9,409 2026 173 13.3 39.1 0.04 0.41 5.00 5.41 0.38 1.19 1.57 — 9,095 9,095 0.17 0.45 20.8 9,254 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 3.38 31.7 32.8 0.06 1.37 19.9 21.2 1.26 10.2 11.4 — 8,629 8,629 0.27 0.47 0.60 8,775 2026 2.53 13.7 31.1 0.04 0.41 5.00 5.41 0.38 1.19 1.57 — 8,501 8,501 0.20 0.46 0.54 8,643 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.00 12.2 24.0 0.03 0.43 4.37 4.80 0.39 1.33 1.73 — 6,007 6,007 0.14 0.29 5.91 6,101 2026 10.6 6.18 14.7 0.02 0.19 2.15 2.34 0.18 0.51 0.69 — 3,811 3,811 0.08 0.20 3.89 3,876 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.37 2.23 4.39 0.01 0.08 0.80 0.88 0.07 0.24 0.31 — 994 994 0.02 0.05 0.98 1,010 2026 1.93 1.13 2.68 < 0.005 0.03 0.39 0.43 0.03 0.09 0.13 — 631 631 0.01 0.03 0.64 642

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.90 14.1 41.5 0.04 0.46 5.00 5.46 0.42 1.19 1.62 — 9,238 9,238 0.32 0.47 23.0 9,409 2026 173 13.3 39.1 0.04 0.41 5.00 5.41 0.38 1.19 1.57 — 9,095 9,095 0.17 0.45 20.8 9,254 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
12 / 86
2025 3.38 31.7 32.8 0.06 1.37 5.32 6.69 1.26 2.68 3.93 — 8,629 8,629 0.27 0.47 0.60 8,775 2026 2.53 13.7 31.1 0.04 0.41 5.00 5.41 0.38 1.19 1.57 — 8,501 8,501 0.20 0.46 0.54 8,643 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.00 12.2 24.0 0.03 0.43 3.32 3.75 0.39 0.87 1.26 — 6,007 6,007 0.14 0.29 5.91 6,101 2026 10.6 6.18 14.7 0.02 0.19 2.15 2.34 0.18 0.51 0.69 — 3,811 3,811 0.08 0.20 3.89 3,876 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.37 2.23 4.39 0.01 0.08 0.61 0.68 0.07 0.16 0.23 — 994 994 0.02 0.05 0.98 1,010 2026 1.93 1.13 2.68 < 0.005 0.03 0.39 0.43 0.03 0.09 0.13 — 631 631 0.01 0.03 0.64 642

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 39.5 25.3 388 0.91 0.74 85.7 86.4 0.71 21.6 22.3 299 96,895 97,194 33.2 2.57 1,348 100,139 Mit. 39.5 25.3 388 0.91 0.74 85.7 86.4 0.71 21.6 22.3 299 96,216 96,515 33.1 2.56 1,348 99,453 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 1% 1% < 0.5% 1% — 1%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 33.9 29.4 256 0.80 0.73 85.7 86.4 0.70 21.6 22.3 299 86,128 86,427 33.5 2.86 1,062 89,179 Mit. 33.9 29.4 256 0.80 0.73 85.7 86.4 0.70 21.6 22.3 299 85,449 85,748 33.4 2.85 1,062 88,494 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 1% 1% < 0.5% < 0.5% — 1%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 34.8 23.6 230 0.61 0.64 59.3 59.9 0.62 15.0 15.6 299 66,050 66,349 33.2 2.33 1,145 69,016 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
13 / 86
Mit. 34.8 23.6 230 0.61 0.64 59.3 59.9 0.62 15.0 15.6 299 65,372 65,671 33.0 2.31 1,145 68,330 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 1% 1% < 0.5% 1% — 1%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6.35 4.31 42.0 0.11 0.12 10.8 10.9 0.11 2.73 2.84 49.5 10,935 10,985 5.49 0.39 190 11,426 Mit. 6.35 4.31 42.0 0.11 0.12 10.8 10.9 0.11 2.73 2.84 49.5 10,823 10,873 5.47 0.38 190 11,313 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 1% 1% < 0.5% 1% — 1%
Exceeds
(Annual)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d

10.0 10.0 100 27.0 — — 15.0 — — 15.0 — — — — — — —
Unmit. No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —
Mit. No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 23.8 21.2 357 0.89 0.42 85.7 86.1 0.39 21.6 22.0 — 90,138 90,138 2.50 2.42 293 91,213 Area 15.5 0.28 29.4 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 80.0 80.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.3 Energy 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 6,626 6,626 0.72 0.04 — 6,657 Water — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Total 39.5 25.3 388 0.91 0.74 85.7 86.4 0.71 21.6 22.3 299 96,895 97,194 33.2 2.57 1,348 100,139 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
14 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Mobile 20.9 25.6 255 0.78 0.42 85.7 86.1 0.39 21.6 22.0 — 79,451 79,451 2.79 2.71 7.60 80,334 Area 12.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 6,626 6,626 0.72 0.04 — 6,657 Water — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Total 33.9 29.4 256 0.80 0.73 85.7 86.4 0.70 21.6 22.3 299 86,128 86,427 33.5 2.86 1,062 89,179 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 20.4 19.6 214 0.58 0.33 59.3 59.6 0.30 15.0 15.3 — 59,333 59,333 2.44 2.17 89.9 60,131 Area 14.1 0.14 14.5 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 39.5 39.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 39.6 Energy 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 6,626 6,626 0.72 0.04 — 6,657 Water — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Total 34.8 23.6 230 0.61 0.64 59.3 59.9 0.62 15.0 15.6 299 66,050 66,349 33.2 2.33 1,145 69,016 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.73 3.58 39.0 0.11 0.06 10.8 10.9 0.06 2.73 2.79 — 9,823 9,823 0.40 0.36 14.9 9,955 Area 2.58 0.03 2.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.54 6.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.56 Energy 0.04 0.70 0.32 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,097 1,097 0.12 0.01 — 1,102 Water — — — — — — — — — — 7.41 8.52 15.9 0.76 0.02 — 40.4 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 42.1 0.00 42.1 4.20 0.00 — 147 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 175 175
Total 6.35 4.31 42.0 0.11 0.12 10.8 10.9 0.11 2.73 2.84 49.5 10,935 10,985 5.49 0.39 190 11,426

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
15 / 86
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 23.8 21.2 357 0.89 0.42 85.7 86.1 0.39 21.6 22.0 — 90,138 90,138 2.50 2.42 293 91,213 Area 15.5 0.28 29.4 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 80.0 80.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.3 Energy 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 5,947 5,947 0.61 0.03 — 5,972 Water — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Total 39.5 25.3 388 0.91 0.74 85.7 86.4 0.71 21.6 22.3 299 96,216 96,515 33.1 2.56 1,348 99,453 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 20.9 25.6 255 0.78 0.42 85.7 86.1 0.39 21.6 22.0 — 79,451 79,451 2.79 2.71 7.60 80,334 Area 12.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 5,947 5,947 0.61 0.03 — 5,972 Water — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Total 33.9 29.4 256 0.80 0.73 85.7 86.4 0.70 21.6 22.3 299 85,449 85,748 33.4 2.85 1,062 88,494 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 20.4 19.6 214 0.58 0.33 59.3 59.6 0.30 15.0 15.3 — 59,333 59,333 2.44 2.17 89.9 60,131 Area 14.1 0.14 14.5 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 39.5 39.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 39.6 Energy 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 5,947 5,947 0.61 0.03 — 5,972 Water — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
16 / 86
Total 34.8 23.6 230 0.61 0.64 59.3 59.9 0.62 15.0 15.6 299 65,372 65,671 33.0 2.31 1,145 68,330 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.73 3.58 39.0 0.11 0.06 10.8 10.9 0.06 2.73 2.79 — 9,823 9,823 0.40 0.36 14.9 9,955 Area 2.58 0.03 2.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.54 6.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.56 Energy 0.04 0.70 0.32 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 985 985 0.10 0.01 — 989 Water — — — — — — — — — — 7.41 8.52 15.9 0.76 0.02 — 40.4 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 42.1 0.00 42.1 4.20 0.00 — 147 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 175 175
Total 6.35 4.31 42.0 0.11 0.12 10.8 10.9 0.11 2.73 2.84 49.5 10,823 10,873 5.47 0.38 190 11,313

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
17 / 86
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.87 0.83 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.09 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 207 207 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 210 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.89 5.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.97 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.98 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.99 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
18 / 86
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 5.11 5.11 — 2.63 2.63 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.87 0.83 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
19 / 86
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.09 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 207 207 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 210 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.89 5.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.97 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.98 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.99 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
20 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.31 2.85 2.71 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 633 633 0.03 0.01 — 635 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.88 0.88 — 0.35 0.35 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.06 0.52 0.50 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 105 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.16 0.16 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
21 / 86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.10 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 237 237 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 239 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 23.6 23.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 23.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.90 3.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.95 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.39 2.39 — 0.95 0.95 — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
22 / 86
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.31 2.85 2.71 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 633 633 0.03 0.01 — 635 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.23 0.23 — 0.09 0.09 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.06 0.52 0.50 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 105 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.10 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 237 237 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 239 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 23.6 23.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 23.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
23 / 86
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.90 3.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.95 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.67 6.17 7.71 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.23 — 0.23 — 1,417 1,417 0.06 0.01 — 1,422 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
24 / 86
Off-Road 0.12 1.13 1.41 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 235 235 0.01 < 0.005 — 235 Equipment
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.72 1.53 27.7 0.00 0.00 4.49 4.49 0.00 1.05 1.05 — 4,959 4,959 0.21 0.17 17.8 5,033 Vendor 0.06 2.14 0.71 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.54 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,881 1,881 0.02 0.28 5.17 1,970 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.50 1.86 19.0 0.00 0.00 4.49 4.49 0.00 1.05 1.05 — 4,349 4,349 0.09 0.17 0.46 4,403 Vendor 0.05 2.29 0.72 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.54 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,883 1,883 0.02 0.28 0.13 1,966 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.90 1.00 12.2 0.00 0.00 2.63 2.63 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,670 2,670 0.04 0.10 4.54 2,706 Vendor 0.03 1.33 0.42 0.01 0.02 0.30 0.31 0.02 0.08 0.10 — 1,112 1,112 0.01 0.16 1.32 1,163 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.18 2.23 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11 — 442 442 0.01 0.02 0.75 448 Vendor 0.01 0.24 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 184 184 < 0.005 0.03 0.22 193 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.6. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
25 / 86
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.67 6.17 7.71 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.23 — 0.23 — 1,417 1,417 0.06 0.01 — 1,422 Onsite
truck

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

0.12 1.13 1.41 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 235 235 0.01 < 0.005 — 235 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.72 1.53 27.7 0.00 0.00 4.49 4.49 0.00 1.05 1.05 — 4,959 4,959 0.21 0.17 17.8 5,033 Vendor 0.06 2.14 0.71 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.54 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,881 1,881 0.02 0.28 5.17 1,970 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
26 / 86
Worker 1.50 1.86 19.0 0.00 0.00 4.49 4.49 0.00 1.05 1.05 — 4,349 4,349 0.09 0.17 0.46 4,403 Vendor 0.05 2.29 0.72 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.54 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,883 1,883 0.02 0.28 0.13 1,966 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.90 1.00 12.2 0.00 0.00 2.63 2.63 0.00 0.61 0.61 — 2,670 2,670 0.04 0.10 4.54 2,706 Vendor 0.03 1.33 0.42 0.01 0.02 0.30 0.31 0.02 0.08 0.10 — 1,112 1,112 0.01 0.16 1.32 1,163 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.18 2.23 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11 — 442 442 0.01 0.02 0.75 448 Vendor 0.01 0.24 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 184 184 < 0.005 0.03 0.22 193 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
27 / 86
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.45 4.17 5.48 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 — 1,013 1,013 0.04 0.01 — 1,017 Onsite
truck

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

0.08 0.76 1.00 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 168 168 0.01 < 0.005 — 168 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.59 1.37 25.5 0.00 0.00 4.49 4.49 0.00 1.05 1.05 — 4,853 4,853 0.06 0.16 16.0 4,920 Vendor 0.06 2.05 0.66 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.54 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,844 1,844 0.02 0.26 4.79 1,928 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.41 1.69 17.4 0.00 0.00 4.49 4.49 0.00 1.05 1.05 — 4,258 4,258 0.08 0.17 0.42 4,312 Vendor 0.05 2.20 0.68 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.54 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,846 1,846 0.02 0.26 0.12 1,925 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.61 0.65 8.04 0.00 0.00 1.88 1.88 0.00 0.44 0.44 — 1,870 1,870 0.03 0.07 2.92 1,895 Vendor 0.02 0.91 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 780 780 0.01 0.11 0.87 814 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.12 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 310 310 0.01 0.01 0.48 314 Vendor < 0.005 0.17 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 129 129 < 0.005 0.02 0.14 135 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
28 / 86
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.45 4.17 5.48 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 — 1,013 1,013 0.04 0.01 — 1,017 Onsite
truck

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

0.08 0.76 1.00 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 168 168 0.01 < 0.005 — 168 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
29 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 1.59 1.37 25.5 0.00 0.00 4.49 4.49 0.00 1.05 1.05 — 4,853 4,853 0.06 0.16 16.0 4,920 Vendor 0.06 2.05 0.66 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.54 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,844 1,844 0.02 0.26 4.79 1,928 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.41 1.69 17.4 0.00 0.00 4.49 4.49 0.00 1.05 1.05 — 4,258 4,258 0.08 0.17 0.42 4,312 Vendor 0.05 2.20 0.68 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.54 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,846 1,846 0.02 0.26 0.12 1,925 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.61 0.65 8.04 0.00 0.00 1.88 1.88 0.00 0.44 0.44 — 1,870 1,870 0.03 0.07 2.92 1,895 Vendor 0.02 0.91 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 780 780 0.01 0.11 0.87 814 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.12 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 310 310 0.01 0.01 0.48 314 Vendor < 0.005 0.17 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 129 129 < 0.005 0.02 0.14 135 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
30 / 86
Paving 0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 198 198 < 0.005 0.01 0.65 201 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.89 9.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
31 / 86
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.64 1.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.10. Paving (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
32 / 86
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 198 198 < 0.005 0.01 0.65 201 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.89 9.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.64 1.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
33 / 86
Architect
Coatings
172 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coatings

9.43 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architect
ural
Coatings

1.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.27 5.10 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.21 0.21 — 971 971 0.01 0.03 3.20 984 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
34 / 86
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 48.5 48.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 49.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.02 8.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.12. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
172 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
35 / 86
Architect 9.43 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architect
ural
Coatings

1.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.27 5.10 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.21 0.21 — 971 971 0.01 0.03 3.20 984 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 48.5 48.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 49.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.02 8.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
36 / 86

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps

2.64 2.11 47.2 0.12 0.05 12.5 12.6 0.05 3.16 3.21 — 12,562 12,562 0.22 0.24 41.3 12,680 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)

0.98 0.56 11.1 0.03 0.01 2.67 2.68 0.01 0.67 0.68 — 2,710 2,710 0.07 0.06 8.81 2,739 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

7.51 6.01 134 0.35 0.14 35.7 35.8 0.13 8.99 9.12 — 35,719 35,719 0.63 0.68 118 36,055 Strip
Mall

1.50 1.22 26.7 0.07 0.03 7.11 7.14 0.03 1.79 1.82 — 7,131 7,131 0.13 0.14 23.4 7,199 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

11.2 11.4 138 0.31 0.19 27.7 27.9 0.18 7.00 7.18 — 32,016 32,016 1.45 1.30 102 32,541 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 23.8 21.2 357 0.89 0.42 85.7 86.1 0.39 21.6 22.0 — 90,138 90,138 2.50 2.42 293 91,213 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
37 / 86
Conveni
Market
with Gas
Pumps

2.35 2.62 32.4 0.11 0.05 12.5 12.6 0.05 3.16 3.21 — 10,984 10,984 0.26 0.28 1.07 11,074 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)

0.87 0.68 8.40 0.02 0.01 2.67 2.68 0.01 0.67 0.68 — 2,375 2,375 0.09 0.07 0.23 2,399 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

6.68 7.47 92.2 0.31 0.14 35.7 35.8 0.13 8.99 9.12 — 31,233 31,233 0.73 0.79 3.05 31,489 Strip
Mall

1.33 1.51 18.4 0.06 0.03 7.11 7.14 0.03 1.79 1.82 — 6,238 6,238 0.14 0.16 0.61 6,289 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

9.65 13.3 103 0.28 0.19 27.7 27.9 0.18 7.00 7.18 — 28,622 28,622 1.57 1.40 2.64 29,083 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 20.9 25.6 255 0.78 0.42 85.7 86.1 0.39 21.6 22.0 — 79,451 79,451 2.79 2.71 7.60 80,334 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps

0.40 0.24 3.34 0.01 < 0.005 0.92 0.93 < 0.005 0.23 0.24 — 788 788 0.03 0.02 1.21 797 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)

0.14 0.10 1.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.42 0.42 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 — 355 355 0.01 0.01 0.55 358 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

1.15 0.76 10.8 0.03 0.01 3.20 3.21 0.01 0.81 0.82 — 2,713 2,713 0.09 0.08 4.18 2,742 Strip
Mall

0.25 0.25 3.64 0.01 0.01 1.28 1.29 < 0.005 0.32 0.33 — 1,074 1,074 0.02 0.02 1.68 1,083 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
38 / 86
Apartme 1.80 2.25 19.8 0.05 0.03 5.00 5.03 0.03 1.26 1.30 — 4,894 4,894 0.25 0.22 7.29 4,974 nts
Low Rise
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 3.73 3.58 39.0 0.11 0.06 10.8 10.9 0.06 2.73 2.79 — 9,823 9,823 0.40 0.36 14.9 9,955

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps

2.64 2.11 47.2 0.12 0.05 12.5 12.6 0.05 3.16 3.21 — 12,562 12,562 0.22 0.24 41.3 12,680 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)

0.98 0.56 11.1 0.03 0.01 2.67 2.68 0.01 0.67 0.68 — 2,710 2,710 0.07 0.06 8.81 2,739 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

7.51 6.01 134 0.35 0.14 35.7 35.8 0.13 8.99 9.12 — 35,719 35,719 0.63 0.68 118 36,055 Strip
Mall

1.50 1.22 26.7 0.07 0.03 7.11 7.14 0.03 1.79 1.82 — 7,131 7,131 0.13 0.14 23.4 7,199 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

11.2 11.4 138 0.31 0.19 27.7 27.9 0.18 7.00 7.18 — 32,016 32,016 1.45 1.30 102 32,541 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 23.8 21.2 357 0.89 0.42 85.7 86.1 0.39 21.6 22.0 — 90,138 90,138 2.50 2.42 293 91,213 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
39 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps

2.35 2.62 32.4 0.11 0.05 12.5 12.6 0.05 3.16 3.21 — 10,984 10,984 0.26 0.28 1.07 11,074 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)

0.87 0.68 8.40 0.02 0.01 2.67 2.68 0.01 0.67 0.68 — 2,375 2,375 0.09 0.07 0.23 2,399 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

6.68 7.47 92.2 0.31 0.14 35.7 35.8 0.13 8.99 9.12 — 31,233 31,233 0.73 0.79 3.05 31,489 Strip
Mall

1.33 1.51 18.4 0.06 0.03 7.11 7.14 0.03 1.79 1.82 — 6,238 6,238 0.14 0.16 0.61 6,289 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

9.65 13.3 103 0.28 0.19 27.7 27.9 0.18 7.00 7.18 — 28,622 28,622 1.57 1.40 2.64 29,083 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 20.9 25.6 255 0.78 0.42 85.7 86.1 0.39 21.6 22.0 — 79,451 79,451 2.79 2.71 7.60 80,334 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps

0.40 0.24 3.34 0.01 < 0.005 0.92 0.93 < 0.005 0.23 0.24 — 788 788 0.03 0.02 1.21 797 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)

0.14 0.10 1.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.42 0.42 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 — 355 355 0.01 0.01 0.55 358 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

1.15 0.76 10.8 0.03 0.01 3.20 3.21 0.01 0.81 0.82 — 2,713 2,713 0.09 0.08 4.18 2,742 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
40 / 86
Strip
Mall

0.25 0.25 3.64 0.01 0.01 1.28 1.29 < 0.005 0.32 0.33 — 1,074 1,074 0.02 0.02 1.68 1,083 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

1.80 2.25 19.8 0.05 0.03 5.00 5.03 0.03 1.26 1.30 — 4,894 4,894 0.25 0.22 7.29 4,974 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 3.73 3.58 39.0 0.11 0.06 10.8 10.9 0.06 2.73 2.79 — 9,823 9,823 0.40 0.36 14.9 9,955

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — 165 165 0.03 < 0.005 — 166
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — 27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.1
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 161 161 0.03 < 0.005 — 163
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 51.0 51.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 51.5
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,371 1,371 0.22 0.03 — 1,384
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
41 / 86
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 34.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 34.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,810 1,810 0.29 0.04 — 1,828 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — 165 165 0.03 < 0.005 — 166
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — 27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.1
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 161 161 0.03 < 0.005 — 163
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 51.0 51.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 51.5
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,371 1,371 0.22 0.03 — 1,384
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 34.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 34.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,810 1,810 0.29 0.04 — 1,828 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — 27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.5
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.61 4.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.66
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
42 / 86
Fast — — — — — — — — — — — 26.7 26.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.45 8.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.53
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 227 227 0.04 < 0.005 — 229
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.69 5.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.74
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 300 300 0.05 0.01 — 303

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — 165 165 0.03 < 0.005 — 166
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — 27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.1
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 161 161 0.03 < 0.005 — 163
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 51.0 51.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 51.5
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
43 / 86
Apartme
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 692 692 0.11 0.01 — 699
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 34.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 34.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,131 1,131 0.18 0.02 — 1,142 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — 165 165 0.03 < 0.005 — 166
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — 27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.1
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 161 161 0.03 < 0.005 — 163
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 51.0 51.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 51.5
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 692 692 0.11 0.01 — 699
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 34.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 34.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,131 1,131 0.18 0.02 — 1,142 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — 27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.5
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
44 / 86
Bank — — — — — — — — — — — 4.61 4.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.66 (with
Drive-Through)
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 26.7 26.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.45 8.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.53
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 115 115 0.02 < 0.005 — 116
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.69 5.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.74
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 187 187 0.03 < 0.005 — 189

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 53.7 53.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.8 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
< 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 55.2 55.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.3 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.01 0.22 0.18 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 259 259 0.02 < 0.005 — 259 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
45 / 86
Strip
Mall
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.1 27.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.2 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.20 3.48 1.48 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 4,422 4,422 0.39 0.01 — 4,434 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 4,816 4,816 0.43 0.01 — 4,830 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 53.7 53.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.8 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
< 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 55.2 55.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.3 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.01 0.22 0.18 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 259 259 0.02 < 0.005 — 259 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.1 27.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.2 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.20 3.48 1.48 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 4,422 4,422 0.39 0.01 — 4,434 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 4,816 4,816 0.43 0.01 — 4,830 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
46 / 86
Conveni < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.89 8.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.91 ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.13 9.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.16 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
< 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 42.8 42.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.9 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.49 4.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.51 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.04 0.64 0.27 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 732 732 0.06 < 0.005 — 734 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.04 0.70 0.32 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 797 797 0.07 < 0.005 — 800

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 53.7 53.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.8 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
< 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 55.2 55.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.3 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
47 / 86
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.01 0.22 0.18 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 259 259 0.02 < 0.005 — 259 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.1 27.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.2 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.20 3.48 1.48 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 4,422 4,422 0.39 0.01 — 4,434 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 4,816 4,816 0.43 0.01 — 4,830 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 53.7 53.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.8 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
< 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 55.2 55.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.3 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.01 0.22 0.18 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 259 259 0.02 < 0.005 — 259 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.1 27.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.2 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.20 3.48 1.48 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 4,422 4,422 0.39 0.01 — 4,434 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.22 3.81 1.76 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 4,816 4,816 0.43 0.01 — 4,830 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
48 / 86
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.89 8.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.91 Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.13 9.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.16 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
< 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 42.8 42.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.9 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.49 4.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.51 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.04 0.64 0.27 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 732 732 0.06 < 0.005 — 734 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.04 0.70 0.32 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 797 797 0.07 < 0.005 — 800

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products

11.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
49 / 86
Architect
Coatings

0.94 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

2.68 0.28 29.4 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 80.0 80.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.3 Total 15.5 0.28 29.4 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 80.0 80.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products

11.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.94 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 12.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products

2.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.24 0.03 2.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.54 6.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.56 Total 2.58 0.03 2.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.54 6.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.56

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
50 / 86
Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products

11.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.94 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

2.68 0.28 29.4 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 80.0 80.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.3 Total 15.5 0.28 29.4 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 80.0 80.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products

11.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.94 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 12.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products

2.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
51 / 86
Landsca
Equipment

0.24 0.03 2.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.54 6.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.56 Total 2.58 0.03 2.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.54 6.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.56

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 0.71 0.82 1.53 0.07 < 0.005 — 3.88
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 0.32 0.37 0.69 0.03 < 0.005 — 1.74
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 3.75 4.31 8.07 0.39 0.01 — 20.5
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 1.23 1.41 2.64 0.13 < 0.005 — 6.69
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 38.8 44.5 83.3 3.98 0.10 — 211
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
52 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 0.71 0.82 1.53 0.07 < 0.005 — 3.88
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 0.32 0.37 0.69 0.03 < 0.005 — 1.74
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 3.75 4.31 8.07 0.39 0.01 — 20.5
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 1.23 1.41 2.64 0.13 < 0.005 — 6.69
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 38.8 44.5 83.3 3.98 0.10 — 211
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.14 0.25 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.64
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.29
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 0.62 0.71 1.34 0.06 < 0.005 — 3.39
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
53 / 86
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.23 0.44 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.11
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 6.42 7.37 13.8 0.66 0.02 — 35.0
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 7.41 8.52 15.9 0.76 0.02 — 40.4

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 0.71 0.82 1.53 0.07 < 0.005 — 3.88
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 0.32 0.37 0.69 0.03 < 0.005 — 1.74
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 3.75 4.31 8.07 0.39 0.01 — 20.5
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 1.23 1.41 2.64 0.13 < 0.005 — 6.69
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 38.8 44.5 83.3 3.98 0.10 — 211
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
54 / 86
Total — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 0.71 0.82 1.53 0.07 < 0.005 — 3.88
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 0.32 0.37 0.69 0.03 < 0.005 — 1.74
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 3.75 4.31 8.07 0.39 0.01 — 20.5
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 1.23 1.41 2.64 0.13 < 0.005 — 6.69
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 38.8 44.5 83.3 3.98 0.10 — 211
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 51.4 96.2 4.60 0.11 — 244 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.14 0.25 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.64
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.29
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
55 / 86
Fast — — — — — — — — — — 0.62 0.71 1.34 0.06 < 0.005 — 3.39 Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.23 0.44 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.11
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 6.42 7.37 13.8 0.66 0.02 — 35.0
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 7.41 8.52 15.9 0.76 0.02 — 40.4

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 8.13 0.00 8.13 0.81 0.00 — 28.4
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 2.11 0.00 2.11 0.21 0.00 — 7.39
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 40.1 0.00 40.1 4.01 0.00 — 140
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
56 / 86
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 4.89 0.00 4.89 0.49 0.00 — 17.1
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 199 0.00 199 19.9 0.00 — 696
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 8.13 0.00 8.13 0.81 0.00 — 28.4
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 2.11 0.00 2.11 0.21 0.00 — 7.39
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 40.1 0.00 40.1 4.01 0.00 — 140
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 4.89 0.00 4.89 0.49 0.00 — 17.1
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 199 0.00 199 19.9 0.00 — 696
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
57 / 86
Conveni — — — — — — — — — — 1.35 0.00 1.35 0.13 0.00 — 4.71 ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.03 0.00 — 1.22
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 6.63 0.00 6.63 0.66 0.00 — 23.2
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.81 0.00 0.81 0.08 0.00 — 2.83
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 32.9 0.00 32.9 3.29 0.00 — 115
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 42.1 0.00 42.1 4.20 0.00 — 147

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 8.13 0.00 8.13 0.81 0.00 — 28.4
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 2.11 0.00 2.11 0.21 0.00 — 7.39
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
58 / 86
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 40.1 0.00 40.1 4.01 0.00 — 140
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 4.89 0.00 4.89 0.49 0.00 — 17.1
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 199 0.00 199 19.9 0.00 — 696
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 8.13 0.00 8.13 0.81 0.00 — 28.4
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 2.11 0.00 2.11 0.21 0.00 — 7.39
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 40.1 0.00 40.1 4.01 0.00 — 140
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 4.89 0.00 4.89 0.49 0.00 — 17.1
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 199 0.00 199 19.9 0.00 — 696
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 254 0.00 254 25.4 0.00 — 889
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
59 / 86
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — 1.35 0.00 1.35 0.13 0.00 — 4.71
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.03 0.00 — 1.22
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 6.63 0.00 6.63 0.66 0.00 — 23.2
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.81 0.00 0.81 0.08 0.00 — 2.83
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 32.9 0.00 32.9 3.29 0.00 — 115
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 42.1 0.00 42.1 4.20 0.00 — 147

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
60 / 86
Conveni — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,041 1,041
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.1 10.1
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.79 3.79
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,041 1,041
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.1 10.1
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
61 / 86
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.79 3.79
nts
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 172 172
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.67 1.67
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.63 0.63
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 175 175

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,041 1,041
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
62 / 86
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.1 10.1
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.79 3.79
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Conveni
ence
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,041 1,041
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.1 10.1
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.79 3.79
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,055 1,055
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
63 / 86
Conveni
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 172 172
Bank
(with
Drive-Through)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.67 1.67
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.63 0.63
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 175 175

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
64 / 86
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
65 / 86
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
66 / 86
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
67 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
68 / 86
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
69 / 86
Vegetatio ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e n
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
70 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
71 / 86
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2025 1/14/2025 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 1/15/2025 3/4/2025 5.00 35.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/5/2025 8/4/2026 5.00 370 — Paving Paving 8/5/2026 9/1/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/2/2026 9/29/2026 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
72 / 86
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
73 / 86

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 368 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 57.3 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 73.5 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
74 / 86
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 368 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 57.3 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 73.5 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
75 / 86
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 1,071,104 357,035 36,485 12,162 4,211

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 15.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 105 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.61

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 0.00 0%
Bank (with Drive-Through) 0.00 0%
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 0.00 0%
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 0.00 0%
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
76 / 86
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
Apartments Low Rise — 0%
Parking Lot 1.61 100%

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

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps
1,061 1,061 1,061 387,417 3,095 18,082 18,082 2,692,580 Bank (with
Drive-Through)
420 363 134 135,471 3,622 3,850 1,423 1,219,328
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
1,496 1,496 1,496 546,017 7,546 25,485 25,485 4,624,977 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
1,522 1,522 1,522 555,401 7,675 25,923 25,923 4,704,468 Strip Mall 250 250 250 91,354 4,264 4,264 4,264 1,556,327 Strip Mall 351 351 351 128,099 5,979 5,979 5,979 2,182,316 Apartments Low
Rise
3,274 3,274 3,274 1,195,006 39,520 39,520 39,520 14,424,795 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
77 / 86

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps
1,061 1,061 1,061 387,417 3,095 18,082 18,082 2,692,580 Bank (with
Drive-Through)
420 363 134 135,471 3,622 3,850 1,423 1,219,328
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
1,496 1,496 1,496 546,017 7,546 25,485 25,485 4,624,977 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
1,522 1,522 1,522 555,401 7,675 25,923 25,923 4,704,468 Strip Mall 250 250 250 91,354 4,264 4,264 4,264 1,556,327 Strip Mall 351 351 351 128,099 5,979 5,979 5,979 2,182,316 Apartments Low
Rise
3,274 3,274 3,274 1,195,006 39,520 39,520 39,520 14,424,795 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Low Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
78 / 86
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Low Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
1071103.5 357,035 36,485 12,162 4,211

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
79 / 86

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

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Convenience Market with Gas
Pumps
294,467 204 0.0330 0.0040 167,464
Bank (with Drive-Through) 49,829 204 0.0330 0.0040 172,084 Fast Food Restaurant with
Drive Thru
142,986 204 0.0330 0.0040 400,108
Fast Food Restaurant with
Drive Thru
145,444 204 0.0330 0.0040 406,985
Strip Mall 38,016 204 0.0330 0.0040 35,252
Strip Mall 53,307 204 0.0330 0.0040 49,432
Apartments Low Rise 2,452,533 204 0.0330 0.0040 13,797,089 Parking Lot 61,473 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Convenience Market with Gas
Pumps
294,467 204 0.0330 0.0040 167,464
Bank (with Drive-Through) 49,829 204 0.0330 0.0040 172,084 McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
80 / 86
Fast Food Restaurant with 142,986 204 0.0330 0.0040 400,108 Drive Thru
Fast Food Restaurant with
Drive Thru
145,444 204 0.0330 0.0040 406,985
Strip Mall 38,016 204 0.0330 0.0040 35,252
Strip Mall 53,307 204 0.0330 0.0040 49,432
Apartments Low Rise 1,238,300 204 0.0330 0.0040 13,797,089 Parking Lot 61,473 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 371,844 0.00
Bank (with Drive-Through) 166,416 0.00
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 971,308 0.00
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 988,002 0.00
Strip Mall 266,661 0.00
Strip Mall 373,918 0.00
Apartments Low Rise 20,233,377 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 371,844 0.00
Bank (with Drive-Through) 166,416 0.00
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 971,308 0.00
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 988,002 0.00
Strip Mall 266,661 0.00
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
81 / 86
Strip Mall 373,918 0.00
Apartments Low Rise 20,233,377 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 15.1 —
Bank (with Drive-Through) 3.92 —
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 36.9 —
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 37.5 —
Strip Mall 3.78 —
Strip Mall 5.30 —
Apartments Low Rise 369 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 15.1 —
Bank (with Drive-Through) 3.92 —
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 36.9 —
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 37.5 —
Strip Mall 3.78 —
Strip Mall 5.30 —
Apartments Low Rise 369 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
82 / 86

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps
Supermarket
refrigeration and
condensing units
R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0
Bank (with
Drive-Through)
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Bank (with
Drive-Through)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
83 / 86
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps
Supermarket
refrigeration and
condensing units
R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0
Bank (with
Drive-Through)
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Bank (with
Drive-Through)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
84 / 86
Fast Food Restaurant R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
with Drive Thru
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

5.15.2. Mitigated
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
85 / 86
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

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

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
McIntosh Tash/Ashe Custom Report, 10/22/2024
86 / 86

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Operations: Vehicle Data Rates and lengths were replaced according to the traffic study conducted by Ruettgers & Schuler, civil engineers.

Operations: Fleet Mix District accepted fleet mix for residential projects - 2026 operational year. Commercial (excluding parking and the bank) fleet mix is adjusted on the R&S project traffic study and predicted truck trips per the applicant.

Land Use Residential Lot Acreage is scaled to reflect the site map dimensions. Commercial Lot Acreages (excluding parking) scaled to reflect site map acreage of 6.36 AC.

Construction: Construction Phases No proposed demolition.

Operations: Hearths Per the project applicant, there are no proposed hearths.

Project: Taft-Ashe
Key
value
value
Weekly Trips
Land Use Type # of Size Unit Total Weekly2
Trips
Total Annual
Trips
Fast Food (3,255 SF) 3.255 10,652 555,402
Fast Food (3,200 SF) 3.200 10,472 546,017
Multi-Tentant (5,048 SF) 5.048 2,457 128,099
Multi-Tentant (3,600 SF) 3.600 1,752 91,354
C-Store (5,020 SF) 16.000 23,681 1,234,796
Bank (4,200 SF) 3 4.200 2,598 135,470
Future Residential (499 Dwell) 499.000 22,918 1,195,011

1. ADT Rate per R&S Traffic Study.

2. Total Weekly Trips = [(Trip Rateweekday x 5) + Trip RateSaturday + Trip RateSunday] * Land Usei

3. Default CalEEMod Inputs. A traffic study was not performed on this land use type.

Default Average Trip Length
H-W H-S H-O H-W W-O O-O Primary Diverted Passby
Fast Food (3,255 SF) 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 14.5 7.9 27% 24% 50% Fast Food (3,200 SF) 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 14.5 7.9 27% 24% 50% Multi-Tentant (5,048 SF) 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 14.5 7.9 100% 0% 0% Multi-Tentant (3,600 SF) 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 14.5 7.9 100% 0% 0% C-Store (5,020 SF) 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 14.5 7.9 14% 21% 65% Bank (4,200 SF) 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 14.5 7.9 48% 22% 30%
Future Residential (499 Dwell) 17.1 6.6 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100% 0% 0%