Agenda, regular meeting, second session — Bakersfield City Council, September 16, 2026 (part 4 of 6)

EXHIBIT B
Docusign Envelope ID: 3C3E42A3-0952-825B-8284-A4D390D5098C Please note that this document is a SOW and not an invoice. Upon signing and submitting this SOW, Client will receive the applicable invoice according to the terms of the invoicing schedule outlined herein.

Client may issue purchase orders for its internal, administrative use only, and not to impose any contractual terms. Any terms contained in any such purchase orders issued by the Client are considered null and will not alter the Binding Terms, the Agreement or this SOW.

Page
2 of 3

EXHIBIT B
Docusign Envelope ID: 3C3E42A3-0952-825B-8284-A4D390D5098C Acceptance of Quote # Q-128068-1
The undersigned acknowledges having read, understood, and agreed to be bound by the binding terms and conditions incorporated into this SOW. This SOW shall become effective as of the date of the last signature below (“Effective Date”).

For CivicPlus Billing Information, please visit https://www.civicplus.com/verify/ Authorized Client Signature CivicPlus
___________________________________
By (please sign):
___________________________________
By (please sign):
___________________________________
Printed Name:
___________________________________
Printed Name:
___________________________________
Title:
___________________________________
Title:
___________________________________
Date:
___________________________________
Date:
___________________________________
Organization Legal Name:
___________________________________
Billing Contact:
___________________________________
Title:
___________________________________
Billing Phone Number:
___________________________________
Billing Email:
___________________________________
Billing Address:
___________________________________
Mailing Address: (If different from above)
___________________________________
PO Number: (Info needed on Invoice (PO or Job#) if
required)
Page
3 of 3

EXHIBIT B
Docusign Envelope ID: 3C3E42A3-0952-825B-8284-A4D390D5098C Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 3C3E42A3-0952-825B-8284-A4D390D5098C
Status: Completed
Subject: Complete with Docusign: Amend 2 to Agr 2025-067 - FINAL_.pdf Source Envelope:

Document Pages: 6
Signatures: 2
Envelope Originator:

Certificate Pages: 5
Initials: 1
City Clerk's Office
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
[email protected]
IP Address: 174.46.226.5
Record Tracking
Status: Original
8/12/2026 2:18:52 PM
Holder: City Clerk's Office
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Security Appliance Status: Connected
Pool: StateLocal
Signer Events
Signature
Timestamp
Amy Vikander
[email protected]
SVP of Customer Success
CivicPlus, LLC
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 99.97.144.29
Sent: 8/18/2026 9:49:12 AM
Viewed: 8/18/2026 10:28:02 AM
Signed: 8/18/2026 12:06:18 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Accepted: 8/18/2026 10:28:02 AM
ID: eb01823f-fc18-4b59-aa27-2acb79181ba2
Gregory Pronovost
[email protected]
Technology Services Director
City of Bakersfield, Technology Services Department
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 174.46.226.5
Sent: 8/18/2026 12:06:19 PM
Viewed: 8/18/2026 1:46:59 PM
Signed: 8/18/2026 1:47:09 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Accepted: 8/18/2026 1:46:59 PM
ID: 20b4aef4-443a-418e-8fa9-a575e064ea19
Jena Covey
[email protected]

RISK MANAGER
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)

Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 174.46.226.5
Sent: 8/18/2026 1:47:10 PM
Viewed: 8/24/2026 7:27:52 AM
Signed: 8/24/2026 7:29:47 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Accepted: 8/24/2026 7:27:52 AM
ID: 822dcc73-4b00-4e30-ab9f-320487852b5f
In Person Signer Events
Signature
Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp

Carbon Copy Events
Status
Timestamp
Jake Andrade
[email protected]
SVP of Customer Success
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 8/18/2026 9:49:13 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Accepted: 8/18/2026 8:29:13 AM
ID: c35a3155-2d1e-4a1c-8000-8e9b5601b332
Witness Events
Signature
Timestamp
Notary Events
Signature
Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events
Status
Timestamps
Envelope Sent
Hashed/Encrypted
8/12/2026 2:21:20 PM
Certified Delivered
Security Checked
8/24/2026 7:27:52 AM
Signing Complete
Security Checked
8/24/2026 7:29:47 AM
Completed
Security Checked
8/24/2026 7:29:47 AM
Payment Events
Status
Timestamps
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure

ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE
From time to time, City of Bakersfield (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through the DocuSign system.

Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure (ERSD), please confirm your agreement by selecting the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’ before clicking ‘CONTINUE’ within the DocuSign system.

Getting paper copies
At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. You will have the ability to download and print documents we send to you through the DocuSign system during and immediately after the signing session and, if you elect to create a DocuSign account, you may access the documents for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below.

Withdrawing your consent
If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below.

Consequences of changing your mind
If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. Further, you will no longer be able to use the DocuSign system to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us.

All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 6/28/2022 10:51:05 AM Parties agreed to: Amy Vikander, Gregory Pronovost, Jena Covey, Jake Andrade Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through the DocuSign system all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us.

How to contact City of Bakersfield:

You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows:

To contact us by email send messages to: [email protected]

To advise City of Bakersfield of your new email address To let us know of a change in your email address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state: your previous email address, your new email address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.

If you created a DocuSign account, you may update it with your new email address through your account preferences.

To request paper copies from City of Bakersfield
To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an email to [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state your email address, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any.

To withdraw your consent with City of Bakersfield
To inform us that you no longer wish to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may:
i. decline to sign a document from within your signing session, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an email to [email protected] and in the body of such request you must state your email, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process..

Required hardware and software
The minimum system requirements for using the DocuSign system may change over time. The current system requirements are found here: https://support.docusign.com/guides/signer-guide- signing-system-requirements.

Acknowledging your access and consent to receive and sign documents electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please confirm that you have read this ERSD, and (i) that you are able to print on paper or electronically save this ERSD for your future reference and access; or (ii) that you are able to email this ERSD to an email address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format as described herein, then select the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’ before clicking ‘CONTINUE’ within the DocuSign system.

By selecting the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’, you confirm that:
 You can access and read this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure; and  You can print on paper this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure, or save or send this Electronic Record and Disclosure to a location where you can print it, for future reference and access; and
 Until or unless you notify City of Bakersfield as described above, you consent to receive exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you by City of Bakersfield during the course of your relationship with City of Bakersfield.

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: September 16, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Gregory Pronovost, Technology Services Director
DATE: September 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to agreement No. 2025-158 with NearMap US Inc (to include a NearMap Widget) for a cloud-based, high-resolution aerial imagery subscription services for GIS mapping and analysis.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of this agreement.

BACKGROUND:

Nearmap US, Inc. provides cloud -based, high-resolution aerial imagery subscription services for GIS mapping and analysis. This allows for easy integration into applications and provides detailed, up-to- date location intelligence for all the city's departments, including Public Safety. Using Nearmap imagery is an efficient and cost -effective approach for providing the most accurate and up -to-date imagery when compared against the cost and time required to purchase annual aerial photography flown by a private party.

This amendment reflects a change to the scope of work and attached exhibits, providing access to new features available in the system. There is no change to terms or compensation.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funding for this purchase is allocated for Fiscal Year 2026-27 and paid for within the Equipment Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Innovative and Efficient City Government

ATTACHMENTS:

Amendment

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: September 16, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Gregory Pronovost, Technology services Director
DATE: September 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-099 with Miller Mendel, Inc (due to being acquired by NeoGov) for electronic Statement of Personal History (“eSOPH”) software which provides assistance with pre-employment background investigations for the Bakersfield Police Department

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of this agreement.

BACKGROUND:

Pre-employment background investigations require time and staff resources to conduct and are required for all candidates wishing to enter the Bakersfield Police Department academy, as well as a condition of employment for various other positions throughout the City organization. Miller Mendel provides a web- based electronic Statement of Personal History software (“eSOPH”) developed to assist with pre - employment background investigations. On April 14, 2022, the City of Bakersfield and Miller Mendel, Inc. entered into Agreement No HR22 -006 for the use of e SOPH to help in streamlining pre -employment background Investigations, making the process more efficient, and onboarding candidates in a more timely manner. In 2025 the parties agreed to an additional 3 years for the continued use fo the software by the Bakersfield Police Department.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This action does not change the costs or have the need for additional funding for this contract. It’s only a name change on the agreement. This purpose of this amendment is solely to change the supplier from Miller Mendel to NeoGov as NeoGov acquired Miller Mendel Inv. There will be no change in compensation due to the amendment.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Innovative and Efficient City Government

ATTACHMENTS:

Amended Agreement

AGREEMENT NO. __________________

AMENDMENT NO. [1] TO
AGREEMENT NO. 2025-099

This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 2025-099 is made and entered into on ________________, by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation (referred to herein as “CITY”), and GOVERNMENTJOBS.COM, INC dba NEOGOV a corporation authorized to do business in California (referred to herein as “PROVIDER”).

R E C I T A L S

WHEREAS, On June 25, 2025, CITY entered into Agreement No. 2025-099 with Miller Mendel Inc . for a five (5) year subscription to PROVIDER’s electronic Statement of Personal History (“eSOPH”) software which provides assistance with pre-employment background investigations for the Bakersfield Police Department; and

WHEREAS, In April 2026, Miller Mendel Inc. was acquired by PROVIDER and PROVIDER assumed all obligations and liabilities of Agreement No. 2025-099; and

WHEREAS, CITY and PROVIDER have agreed to continue to provide the products and perform the Scope of Work set forth in the Agreement, and C ITY desires to accept such assumption and assignment,

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

1. It is understood by both parties that all references to Miller Mendel Inc, as used throughout Agreement No. 2025 -099, including all Exhibits, shall refer to and be understood as NeoGov. PROVIDER warrants and agrees that all provisions of Agreement No. 2025 -099 are in full force and effect, and PROVIDER accepts and assumes the assignment of the Agreement and all contemplated obligations and liabilities from and after the effective date of the Agreement.

2. Except as amended herein, all provisions of Agreement No. 2025-099 shall remain in full force and effect.

-- o0o –

[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-099 to be executed the day and year first above written.

Docusign Envelope ID: D6F1700E-5ED7-8174-81C2-D4BF871F9FC5

“CITY” “PROVIDER”

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD GOVERNMENTJOBS.COM, INC
dba NEOGOV

By:____________________________ By:_________________________________

KAREN GOH
Mayor Print Name: ________________________

Title:___________________________
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

TECHNOLOGY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

By:____________________________

GREGORY PRONOVOST
Technology Services Director

APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTERSIGNED:

(Deputy) City Attorney:_______________________ Finance Director: _____________________

ASHLEY ZAMBRANO RANDY MCKEEGAN
Docusign Envelope ID: D6F1700E-5ED7-8174-81C2-D4BF871F9FC5 Amy Prins
Director of Customer Renewals

Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: D6F1700E-5ED7-8174-81C2-D4BF871F9FC5
Status: Completed
Subject: Complete with Docusign: NeoGov fka Miller Mendel- Amendment- FINAL.pdf Source Envelope:

Document Pages: 2
Signatures: 2
Envelope Originator:

Certificate Pages: 5
Initials: 0
City Clerk's Office
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
[email protected]
IP Address: 174.46.226.5
Record Tracking
Status: Original
9/3/2026 8:45:45 AM
Holder: City Clerk's Office
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Security Appliance Status: Connected
Pool: StateLocal
Signer Events
Signature
Timestamp
Amy Prins
[email protected]
Director of Customer Renewals
Governmentjobs.com, Inc dba NEOGOV
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address:
2601:248:487e:3cf0:9dda:aba2:9442:5fb2
Sent: 9/3/2026 8:47:24 AM
Viewed: 9/3/2026 10:34:28 AM
Signed: 9/3/2026 10:35:28 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Accepted: 7/23/2024 11:57:29 AM
ID: a0c97f7a-b373-44e5-a9e4-861581b0e04d
Gregory Pronovost
[email protected]
Technology Services Director
City of Bakersfield, Technology Services Department
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 174.46.226.5
Sent: 9/3/2026 10:35:29 AM
Viewed: 9/3/2026 2:43:34 PM
Signed: 9/3/2026 2:43:41 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Accepted: 9/3/2026 2:43:34 PM
ID: 92727b31-0871-41d2-8aaf-128ab99a31fa
In Person Signer Events
Signature
Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events
Status
Timestamp
Witness Events
Signature
Timestamp
Notary Events
Signature
Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events
Status
Timestamps
Envelope Sent
Hashed/Encrypted
9/3/2026 8:47:24 AM

Envelope Summary Events
Status
Timestamps
Certified Delivered
Security Checked
9/3/2026 2:43:34 PM
Signing Complete
Security Checked
9/3/2026 2:43:41 PM
Completed
Security Checked
9/3/2026 2:43:41 PM
Payment Events
Status
Timestamps
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure

All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 6/28/2022 10:51:05 AM Parties agreed to: Amy Prins, Gregory Pronovost
Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through the DocuSign system all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us.

How to contact City of Bakersfield:

To contact us by email send messages to: [email protected]

If you created a DocuSign account, you may update it with your new email address through your account preferences.

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: September 16, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Evette Roldan, Assistant Water Director
DATE: September 1, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-191 with M & M Landscape and Concrete (extend the term by one year and increase compensation by $150,000; revised not to exceed $300,000) to provide landscape services for the Wastewater Division.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of amendment.

BACKGROUND:

Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 3 (Plant 3) has landscaped areas that require maintenance services beyond the limits of available staff. These services include, but are not limited to, maintenance of trees, shrubs, ground cover, and turf areas; weed control; debris removal; and landscape-related repairs.

On October 8, 2025, City entered into Agreement No. 2025-191 with M & M Landscape and Concrete (M & M) to provide landscape services for the Wastewater Division. M & M was selected through a formal Request for Qualification and Proposals (RFQ/P) process and was awarded an initial one -year contract.

Since the agreement was awarded, M & M has provided weekly landscape maintenance services at Plant 3, realigned bent trees, replaced the master control valve serving the Plant 3 landscape irrigation system, and repaired a 6-inch main irrigation line from the tertiary tank to the master control valve.

At this time, due to the continued need for landscape maintenance services to support proper facility operations and maintain the facility grounds of Plant 3, staff recommend extending the term by one year and increasing compensation by $150,000, for a revised total not to exceed $300,000. This adjustment is in accordance with the original Agreement and will allow the Wastewater Division to continue addressing routine landscape maintenance, emergency repairs, and necessary irrigation system improvements without interruption to service.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are budgeted in the Sewer Enterprise Fund for this a mendment, 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 13, 2026

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: September 16, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Randy McKeegan, Finance Director
DATE: September 1, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025 -192 with AAA Oil, Inc. dba California Fuels & Lubricants

(Increasing by $3,000,000; revised not to exceed $5,623,000 and extending the term by one year) to continue gasoline and diesel fuel supply and delivery services.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of the agreement.

BACKGROUND:

On October 5, 2022, the City Council approved the annual contract for gasoline and diesel fuel supply and delivery services with AAA Oil, Inc., dba California Fuels & Lubricants, renewable annually thereafter for four (4) consecutive one -year periods upon mutually agreeable terms. The Agreement was mutually extended by the parties over the following years; however, it inadvertently expired on October 4, 2025.

To avoid any interruption in service, the City Council approved Agreement No. 2025 -192 with AAA Oil, Inc., dba California Fuels & Lubricants, on October 8, 2025, with services effective as of Oc tober 5, 2025.

The new agreement was entered into under the City's existing properly procured agreement allowing the services to continue as though the prior agreement had not expired. This provided for uninterrupted gasoline and diesel fuel supply and delivery services to the City.

FISCAL IMPACT:

If approved, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-192 will increase the contract by $3,000,000 for a revised not-to-exceed amount to $5,623,000 allowing the continuance of gasoline and diesel fuel supply and delivery services.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2025-192

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

(increase by $830,000; revised not to exceed $1,617,756.90 and extend the term by one year) to continue the supply of refuse and recycling carts.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of the amendment.

BACKGROUND:

On October 8, 2025, the City Council approved the annual contract for refuse and recycling carts with Toter, LLC, in the amount of $787,756.90; renewable annually thereafter for four (4) 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.

The Solid Waste Division w ithin the Public Works Department is responsible for refuse collection within the City. This includes the deployment, replacement and repair of rationally molded containers provided to residential customers for general refuse, recycling and green waste curbside collection.

Toter, LLC, has agreed to extend its bid pricing with a five percent (5%) increase in contract prices, consistent with the increases reflected in the U.S. Department of Labor Producer Price Index, Series ID PCU3252113252111 for Plastics Material, Resin Manufacturing, and Thermoplastic Resins. Staff have previously reviewed and approved the requested price adjustment, which is permissible pursuant to the terms and conditions of the original bid specifications.

If approved, Amendment No. 1 will increase the contract compensation by $830,000, bringing the total not-to-exceed amount to $1,617,756.90 and extend the term by one year, allowing for the continued supply of refuse and recycling carts through the contract term expiring on October 7, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient Funds are budgeted in the Refuse Enterprise Fund for this contract, therefore this has no impact on the City’s General Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Signed Amendment

2. Exhibit A

EXHIBIT A
Annual Contract for Refuse and Recycling
Carts - Rate Sheet
Bid No. 25-26-04

ITEM DESCRIPTION
ANNUAL
QTY
UNIT
PRICE

EXTENDED
PRICE
Increase
by
amount
New Unit
Price
1 Refuse Container - Large, Round 90-105 Gallons
Color: Black 3,000 63.28 189,840.00 3.164 66.44
2 Green Waste Container
No vent, No Bottom Grate
Large, round 90-105 Gallons
Color: Green 5,500 63.28 348,040.00 3.164 66.44
3 Recyclable Container
Large, Round, 90-105 Gallons
Color: Blue 3,000 63.28 189,840.00 3.164 66.44
5% Increase approved
by Purchasing
(2nd year term)Toter, LL
Effective
10-8-26 to 10-7-27Statesville, NC
Original Bid PricePrice Adjustment

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: September 16, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Randy McKeegan, Finance Director
DATE: September 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 6 to Agreement No. 2022-047 with San Joaquin Fence & Supply (increase compensation by $1,000,000; revised not to exceed $5,800,000) to continue the supply of installed fencing.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of the Amendment.

BACKGROUND:

On March 16, 2022, the City Council approved the annual contract for the supply of installed fencing with San Joaquin Fence and Supply, in the amount of $1, 200,000; renewable annually thereafter for four consecutive one-year periods.

The Annual Contract for installed fencing is utilized by the Recreation and Parks, Fire, Water Resources, and Public Works Departments for re -fencing, site beautification, and se curity enhancements at various City locations. Due to continued theft of installed fencing, demand for these services has increased. The increased contract capacity will allow staff to replace stolen fencing and maintain the security of City facilities.

Per the terms of the contract, amendments increasing the contract and/or extending the contract’s term have been approved as follows:

 Amendment No. 1 approved December 14, 2022; increased compensation by $150,000 for a new not- to-exceed amount of $1,350,000.
 Amendment No. 2 approved March 8, 2023; increased compensation by $1,350,000 for a new not-to- exceed amount of $2,700,000 and extended the term by one year to March 15, 2024.  Amendment No. 3 approved March 13, 2024; extended the term by one year to March 15, 2025.  Amendment No. 4 approved March 12, 2025; increased compensation by $1,600,000 for a new not - to-exceed amount of $4,300,000 and extended the term by one year to March 15, 2026.  Amendment No. 5 approved March 11, 2026; increased compensation by $500,000 for a new not-to- exceed amount of $4,800,000 and extended the term by one year to March 15, 2027.

If approved, Amendment No. 6 will increase compensation by $1,000,000 for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $5,800,000. This compensation increase will allow the City to continue to meet the fencing needs for various departments to the final term date of March 15, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funding for this work will be from a variety of sources including General Fund, Refuse, Water, Park Improvement and Capital Outlay.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Signed Amendment No. 6 to Agreement No. 2022-047

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: September 16, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Randy McKeegan, Finance Director
DATE: September 1, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 2024-251 JCI Jones Chemicals Inc.

(increase compensation by $132,000: revised not to exceed $420,190 and extend the term by one year) to continue the supply of sodium hypochlorite.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend approval of the amendment.

BACKGROUND:

On September 25, 2024, the City Council approved the annual contract for the supply of sodium hypochlorite for Wastewater Plant 3 with JCI Jones Chemical Inc., in the amount of $186,190; 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.

Wastewater Plant 3 uses sodium hypochlorite to disinfect the water as part of the water treat ment process. This treatment step of disinfection is required to meet the Plant’s discharge permit and statewide Title 22 criteria for tertiary treatment (i.e. recycled water). A term extension will allow the continuance of supplying sodium hypochlorite.

Per the terms of the contract, one amendment has been approved as follows:

• Amendment 1 approved September 24, 2025; increased compensation by $102,000 for a revised not to exceed amount of $288,190 and extended the term by one year to September 24, 2026.

JCI Jones Chemicals, Inc., has agreed to extend its bid pricing with a four and seven-tenths percent (4.7%) increase in the contract price consistent with the increases reflected in the U.S Department of Labor Producer Price Index, ser ies No. PCU325180325180 for Other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing.

Staff have reviewed and approved the requested adjustment, which is permissible pursuant to the terms and conditions of the original bid specifications.

FISCAL IMPACT:

If approved, Amendment No. 2 will Increase compensation by $132,000 for a new not to exceed amount of $420,190 and extend the term by one year to allow the continuance of supplying sodium hypochlorite.

These project costs are borne by the Sewer Enterprise Fund and thus not a cost to the General Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure

ATTACHMENTS:

Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 2024-251
Exhibit A

EXHIBIT A
Annual Contract for Supply of Sodium Hypochlorite
Bid No. 24-25-07

ITEM DESCRIPTION
Price Per
Gallon of
NaOCI
Estimated
Gallons
per YearUnit Price Annual CostIncrease
by
Amount
New Unit
Price
1 NaOCI 2.15 80,000 2.15 172,000.00 0.10 2.25
Price per gallon of NaOCI x 80,000 gallons per year
Annual Cost
180,084.00

4.7% Increase approved
Effective 9-25-26 to 9-24-27
JCI Jones Chemicals
Bakersfield, CA
310-523-1629
310-523-2944(Fax)

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: September 16, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: August 26, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 2023-224
with Blackhole Technologies, Inc., (extend term to September 13, 2027), to continue on- call repair and maintenance services for City’s Fleet Division vehicles and equipment.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the amendment.

BACKGROUND:

The Public Works Department’s Fleet Division is responsible for the maintenance and repair of City vehicles and equipment. The City’s vehicles and equipment often need additional resources primarily for repair, maintenance, and outfitting of vehicle components and systems.

On September 13, 2023, the City entered into Agreement No. 2023-224 with Blackhole Technologies, Inc. to provide the installation, removal, testing, troubleshooting, repair, maintenance, and outfitting of vehicle components and systems. Blackhole Technologies, Inc. was selected through a formal Request for Proposal and Qualifications process. The City’s partnership with Blackhole Technologies, Inc. has been a success as the vendor is efficient in responding to and performing on -call services to City vehicles and equipment in a timely manner and provides quality work.

On July 9, 2025 Council approved Amendment No. 1 extending the term one year to continue repair, maintenance, and outfitting of vehicle components and systems and increase compensation by $200,000 for a revised not to exceed amount of $400,000.

Amendment No. 2 will extend the term one year, expiring on September 13, 2027. The extension of the agreement will continue repairs, maintenance, and outfitting of vehicle components.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Approval of Amendment No. 2 will not increase the agreement’s existing not -to-exceed amount of $400,000. Costs for services provided during the extended term will be paid from the Equipment Management Fund within the approved budget.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Innovative and Efficient City Government
Reliable Infrastructure

ATTACHMENTS:

Amendment No. 2

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: September 16, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Agreements TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: August 26, 2026
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 2023-226 with Resource Machinery and Engineering (extending the term to September 13, 2027) to continue on-call maintenance and repair of Scarabs and McCloskey Trommel Screens.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the amendment.

BACKGROUND:

On September 13, 2023, the City entered into Agreement No. 2023 -226 with Resource Machinery & Engineering to provide maintenance and repair of Scarabs and McCloskey Trommel Screens. Resource Machinery & Engineering was selected through a formal Request for Proposal and Qualifications process.

The City’s partnership with Resource Machinery & Engineering has been a success as the vendor is efficient in responding to and performing on -call services to City equipment in a timely manner and provides quality work.

Amendment No. 1 extend ed the term one year to continue repair and maintenance of Scarabs and McCloskey Trommel Screens.

Amendment No. 2 will extend the term one year, expiring on September 13, 2027, to continue repair and maintenance of Scarabs and McCloskey Trommel Screens.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are within the Fiscal Year budget 202 6-27 and available in the Equipment Fund to cover costs associated with this amendment.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Innovative and Efficient City Government

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 2

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: September 16, 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. 2024-181 with AECOM Technical Services Inc. (extend term and increase compensation by $14,000; revised not to exceed $127,000 for design engineering services for Downtown Part Circle Culverts Project. (Ward 2)

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of this amendment

BACKGROUND:

Part Circle Culverts within the project limits convey drainage through the Downtown area. The construction of this project will replace the existing culverts with concrete cross-gutters and storm drain infrastructure to alleviate drainage issues within the downtown area, as identified in the City of Bakersfield’s Downtown Master Drainage Study.

Due to delays in the commencement of construction and unforeseen circumstances encountered in the field, AECOM has been required to provide additional construction engineering support services beyond the originally anticipated scope of work. Therefore, the City wishes to extend the Term to December 31, 2027, and increase compensation by $14,000.00 for a revised not to exceed amount of $ 127,000.00 for Agreement No. 2024-181 with AECOM. This amendment is in direct correlation to the additional time and services necessary to produce a complete project.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This design consultant agreement is fully funded by Sewer Enterprise Funds (SEF) that are available for storm drain improvements in the downtown area (Project No. E4K303). Therefore, this amendment will have no impact on the General Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment

2. Exhibit

5001 E. Commercenter Drive
Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93309
www.aecom.com
Mr. Adrian Castro, P.E.

Civil Engineer III
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
August 20, 2026
Subject: Proposal for Amendment #1 - Downtown Part Circle Culvert Improvements (E3K303) Dear Adrian,
During the construction phase of the project, additional construction engineering support services have been required beyond the scope originally anticipated. These services have included reviewing contractor submittals, evaluating and responding to Requests for Information (RFIs), providing technical support to facilitate project progress and maintain schedule continuity, and providing record drawings.

To compensate for the additional effort associated with these services, we respectfully request approval of a Change Order to cover the engineering labor and administrative resources necessary to provide the continued support required during construction.

The additional services include, but are not limited to:
 Review and response to Requests for Information (RFIs).  Review and evaluation of contractor submittals.
 Coordination with the Contractor, City’s Project team regarding construction-related technical issues.  Generate record drawings from City approved as-built mark-ups from the Contractor.  Documentation and administrative support associated with construction engineering activities.

The total requested change order amount is summarized below:

Total Change Order Request: $14,000 on a time and material basis We appreciate the opportunity to continue supporting the successful delivery of this project and respectfully request approval of this change order so that these additional services may be properly incorporated into our contract. A detail breakdown of the budget is shown at bottom of this letter. Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information.

Sincerely,
Patrick Tsang, PE Dan Cronquist, PE, LS
Project Manager Department Manager
Change Order Budget Budget
Task Description
Principal
Engineer
Project
Engineer II
Project
Engineer I
Design /CAD
Supervisor
Total Hours
Labor
Other Direct
Costs
Total
Task 4 - Construction Support Phase
Review RFIs (Assume 4) 8 4 4 16 3,280$ 24$ 3,304$
Review Submittals (Assume 3) 3 12 3 18 3,090$ 22$ 3,112$ Coordination & Site Visit (Assume 1) 4 1 5 1,240$ 18$ 1,258$ Record Drawings 4 8 1 20 33 6,280 $ 46 $ 6,326 $
Subtotal 19 25 8 20 72 13,890 $ 110 $ 14,000 $ Total 19 25 8 20 72 13,890 $ 110 $ 14,000 $ Personnel Hours

EXHIBIT C

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: September 16, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Miscellaneous TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christian Clegg, City Manager
DATE: August 14, 2026
SUBJECT: Accept and Appropriate $85,243 in BSCC grant funds to the City Manager's Office Operating Budget
within the CD/ECD Other Grant Awards fund for Cohort 5 Community-Based Organization Frontline Staff Mental Health and Wellness

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend acceptance and appropriation of these funds.

BACKGROUND:

The California Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) has awarded the City of Bakersfield an additional $85,243 in grant funding under the City's Cohort 5 California Violence Intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) Grant to support frontline staff mental health and wellness activities for community- based organizations (CBOs) providing grant-funded services.

The additional funding is intended to promote the health, wellness, and resiliency of frontline CBO staff who provide intensive outreach and case management services to individuals at the highest risk of violence. Eligible expenditures may include professional mental health services, wellness programming, stress reduction activities, family-inclusive wellness events, meals provided during approved wellness activities, and other BSCC-approved activities that support staff well-being, retention, and sustainability.

Acceptance of these funds does not change the approved scope of the City's Cohort 5 CalVIP Program.

Rather, the additional funding enhances the City's existing partnership with its community-based organizations by providing dedicated resources to support the well-being of the frontline staff responsible for delivering grant-funded violence intervention services.

The recommended Council action authorizes acceptance of the $85,243 BSCC grant award, appropriates the additional grant funding into the City Manager's Office budget, and authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to administer the grant.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The $85,243 award is fully funded by B SCC and requires no General Fund contribution or local match.

These funds are restricted for the benefit of participating in Cohort 5 community-based organizations and may not be used for City personnel or City employee wellness activities. All expenditure s will be administered in accordance with BSCC grant requirements and the approved grant budget.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Safety and Resilience

ATTACHMENTS:

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: September 16, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Miscellaneous TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brent Stratton, Chief of Police
DATE: August 28, 2026
SUBJECT: Request to add one (1) limited-term Crime Analyst position No. 21600

funded through the California Board of State and Community Corrections California Violence Intervention and Prevention Cohort 5 Grant Program.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the position request.

BACKGROUND:

On February 25, 2026, the Bakersfield City Council authorized the City Manager to accept $4,899,000 in grant funding from the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) for the California Violence Intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) Cohort 5 Grant Program. Grant funding was appropriated to the City Manager’s Office, Office of Violence Intervention & Prevention (OVIP) Operating Budget.

The CalVIP Cohort 5 Grant supports the City’s continued implementation of violence intervention and prevention strategies designed to reduce gun violence through intervention, outreach, case management, supportive services, and collaboration with community-based organizations and public safety partners.

The California Board of State and Community Corrections approved a budget modification to reallocate a portion of the existing CalVIP grant funding to support additional City personnel, including one Crime Data Analyst position. The modification does not increase the overall grant award or change the approved CalVIP program scope.

The Bakersfield Police Department requests an increase to the Department’s employee complement of one (1) limited-term Crime Analyst. The Crime Analyst will support the City’s violence reduction strategy by conducting crime analysis, identifying violence trends and emerging hotspots, analyzing shooting and group violence activity, supporting case mapping and referral processes, monitori ng program performance, and providing data and analytical support to OVIP and public safety partners. The position will assist in ensuring violence intervention and outreach resources are directed toward individuals, groups, and geographic areas at the highest risk of violence.

The Crime Analyst will also provide data collection, analysis, mapping, and performance information to support OVIP’s grant reporting requirements. OVIP will remain responsible for preparing and submitting required grant reports.

The position will be fully funded through the CalVIP Cohort 5 Grant, with $356,400 allocated for salary and benefits. The Crime Analyst will be a limited term position through March 31, 2029.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No General Fund resources are required to support the position during the grant funded period. Funding for the Crime Analyst position is included within the previously appropriated CalVIP Cohort 5 Grant in the City Manager’s Office, OVIP Operating Budget. The approved budget modification provides $356,400 for salary and benefits through March 31, 2029.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Safety and Resilience

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

a
RESOLUTION NO. 0 1 6- 2 0 2 6

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TO

ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE BOARD OF

STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS AND ACCEPT
FUNDING MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE 2026

CALIFORNIA VIOLENCE INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION
CaIVIP) COHORT 5 GRANT.

WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield applied for grant funding through the 2026 California Violence Intervention and Prevention ( CaIVIP) Cohort_ 5 Program administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections ( hereafter referred to as the " BSCC"); and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2026, the BSCC Board approved funding recommendations of the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Program Executive Steering Committee and awarded the City of Bakersfield a highly competitive state grant in the amount of Four Million Eight Hundred Ninety - Nine Thousand Dollars -($ 4, 899, 000) through the CaIVIP Cohort 5 Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the grant term is anticipated to run from April 1, 2026, through - - June 30, 2029, and will support the City' s continued implementation of a comprehensive, evidence - based, and collaborative approach to reducing gun violence through intervention, outreach, case management, and supportive services utilizing a public health and socioecological model; and WHEREAS, acceptance of these funds will allow the City of Bakersfield to expand and sustain violence intervention and prevention strategies in partnership with community - based organizations and public safety partners to reduce gun violence and improve community safety.

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

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

2. The City Manager of the City of Bakersfield is authorized, on behalf of the City Council, to execute a Grant Agreement with the BSCC for the CaIVIP Cohort 5 Grant in the amount of $ 4, 899, 000, including any extensions or amendments thereto, if substantially consistent with the terms and conditions of the Cohort 4 grant- agreement.

Page 1 of 2 ends

3. The grant funds received hereunder shall not be used to duplicate expenditures already approved by the City.

4. The City of Bakersfield agrees to ensure that any subcontractors funded under the Grant Agreement comply with all applicable terms, conditions, and guidelines established by the BSCCfor the expenditure of grant funds.

HEREBYCERTIFYthat the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on FEB 2 5 2026 , by the following vote:

YE COUNCIL MEMBER ARIAS, & E6 I vL 5, WEIR, SMITH, KOMAN, BAS RTASH, KA R NOES: COUNCIL MEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBER
SE COUNCIL MEMBERGon7 C4Q1Z_ S
APPROVED FEB2 5 2026
Byr1jK3I b

NPREET KAUR
Vice Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA G NNARO
City Attor y
By et, 6E4

RGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney

J LIE DRIMAKIS, MMC
City Clerk and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield

Page 2 of 2 ends

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: September 16, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Hearings TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillips Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: September 11, 2026
SUBJECT: Continued Public Appeal Hearing of Planning Commission’s Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 (Phased) and its Mitigated Negative Declaration.

McIntosh & Associates, representing Diamond Farming Company, is proposing to subdivide 40.77 acres into 313 single-family residential lots, 1 multi-use trail lot, and 1 park lot in the R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) zone located generally southeast of Olive Drive and Santa Fe Way. (Ward 4)

This item includes approval of a Resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 (Phased).

The Sierra Club submitted an appeal to the Planning Commission’s approval of the request.

RECOMMENDATION:

City staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 and its proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.

BACKGROUND:

Project Description. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 7451 consists of 313 single-family residential lots, 1 multi-use trail lot, and 1 park lot on 40.77 acres . Residential lots range in size from 3,440 square feet to 3,600 square feet, with the typical lot size 40 feet wide x 86 feet deep (3,440 square feet). The density is 8.65 units per net acre, which is consistent with the LR designation of the project of less than or equal to 7.26 dwelling units per net acre.

Access to this subdivision would be from Firridge Way (local) on the east boundary and Poplar Spring Avenue (local) on the subdivision's south boundary. As such, the applicant has requested 8 deviations from City standards to allow a storm drain that collects runoff from Olive Drive through Lot 116, a 300 - foot radius on a local street where 500 feet is required, reduction of lot frontage, reduction of lot width, reduction of lot depth, double frontage lots, allow clear sight view, and allow traffic calming measures installed on block lengths for local streets . Staff has reviewed deviation requests and recommends approval.

City Council Continuance. The project was scheduled to be heard at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on August 26, 2026. The item was opened and continued to the September 16, 2026 City Council meeting. The applicant/developer requested that this hearing be continued because they stated they may be settling the matter with the appellant, the Sierra Club, which would result in the withdrawal of the appeal. The appellant agreed to continuance.

Planning Commission Decision. On June 4, 2026 , the Planning Commission considered VTTM No. 7 451 (Phased). Three comment letters were received related to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration

(MND). At the meeting, there were five speakers in favor and no speakers in opposition to the map. The

Planning Commission unanimously approved the request with Vice Chair Martin and Commissioner Kaur absent. The Planning Commission’s findings are contained in Resolution No. 55-26 (attached).

Appeal to Planning Commission’s Decision. On June 9, 2026 , the Sierra Club filed an appeal to the Planning Commission’s decision to approve VTTM No. 7 451 (Phased) . A copy of the appeal letter is attached. The appeal letter dated June 9, 2026 references the Sierra Club letter dated March 9, 2026

submitted to the Planning Commission that states the City does not adequately address concerns regarding cumulative climate change and a ir pollution impacts, habitat loss, and affordable housing requirements.

The applicant’s consultants submitted responses to the Sierra Club letter of March 9, 2026 (attached) and responded to the S ierra Club’ s comments. Based on the information provided, no additional environmental review is required.

Environmental Review. Based upon an initial study, Staff determined the proposed project, with mitigation, would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with the Californi a Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The MND was circulated for public and agency review from February 5, 2026, to March 9, 2026. The following special studies were submitted: biological resources, cultural resources and air quality analysis.

Public Notification. All required public notices have been given for both the Planning Commission public hearing held on June 4, 2026, and the City Council public hearing of August 26, 2026.

CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS:

The City Council may sustain, modify, reject, or overrule any ruling of the Planning Commission for this subdivision of land. The following options have been provided for Council’s consideration regarding the appeal:

1. Deny the Appeal and Approve VTTM No. 7 451 (Phased). If the City Council were to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map would be conditionally approved and would facilitate construction of 313 single-family residential lots, 1 multi-use trail lot, and 1 park lot on 40.77 acres and adopt t he Mitigated Negative Declaration (Resolution attached).

2. Approve the Appeal and Deny VTTM No. 7451 (Phased). If the City Council were to approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's approval, the project site could not be developed as proposed and would retain its current condition. The Mitigated Negative Declaration would not be adopted.

CONCLUSION:

Staff believes the proposed subdivision of land is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; the site is physically suitable for the type of development; the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; the design of the subdivision will not likely cause serious public health problems; and the design of the

subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

Overall Recommendation. Staff finds that the applicable provisio ns of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area, land use designation, and zoning ordinance.

Therefore, staff recommends City Council to consider the whole of the record, to include the appellant’s concerns, and deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 (Phased).

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact with the proposed subdivision of land. Development which will occur as a result of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 (Phased) will be subject to the appropriate application processing fees that have been determined to be sufficient to cover all operational expenses related to processing projects.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Community Character & Quality of Life
Reliable Infrastructure

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City Council Resolution to Deny Appeal and Approve VTTM 7451 (Phased)

2. Map Set

3. Planning Commission Staff Report

4. Planning Commission Resolution

5. Mitigated Negative Declaration

6. Appeal Letter of Planning Commission Decision

7. Correspondence

RESOLUTION NO. _____________
VM\S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner Of Renfro Rd And Olive Dr\08_Appeal\Draft 2\01_Council Resolution_Deny Appeal And Approve VTTM No. 7451_Clean.Docx

Page 1 of 4 ends

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE
APPEAL AND APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
7451 (PHASED) LOCATED GENERALLY SOUTHEAST OF OLIVE DRIVE AND SANTA FE WAY.

WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates (Applicant), representing Diamond Farming Company ( Property Owner ), filed an application with the City of Bakersfield Planning Department requesting a Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 (the “Project”), and a request for alternate lot, street and storm drain design, consisting of 313 residential lots, 1 multi-use trail, and 1 park lot on 40.77 acres located generally southeast of Olive Drive and Santa Fe Way, as shown on attached Exhibit “B” (the “Project”); and

WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on January 6, 2026; and

WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission, did set, Thursday, June 4 , 2026, at 5:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Project, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, After the public hearing concluded, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the project, with five speakers in favor and no speakers in opposition. Notably, two Commissioners were absent during the vote (Resolution 55-26); and

WHEREAS, On June 9, 2026, The Sierra Club, the appellant, filed a written appeal with the City Clerk to the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project; and

WHEREAS, the City Council, through the City Clerk, did set the time and place of the public hearing as Wednesday, August 26, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, to consider the appeal, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, on August 26, 2026, at the request of the Applicant and with the concurrence of The Sierra Club , the Appellant, the public hearing was opened and continued to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of September 16, 2026; and

WHEREAS, during the September 16, 2026, public hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s action; and

Page 2 of 4 ends

WHEREAS, staff has determined the Project will not significantly effect the environment and, pursuant to State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is adequate and no further environmental documentation is necessary; and

WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to CEQA and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff , the Planning Commission, and City Council; and

WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Department (1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and

WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report, environmental review, and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above-referenced public hearing support the findings contained in this resolution; and

WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby make the following finding:

1. All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation, 10 days prior to the hearing.

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

3. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.

4. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

5. The site is physically suitable for the type of development.

6. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

7. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

Page 3 of 4 ends

8. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.

9. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

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

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

12. The conditions of approval are necessary for orderly development and to provide for public health, welfare, and safety.

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

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

2. The decision of the Planning Commission is upheld, subject to conditions of approval shown in attached Exhibit “A”.

3. The appeal is denied.

4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 is hereby approved, subject to the conditions of approval shown in attached Exhibit “A” and shown in attached Exhibit “C”.

o0o

Page 4 of 4 ends

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 September 16, 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

_______________________________

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 Conditions of Approval
B Location Map with Zoning
C Tentative Map

MAP SET

OLIVE DR

RUDD AVE

SANTA FE WAY

KRATZMEYER RD

REINA RD
Copyright nearmap 2015
0 252 505
US Feet
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7451

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
VTTM 7451
_
AERIAL
1/12/2026
R-2
R-2
M-1
M-1
M-1
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-O
R-4
R-1
R-1

OLIVE DR

RUDD AVE

SANTA FE WAY

KRATZMEYER RD

REINA RD
0 252 505
US Feet
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7451

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
VTTM 7451
_
Zoning
Commercial Zone Designations
C-O Commercial and
Professional Office
C-2 Regional
Commercial
C-2/P .C.D. Combining
Industrial Zone Designations
M-1 Light
Manufacturing
Residential Zone Designations
R-1 One Family
Dwelling
R-2 Limited Multiple
Family Dwelling Zone
- 1 unit/2,500 sq. ft.

R-4 Limited Multiple
Family Dwelling Zone
- 1 unit/600 sq. ft.
1/12/2026
GC

R-IA R-IA R-IA
MUC
OC
HMR
HMR
LI
GC
GC

LI LI LI
LR
LR
HMR
LMR
GC
GC
GC

OLIVE DR

RUDD AVE

SANTA FE WAY

KRATZMEYER RD

REINA RD
0 252 505
US Feet
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7451

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
VTTM 7451
_
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

COMMERCIAL
GC - General
Commercial
MUC - Mixed Use
Commercial
OC - Office
Commercial

INDUSTRIAL

LI - LIGHT

INDUSTRIAL

RESOURCE
R-IA - Resource -
Intensive
Agriculture: 20 acre
minimum parcel
size
1/12/2026

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Escribe\June\Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 escribe.docxS:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner Of Renfro Rd And Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Escribe\June\Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 Escribe.Docx

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: June 4, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: 6.a
TO: Chair Bittle and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J.Eng
DATE: May 29, 2026
FILE: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451
STAFF PLANNER: Veronica Martinez, Associate Planner

REQUEST: A proposed vesting tentative tract map for single -family residential purposes containing 313 buildable lots, 1 multi- use trail lot, and 1 park lot on 40.77 acres, zoned R -2 (Small Lot Single -Unit Dwelling), including a request for alternate lot, street and storm drain design, and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060.A.1 (Ward 4).

APPLICANT: OWNER:

McIntosh & Associates Diamond Farming Company
10800 Stockdale Hwy Suite 103 P.O. Box 21251
Bakersfield CA 93311 Bakersfield CA 93390

PROJECT LOCATION: Generally southeast of Olive Drive and Santa Fe Way in northwest Bakersfield.

APN: Portion of 463-040-13.

PROJECT SIZE: 40.77 acres CEQA: Section 15162 (MND)

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LR (Low Density Residential) and HMR (High Medium Density Residential)

EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling)

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution and suggested findings APPROVING Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 (Phased) with conditions

VTTM 7451

Page 2 ends

SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The proposed project site is currently agricultural land and is bounded by agricultural land to the north, east, west and south. The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad is located adjacent to the southwest corner of the proposed subdivision.

BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:

• January 13, 2010 - City Council approved the pre -zoning of property within the sphere of influence boundary (ZC No. 09-0591). The project site was prezoned to R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) and R-2 (Small- Lot Single Unit Dwelling) (Ordinance 4611).
• March 15, 2011 - The project site was annexed into the City as part of the Kratzmeyer Ranch annexation (Annexation No. 625).
• April 24, 2024 - City Council approved a Zone Change to change the zoning of 988 acres in various properties throughout the City from various zoning classifications to MX-1 (Mixed -Use Neighborhood), MX-2 (Mixed-Use Transit), R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling), R-3 (Medium Density Multi-unit Dwelling), R -4 (High- Density Multi -Unit Dwelling), R -4-HD (High- Density Multi -Unit Dwelling – Hillside Development Overlay), and R-5 (Very-High Density Multi-Unit Dwelling) (ZC No. 24- 0055; Ordinance No. 5176). Zone Change No. 24-0055 was in support of the Housing Element update.

The zoning classification of the project site changed from R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) to R-2 (Small-Lot Single Unit Dwelling).
• January 6, 2026 – The application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 (Phased) was deemed complete.
• March 19, 2026 – Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 (Phased) was originally scheduled for consideration. At the applicant’s request, the public hearing was continued to May 7, 2026. • May 7, 2026 – Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 (Phased) was continued and the applicant requested that the public hearing for this project be re —advertised for the regularly scheduled Planning Commission on June 4, 2026 to allow additional time to provide a respon se to comments received from the public.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:

The proposed vesting tentative tract subdivision consists of 313 buildable lots, 1 multi-use trail lot, and 1 park lot on 40.77 acres for purposes of single -family residential development. The majority of the residential lots range in size from 3,440 square feet (s.f.) to 3,600 s.f., and the typical lot size is approximately 40 feet wide by 86 feet deep (3,440 square feet). The net density is 8.65 units per net acre in the HMR designation and 7.21 in the LR designation, which is consistent with the HMR and LR designation of the project site. Additionally, the tract is required to construct a 12.5 -foot multi-use trail along the south side of Olive Drive per the Western Rosedale Specific Plan.

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

VTTM 7451

Page 3 ends

VTTM 7451
Table A. Deviation Requests

REQUEST
(BMC - Bakersfield Municipal Code
and Subdivision Design Manual)
BMC/ Subdivision Design Manual Section APPLICANT’S

REASON/JUSTIFICATION

STAFF COMMENT/

RECOMMENDATION
1) Request a storm drain that
collects runoff from Olive Drive to
be routed through Lot 116 of Phase

1. Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual ref 3.10. Storm Drain.

This configuration is
necessary to properly
capture runoff from Olive
Drive, which slopes to
the west. The current
project conditions do not
provide adequate space
for a temporary sump,
and routing the storm
drain from the west side
of the tract to the east
and then back to the
west is not feasible.

City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.

APPROVE
2) Request Alignment Criteria for
Streets: Request a 300 -foot radius
on a local street Walnut Heaven
Avenue where 500 feet is required.

Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual ref 5.4.2.1.b.

Alignment Criteria for Streets. Minimum centerline radius of horizontal curvature shall be as follows:

a. Expressways/Arterials/ Collectors - 2000 feet or greater b. Local or Industrial Streets - 500 feet
c. Tangent distance between horizontal curves shall be a minimum of 400 feet on Major Streets and 200 feet on Local Streets.
d. Exceptions to the above minimums will be considered by the City Engineer when topography or other conditions warrant, within the following limits:

The proposed request is
due to street
configuration of the site
along the restricted
subdivision boundaries.

City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.

APPROVE
VTTM 7451 Page 5

The following considerations shall apply to Local Streets when considering the above exceptions:

1. The central angle (delta) does not exceed 10 degrees.

2. The street or cul-de-sac is less than 350 feet in length.

3. Parking will be removed from the street.

4. Other street or traffic control configurations which prevent attainment of a 25 mph travel speed.

5. "Broken back" or "flat back" curves with short sections of tangent (less than 200 feet) between will not be allowed.

3) Request to allow Reduction of
Lot Frontage & Lot Width for:

Phase 1-3, All Lots
BMC Section ref 16.28.170.B. Lot Frontage. All residential lots shall have a minimum street frontage of fifty-five feet except as follows:

1. The minimum street frontage for an interior one -family dwelling lot that is less than six thousand square feet in area shall be forty-five feet.

2. The minimum lot frontage for a corner lot shall be sixty feet except for a one- family dwelling lot that is less than six thousand square feet in area where it is fifty feet. For purposes of measuring frontage on a corner lot with a radius return, the distance shall be measured from the point of intersection of the extensions of the street side property line and the front property line.

Requesting reduced lot
street frontage to 40 ft
where 45 ft
minimum is required for
interior lots. Requesting
reduced lot
width to 40 ft where 55 ft
minimum is required for
interior
lots and 45 ft where 60 ft
minimum is required for
corner
lots. These reductions
allow for the creation of
smaller lot
sizes in compliance with
City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.

APPROVE
Street Centerline Radius Tangent
Expressways/Arterials 1500 feet 200 feet
Collectors 1000 feet 200 feet
Locals (see below) 300 feet 100 feet
VTTM 7451 Page 6
BMC Section 17.10. The
proposed
smaller lot sizes
accommodate higher
density within the tract
boundaries.
4) Request to allow reduction of
Lot Depth for: Phase 3, Lots 2 and
3 BMC Section ref. 16.28.170.C.2. Lot Depth. The lot depth is the length of a line that bisects a lot from a point on the front property line measured halfway between the side property lines to a point on the rear of the property. The minimum depth for residential lots shall be one hundred feet, except as follows:

1. The minimum depth for a lot with a rear yard abutting agricultural or residential suburban zoned property shall be one hundred forty feet.

2. The minimum depth for a lot with a rear yard abutting a freeway or railroad right -of-way shall be one hundred twenty feet.

3. The minimum depth for a one family dwelling lot in an R -2 zone shall be ninety feet except as required in subsections (C)(1) and (2).

Requesting reduced lot
depth to 95 feet
minimum where 120
feet is required for rear
abutting a railroad right
of way. The
developer is proposing to
develop a linear park
adjacent to the
railroad right of way that
is 100 feet wide. The
linear park will
serve as a large, ample
buffer between the two
residential lot’s
rear yards and the
railroad. Reduced lot
depth allows for more
lots to accommodate
higher density.

City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.

APPROVE
5) Request to allow reduction of
Lot Depth for Phases 1-3, All Lots
BMC Section ref. 16.28.170.C.3. Lot Depth. The lot depth is the length of a line that bisects a lot from a point on the front property line measured halfway between the side property lines to a point on the rear of the property. The minimum depth for residential lots shall be one hundred feet, except as follows:

Requesting reduced lot
depth to 75 feet
minimum where 90
feet is required. Note,
with the exception of a
few lots, the
majority of the lots range
from 86 to 90 feet in
City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.

APPROVE
VTTM 7451 Page 7

1. The minimum depth for a lot with a rear yard abutting agricultural or residential suburban zoned property shall be one hundred forty feet.

2. The minimum depth for a lot with a rear yard abutting a freeway or railroad right -of-way shall be one hundred twenty feet.

3. The minimum depth for a one family dwelling lot in an R -2 zone shall be ninety feet except as required in subsections (C)(1) and (2).

depth. Lots
have been configured in
a creative way to yield
higher density
through a smaller
dwelling unit subdivision.

Reduced lot depth
allows for more lots to
accommodate higher
density with public
local streets.
6) Request to allow Double
Frontage Lots for: Phase 1, Lots 93
through 120
BMC Section ref. 16.28.170.H. Double Frontage Lots . Double frontage lots having a depth less than two hundred feet will not be approved except where, as determined by the advisory agency, conditions permit no other reasonable form of platting, or where the proposed double frontage lots abut a street which functions as a major street and the advisory agency deems it to be reasonable due to such controlling factors as traffic, safety, appearance and setback. Each such lot shall have a six-foot-high masonry wall (the height shall be measured from whichever side of the wall the adjacent finished grade is higher) with landscaping (on the exterior side) installed by the subdivider adjacent to the rear property line or, where the wall and landscaping are to be maintained by a homeowners association or maintenance district installed within the street right -of-way and additional landscape easement or adjacent common lot.

Alternate wall and landscape concepts may be approved in areas where, in the opinion of the advisory agency, topographic or other physical conditions make strict adherence to this criteria undesirable. Conceptual wall and landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved by the advisory agency prior to filing of any final tract or final parcel map.

Lots with rear yard
adjacent to Olive Drive
will be limited by a
block wall and 12.5 foot
wide public multi-use
equestrian trail
and landscape lot. Actual
frontage will be limited
to the interior
street Acorn Valley Drive.

City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.

APPROVE
VTTM 7451 Page 8
7) Request to allow Clear Sight
View
BMC Section ref. 17.08.175. Clear Sight View.

A. On all corner lots located on uncontrolled
intersections, no obstruction to motor vehicle driver
views in excess of three feet higher than curb flow
line grade shall be placed on any corner or reversed
corner lot within a triangular area formed by the
intersecting street curblines and a line connecting them at points sixty feet from their intersection point.

B. On all lots abutting an alley or driveway, no
obstruction to sight view shall be permitted within the triangular area formed by the alley or driveway edge and edge of the sidewalk closest to the interior property line, or the street right-of-way line in the absence of a
sidewalk, and a line connecting them at points ten feet from their intersecting point.

C. Motor vehicle driver site distance at controlled
intersections shall be maintained in accord with the following design standards:

Design speed (mph) 20 30 40 50 60
Minimum corner
intersection sight
distance (feet)
200 300 400 500 600

Corner sight distance measured from a point of the minor road at least fifteen feet from the edge of the major road pavement and measured from a height of eye of three and three-
quarters feet on the minor road to a height of object of four and one-half feet on the major road. The location of the object to the left of the minor street is to be measured at twelve feet from the nearside edge of the major road with parking or six feet from the nearside edge of the major road without
parking. The location of the object to the right of the minor All corner lots as
proposed will comply
with clear sight lines.

After tentative map
approval, the developer
will provide lot
plots with floor plans for
clear line of sight
approval from the
Building Department.

City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.

APPROVE
VTTM 7451 Page 9
road is to be measured at one-half the major street width plus three feet from the nearest edge of the major road.
8) Request to allow traffic calming
measures installed on block
lengths for local streets
BMC Section ref. 5.2.6.6. Block Lengths. Block lengths for Local Streets are measured from street intersection to street intersection.
a. The maximum block length for low traffic volume streets (less than 750 ADT) is 600 feet.
b. The maximum block length for medium traffic volumes
streets (less than 1500 ADT) is 800 feet.

Requesting traffic
calming measures
installed on block lengths
for local streets
exceeding 800 feet in
length. The proposed
traffic calming measures
will be incorporated per
the neotraditional
neighborhood design for
Birchbend St., Linden
Hill St., and Elm Ridge St.
that are each 1,075 feet
in
length. Due to the nature
of the small lots within
the
subdivision, requesting a
deviation from the
Standard ST-15
with a modified version
that is feasible to
accommodate
driveways and street
parking for 40 foot wide
lot widths.

City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.

APPROVE

VTTM 7451

Circulation. Access to this subdivision would be from Firridge Way (local) on the subdivision's east boundary and from Poplar Spring Avenue (local) on the south.

Park Land In- Lieu Fees/Dedication. North of the River provides park and recreational services to the project site. The nearest NOR park is Austin Creek Park located approximately one mile south of the project site.

In addition, the tract will provide a public park in Lot C, Phase 3, on 0.72 acres. Prior to recordation of a final map, the subdivider shall satisfy applicable park land dedication requirements and enter into an agreement with the North of the River Recreation and Park District to implement Conditions No. 17-20.

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

Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve waiver of these signatures on the final map, subject to the condition.

The applicant submitted a letter stating that the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM). There is one known well on the property and active operator of record. If a well is uncovered, the subdivider must co nsult with CalGEM regarding proper abandonment of the well, in accordance with the municipal code (Condition 25).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:

Based upon an initial study, Staff determined the proposed project, with mitigation, would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The MND was circulated for public and agency review from February 5, 2026 to March 9, 2026. The following special studies were submitted: biological resources, cultural resources, traffic, and air quality analysis. The list of mitigation measures has been updated on the attached Initial Study and in the list of conditions in response to comments submitted on the project.

Comments Received. Three letters related to the proposed MND were received by staff. Respectively from The Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Sierra Club, and the California Public Utilities Commission.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) [Letter dated February 10, 2026]. DTSC submitted comments requesting:

1. Because the site has been historically used for agricultural purposes, the project should evaluate potential soil contamination from pesticides, organochlorine pesticides, arsenic, petroleum products, and other contaminants that may be associated with prior agricultural activities.

VTTM 7451

2. Recommended that any imported soil or fill material be tested and documented to ensure it meets applicable screening levels and is suitable for residential use.

3. Recommendations and any necessary sampling, analysis, or mitigation measures be incorporated into the environmental review process for the project.

Trinity Consultants has addressed the DTSC comments in their letter:

1. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments were conducted for the project site and did not identify contaminants at the level of concern associated with prior agricultural uses.

2. No Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) were identified on the project site.

3. If any soil or fill material is imported to the site, documentation of the origin of the material will be provided to minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil or fill material to the site.

Sierra Club (Letter dated March 9, 2026). The Sierra Club submitted comments requesting:

1. The MND does not sufficiently evaluate impacts related to affordable housing, air quality, biological resources, farmland, greenhouse gas emissions, and cumulative effects.

2. The Project’s location in an area of pollution, proximity to sensitive receptors, lack of analysis regarding Valley Fever, reliance on regional air quality thresholds, deferred biological surveys, and inadequate evaluation of cumulative impacts.

3. The MND should adopt a net zero threshold for air pollution impacts.

4. An inadequate analysis was conducted of sensitive receptors.

5. The cumulative analysis is defective.

Trinity Consultants, Inc. has addressed the Sierra Club comments in their letter:

1. The project complies with applicable CEQA requirements, air quality thresholds, and adopted local and state planning documents. Therefore, the Project’s air quality and greenhouse gas impacts were determined to be less than significant or adequately mitigated.

2. The Project’s emissions were quantified and found to be below SJVAPCD significance thresholds, and additional mitigation measures, cumulative project lists, or a Developer Mitigation Contract with the Air District were not required.

3. The project incorporates features intended to reduce emissions, including an all -electric residential development without natural gas connections, native and drought tolerant landscaping, and additional greenhouse gas mitigation measures incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration as measures GHG-1 through GHG-9.

4. The project is consistent with statewide greenhouse gas reduction strategies and adopted plans.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) [Letter dated March 9, 2026]. CPUC submitted comments requesting:

1. The residential development would increase pedestrian and vehicular activity near the BNSF rail corridor and nearby at-grade crossings, potentially creating additional safety impacts.

VTTM 7451

2. The City evaluates and considers improvements and mitigation measures at the Kratzmeyer/Olive Road crossing area to address increased traffic and bring the crossing up to current standards.

3. If future roadway connections are proposed to Reina Road, the Reina Road at -grade crossing should be evaluated for potential safety improvements and mitigation measures.

Trinity Consultants and the applicant have addressed the CPUC comments in their letters:

1. The Kern Council of Governments Phase 8 Community Prosperity Protection Study identifies potential roadway improvements along Santa Fe Way and Kratzmeyer Road intended to reduce freight traffic through populated areas of Bakersfield.

2. The proposed improvements would provide additional north-south and east-west transportation connections, reduce conflicts between freight and passenger vehicles, and divert truck traffic away from sensitive receptors such as schools and residences.

3. Proposed transportation projects identified in the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy include modifications to existing systems and grade crossings, and Kern COG will continue coordinating with local agencies to ensure future transportation improvements are consistent with regional and local planning efforts.

4. The CPUC comments did not identify any unavoidable impacts or object to approval of the project or Mitigated Negative Declaration.

5. Any future rail crossing improvements would be addressed through future engineering review, City conditions of approval, and coordination with BNSF Railway and CPUC.

Please refer to the attached correspondence for additional details.

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. Signs are required as part of the public notification process and must be posted between 20 to 60 days before the public hearing date. Photographs of the posted signage and the Declaration of Posting Public Hearing Notice signed by the applicant are on file at the Planning Division.

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

CONCLUSIONS:

Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance . The applicant has requested approval of VTTM 7451 (Phased) to subdivide 40.77 acres into 313 buildable lots, 1 multi-use trail lot, and 1 park lot ranging in size from 3,440 s.f. to 3,600 s.f. on property designated LR and HMR in a R-2 zone. The purpose of this request is to facilitate future residential development on an infill site. The proposal is consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan, which encourages continuity o f existing development and allows incremental expansion of infrastructure. Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and any future development onsite will also be required to comply with all applicable regulations and design standards as identified in the Zoning Ordinance.

VTTM 7451

Recommendation. Staff finds that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal is compatible with the existing land use designation and land uses in the surrounding area. Staff finds the proposed subdivision is reasonable and the request to w aive mineral rights is consistent with BMC Section 16.20.060 A.1. Based on information in the record, Staff recommends your Commission adopt the Resolution and findings APPROVING Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 (Phased) as outlined in this staff report subject to the recommended conditions.

ATTACHMENTS:

Map Set
• Aerial
• Zone Classification
• General Plan Designation
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 (Phased)
Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments
Correspondence
Planning Commission Draft Resolution

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 1 of 44

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

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

PROJECT NO. (or Title): Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7451 (Phased)

COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: February 5, 2026

COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: March 9, 2026

MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required): Updated: 5/27/2026

Air Quality

AQ-1 During construction, all unpaved construction roads shall be watered as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions. The project shall comply with SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII (Rules 8011, 8021, 8031, 8041, 8051, 8061, and 8071) dust control measures.

AQ-2 During construction, all exposed soil areas shall be watered a minimum of three (3) times per day to minimize dust generation.

AQ-3 During construction, vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces shall be limited to less than 15 miles per hour.

AQ-4 The project shall provide electric vehicle charging infrastructure in accordance with applicable state and local requirements.

AQ-5 The project shall install energy-efficient ceiling fans.

AQ-6 The project shall install onsite renewable energy systems.

AQ-7 The project shall be designed and constructed as an all-electric development.

AQ-8 The project shall be developed in accordance with the phasing plan described in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting technical memoranda, with no overlapping construction phases.

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 2 of 44

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

BIO-1 A biological resource pre -activity survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30-days before the start of construction activities.

BIO-2 There will be b iological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance.

BIO-3 Compliance reporting shall be provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted.

BIO-4 A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special -status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented.

BIO-5 If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or during Ground Disturbance (2011) sh all be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.

BIO-6 Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2 -feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet.

BIO-7 Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped sh all be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.

BIO-8 Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater in diameter sh all be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.

BIO-9 If ground-disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance should occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist.

Appropriate avoidance should be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests should be implemented as follows:

1. Ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters),

2. Burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW may be warranted,

3. Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers),

4. Other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters).

Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

CUL-1 During construction, if cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work shall immediately cease, and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Project is subject to any recommendations of the qualified specialist.

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 3 of 44

CUL-2 During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99.

CUL -3 Prior t o any ground disturbance activities, a qualified professional archaeologist shall conduct a field survey of the entire parcel.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation Measures:

GHG-1 The project shall install energy efficient lighting, heating and cooling systems, water heaters, appliances, equipment and control systems in compliance with Title 24 regulations.

GHG-2 The project shall include photovoltaic solar systems in compliance with Title 24 regulations.

GHG-3 The project shall encourage the use of clean electric landscape equipment by including electrical outlets on the exterior of project buildings.

GHG-4 The project shall use high efficiency building materials and multiple glazing.

GHG-5 The project shall install electric vehicle capable/ready charger(s) in each dwelling unit.

GHG-6 The project shall incorporate bicycle lane accessibility and parking to the subdivision.

GHG-7 The project shall install landscape trees along roadway frontages.

GHG-8 The applicant shall incorporate best management practices (BMPs) to reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible as listed in SJVAPCD ’s GAMAQI and Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts Under CEQA.

GHG-9 The project applicant shall purchase carbon offsets, in an amount equal to the estimated CO2e emissions for the life of the project. Such offsets shall be retired prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit from Phase 1.

• The applicant shall demonstrate its reduction of GHG emissions through the retirement of carbon offset credits provided that the following conditions are satisfied:

o The applicant shall provide proof to the Development Services Director, or his or her designee, that the carbon offset credits were issued by a California Air Resources Board (CARB)-approved registry using a CARB approved protocol or if no CARB approved registry is available, carbon offsets issued by any entity meeting the following requirements:

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 4 of 44

o The registry shall account for and quantify emission reductions using clear and defined standards and incorporating recognized principles of GHG emissions reduction accounting, including those set forth in ISO 14064 and the WRI/WBCSD Greenhouse Gas Protocol for Project Accounting; o The registry shall use clear information sufficient for reviewers to assess credibility of GHG emission reductions underlying the carbon offset credits.

Upon request by the City’s Development Services Director, or his or her designee, any governmental entity, or any stakeholder, the registry shall provide the following information within a reasonable time period in connection with any carbon offset credit retired by the applicant: (i) the applicable quantification protocol; and (ii) all third-party confirmation or verification reports issued in connection with the carbon offset credits. Such information shall be sufficient to monitor compliance by the project applicant with this mitigation measure.

• The carbon offset credits retired by the applicant for the purpose of mitigating GHG emissions shall represent GHG emission reductions that are real, permanent, additional, quantifiable, verifiable and enforceable, as documented through compliance with the standards described above.

Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measures

TRAN-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall participate in the Regional Traffic Impact Fee (RTIF) program by paying the adopted fees in place for the land use type at time of development.

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 5 of 44

INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

1. Project (Title & No.): Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7451 (Phased)

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

3. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Veronica Martinez (661) 326-3640

4. Project Location: The project is located generally southeast of Olive Drive and Santa Fe Way in northwest Bakersfield (portion of Accessor Parcel Number 463-040-13)

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

6. General Plan Designation: HMR (High Medium Density Residential) and LR (Low Density Residential)

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

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

McIntosh & Associates, representing Diamond Farming Company (Owner), is proposing a vesting tentative tract map for 313 residential lots, 1 multi-use trail lot, and 1park lot on 40.77 acres, zoned R- 2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling). In addition, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the signatures of each party owning a recorded interest in, or right to minerals, not including lessees pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) Section 16.20.060 A.1.

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

The proposed project site is currently agricultural land and is bounded by agricultural land to the north, east, west and south . The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad is located adjacent to the southwest corner of the proposed subdivision.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required:
• City of Bakersfield – Mitigated Negative Declaration consideration and adoption • City of Bakersfield – Improvement Plans
• City of Bakersfield – Building permits
• City of Bakersfield – Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program and Local Mitigation • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – Indirect Source Rule compliance • State Water Resources Control Board – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General permit

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated 5.26.26_final.docx Page 6 of 44

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated 5.26.26_final.docx Page 7 of 44

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated 5.26.26_final.docx Page 8 of 44

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated 5.26.26_final.docx Page 9 of 44

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated 5.26.26_final.docx Page 10 of 44

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 11 of 44

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

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

□ Aesthetics □ Agricultural Resources □ Air Quality □ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Geology / Soils □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions □ Hazards & Hazardous Materials □ Hydrology / Water Quality □ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise
□ Population / Housing □ Public Services □ Recreation
□ Transportation / Traffic □ Utilities / Service Systems □ Mandatory Findings of Significance

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

□ I f ind that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration will be prepared.

■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a signifi cant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A mitigated negative declaration will be prepared.

□ I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, an d an environmental impact report is required.

□ I find that the proposed project may have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect has been (1) adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An environmental impact report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been (1) analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration pursuant to appl icable legal standards, and (2) avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration , including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

March 20, 2026

Signature Date

____________Veronica Martinez__________
Printed name

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 12 of 44

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identi fy which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and ad equately 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:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 13 of 44

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 the City limits generally southeast of Olive Drive and Santa Fe Way in northwest Bakersfield . The existing visual environment in the area adjacent to the project i s agricultural land. The construction of single -family residential at the site would be in character and compatible with existing urban land uses in the vicinity of the site and is a natural extension of the urban growth occurring in the project area. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista , and impacts are less than significant.

b. No i mpact. There are no trees, rock outcrops, or historic buildings located at the project site.

Additionally, the project is not located adjacent to or near any officially designated or potentially eligible scenic highways to be listed on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System (Caltrans, n.d.). The closest section of highway eligible for state scenic highway designation is State Route (SR) 14 located in Kern County over 6 5 miles to the southeast of the project area . Therefore, the project would not s ubstantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

c. Less than significant impact . Please refer to responses I.a, I.b and I.d. The project does not conflict with any applicable vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements or design criteria of federal, state, or local agencies and, the project would be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) designations and Zoning Ordinance classifications for the project area. The area is not regarded or designated within the MBGP as visually important or “scenic.” Therefore, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

d. Less than significant impact. This project involves incremental urban growth within the City of Bakersfield’s jurisdiction. This project would have to comply with City development standards, including Title 17 ( Zoning Ordinance), Title 15 (buildings and construction), as well as California Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 14 of 44

Code of Regulations Title 24. Together, these local and state requirements oblige project compliance with current lighting and signage standards that minimize unwanted light or glare to spill over into neighboring properties. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

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

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project;

a. Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?

d. Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest?

e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Discussion

a. Less than significant impact. The project site is designated as Prime Farmland by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (CDOC, 2022). The project site was granted a nonagricultural entitlement through a prezone from County A (Exclusive Agriculture) to R -1 (Single Unit Dwelling) and R-2 (Small Lot Single -Unit Dwelling) in 2010 ( ZC 09-0591; Ordinance 4611) . Subsequently, the portion of the project site previously zoned R -1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) was rezoned to R -2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) in 2024 (ZC 24-0055; Ordinance No. 5176). The project would not convert 100 acres or more of the farmlands designated prime, unique or of statewide significance to non-agricultural uses. The project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract (KernGIS, 2025). The City first rezoned the site for residential uses in 2010. Agricutlural uses are not permitted in R -1 or R-2 zones (City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield Municipal Code Table 17.10.1.) Therefore, the project would not convert the site from agricultural to residen tial uses and would result in a less than Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 15 of 44

significant impact related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use.

b. No impact. The project site is currently zoned R -2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) and is not under a Williamson Act contract (KernGIS, 2025). Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.

c. No impact. As discussed in II.b, the project site is zoned R -2. There are no forest lands located on the site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.

d. No impact. There are no forestlands within the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest.

e. Less than significant impact. Please refer to responses II.a through II.d. This project is in an area designated for urban development by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The project itself is typical of the development found in Metropolitan Bakersfield. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to the change in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

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

III. AIR QUALITY:

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

Discussion

a. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated . An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Memorandum was prepared for the project (VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum, Trinity Consultants, 202 6). A previous Air Quality and Impact Assessment was prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7218, which has expired and proposed 239 single -family residences. The Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 16 of 44

current Project is a revision of VTTM No. 7218 and proposes 31 3 single-family residences, an increase from the originally approved 239 units.

The project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) jurisdiction, in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for ozone, particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM 10) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5). The SJVAPCD has annual emission significance thresholds used to determine whether a project would result in a substantial contribution for both operational and construction emissions (See Table 1 and Table 2).

The project’s construction and operational emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2 and EMFAC2011 from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Compared to the prior project, the project is estimated to result in lower construction -related emissions, l due to updated CalEEMod emission factors that reflect improvements in construction equipment technology over time. The project is also estimated to result in a slight increase in operational emissions compared to the prior project, which is attributable to an increase in proposed dwelling units relative to the original project proposal and differences in CalEEMod emission factors and input data associated with newer model versions.

Measures AQ-1 through AQ-7 were incorporated into the CalEEMod analysis as mitigation measures and would reduce emissions associated with both construction and operation of the project. Estimates of the project’s construction and operational emissions are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively (VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum, Trinity Consultants, 2026).

Table 1 Construction Emissions With Mitigation Incorporated

Emissions Source Pollutants (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2026 0.85 1.25 1.60 0.00 0.15 0.08
2027 1.31 0.94 1.41 0.00 0.08 0.04
Maximum 1.31 1.25 1.60 0.00 0.15 0.08
Annual Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
*Note: 0.000 could represent < 0.000
Source: (Trinity Consultants, 2025)

Table 2 Annual Operational Emissions With Mitigation Incorporated

Emissions Source Pollutants (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 1.47 1.44 11.34 0.03 2.74 0.71
Area 2.72 0.02 1.60 0.0. 0.00 0.00
Total 4.19 1.45 12.94 0.03 2.74 0.71
Annual Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Source: (Trinity Consultants, 2026)

Table 3 Construction Emissions Without Mitigation Incorporated

Emissions Source Pollutants (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 17 of 44

2026 0.85 1.25 1.60 0.00 0.32 0.16
2027 1.31 0.94 1.41 0.00 0.08 0.04
Maximum 1.31 1.25 1.60 0.00 0.32 0.16
Annual Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
*Note: 0.000 could
represent > 0.000 Source:
(Trinity Consultants, 2026)

Table 4 Annual Operational Emissions Without Mitigation Incorporated Pollutants (tons/year)

Source: (Trinity Consultants, 2026)

As shown in Table 1 through Table 4 above, the emissions generated by the project would not exceed the SJVAPCD regional significance thresholds and are consistent with applicable air quality attainment plans, including associated control measures and regulations. (VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum, Trinity Consultants, 202 6). Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on the implementation of an air quality plan.

b. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated . As discussed in response III.a above, emissions of ROG, NO X, PM 10, and PM 2.5 associated with the construction and operation of the project would not exceed the SJVAPCD significance thresholds with the incorporation of measures AQ-1 through AQ-4. Therefore, the project would also not have a cumulatively considerable effect related to increased emissions of nonattainment criteria air pollutants. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the agency responsible for monitoring and regulating air pollutant emissions from stationary, area, and indirect sources within western Kern County, where the project is located, and throughout the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Western Kern County is designated in extreme nonattainment of federal 8 -hour ozone and nonattainment for PM2.5 standards and state 1 -hour and 8 -hour ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 standards. The SJVAPCD maintains attainment p lans for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. The District’s plans include emissions inventories that identify sources of air pollutants, evaluations for feasibility of implementing potential opportunities to reduce emissions, computer modeling to estimate future levels of pollution, and a strategy for how air pollution will be further reduced.

District plans also include strategies for accelerating attainment through regulatory and non - regulatory measures such as incentive programs and technology advancement programs. T he SJVAPCD’s recommended CEQA significance thresholds are applied to evaluate regional impacts of project specific emissions of air pollutants. Regional impacts can be characterized in terms of total annual emissions of criteria pollutants and their impact on the District’s ability to reach attainment, in consideration of other emissions sources in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

The District’s attainment plans demonstrate that project specific emissions below the District’s thresholds will have a less th an significant impact on air quality. (SJVAPCD, Guidance for Assessing and Mitigation Air Quality Impacts (2015).) Compliance with the SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII –Fugitive Dust PM 10 Prohibitions and the preparation of a SJVAPCD -approved Dust Control Plan will generally ensure that a project would have a less than significant PM10 emissions Emissions Source

ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 1.47 1.44 11.34 0.03 2.74 0.71
Area 2.72 0.02 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.03 0.56 0.24 0.00 0.05 0.05
Total 4.23 2.01 13.18 0.03 2.78 0.75
Annual Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15

Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 18 of 44

impact during construction. (SJVAPCD, Guidance for Assessing and Mitigation Air Quality Impacts (2015).)

c. Less than significant impact. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved that expose sensitive receptors to sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Examples of the types of land use that are sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. The most sensitive portions of the population are children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site would be residential uses 0. 36 miles south of the project site; however, the residential uses will be separated from the project by an arterial road, Santa Fe Way and the BNSF railroad. There are no schools within 0.25 miles of the project site.

SJVAPCD considers a cancer risk to be significant if it exceeds 20 in one million, and non -cancer health risks to be significant if the hazard index is greater than 1.0. For this analysis, a 2 -year exposure duration was assumed. As shown in Table 3, the maximum cancer risk and non -cancer hazard index from the proposed Project are below these thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant health risk impact under CEQA (Trinity Consultants, 2025). Therefore, the project would not e xpose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations , and impacts are less than significant.

Table 3 Maximum Potential Health Impacts

Value UTM East UTM North
Express Cancer Risk 0.52 in a million 304236.3 3920764.2 Chronic Hazard Index 0.00031 304236.3 3920764.2
Source: (Trinity Consultants, 2025)

d. No impact. The land use proposed for this project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors. This project is not included on the list of land uses generally regarded to have site odor problems per Table 6 of the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVAPCD, 2015). Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect related to odors.

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 Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 19 of 44

wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

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

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

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

Discussion

a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. A Biological Clearance Survey Report was prepared by Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc. (PruettBio) for the project (PruettBio, 2025). The fieldwork conducted for report was consistent with the federal and state general survey guidelines for timing and spacing requirements for the detection of special -status species required for a biological clearance survey . Initial fieldwork was first conducted on April 30, 2025.

The project was surveyed by walking the perimeter and random transects to evaluate all representative habitat features of the site. The field study conducted, allowed for 100% visual coverage of the project site.

Federal- and State -Listed or otherwise special -status species that have the historical or current distributions within a 10-mile radius of the project site include, but are not limited to: Blunt -nosed leopard lizard ( Gambelia sila; BNLL), San Joaquin antelope squirrel ( Ammospermophilus nelsoni; SJAS), San Joaquin kit fox ( Vulpes macrotis mutica ; SJKF), and Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides ; TKR), Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei ; BACA), Kern mallow (Eremalche parryi ssp. kernensis ), and burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia; BUOW). BUOW populations in the San Joaquin Valley occur in close association with California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) (PruettBio, 2025).

No special -status species were observed on the project site during the biological survey. A focused biological field survey determined that the project site does not support suitable habitat for Kern mallow or blunt -nosed leopard lizard and is not within the known occupied range for San Joaquin antelope squirrel or Tipton kangaroo rat. No burrows exhibiting kangaroo rat characteristics were observed. No burrowing owl individuals, burrows, or sign were detected, and no avian ground nests were observed. No evidence of special -status species was documented during the field survey. No Swainson’s hawk nests are known within five miles of the project site, and given the limited number of known nests in Kern County and the project’s size and location, the project would not be expected to significantly affect Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. The site has limited potential to support San Joaquin kit fox; however, no kit fox dens, scat, tracks, burrows, or other evidence of presence were observed . Avoidance and minimization measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would be implemented to avoid the probability of take occurring during project activities (PruettBio, 2025).

Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 20 of 44

With implementation of measures BIO-1 through BIO-9, the project would not h ave 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 C alifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife (C DFW) or Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS).

b. No impact. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities located at the site.

This project is also not located within, or adjacent to, the Kern River riparian habitat area.

Therefore, the project would result in no impacts on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.

c. No impact. There are no wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, located at the project site, and no features identified as wetlands categories are found in the National Wetlands Inventory within the project area (USFWS, 2023). Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally-protected wetlands.

d. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated . No evidence of nursery sites was observed during the site survey. In addition, the project site is not within an essential habitat connectivity area (CDFW, 2010). However, measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would be implemented to avoid the probability of take during project activities. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites.

e. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site does not include biological resources that are protected by local policies. However, as stated in responses IV.a and IV.d, measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would be implemented to avoid the probability of take during project activities. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to responses IV.a, IV.d, and IV.e .

With implementation of measure BIO-1 through BIO-9, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

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 Cultural Resource s Records Search was conducted for the project site (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, 2014). The Cultural Resources Records Search concluded Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 21 of 44

that there are no cultural resources within the project site that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, 2014) . In addition, a ccording to the Historic Buildings and Sites in Bakersfield Map, the project site does not include a historic building or site (City of Bakersfield, 2022). Therefore, the project would not c ause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. It has been concluded that the project site does not contain any known archaeological resources (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, 2014) . In addition, according to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the MCGP, the majority of archeological sites within the city lie outside of urban development areas.

The soil within the project site has been disturbed previously; therefore, the likelihood of archeological resources being present and intact is low. However, in the event that any unknown resources are encountered, measure CUL-1 would be implemented. With implementation of measure CUL-1 through CUL-3, the project would not significantly affect archeological resources.

c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site, previously used for agricultural purposes, has been previously disturbed. There are no known human remains on the site, and it is neither located within nor adjacent to a former cemetery. The project could inadvertently uncover, or damage previously unknown human remains. Measure CUL-2 requires that if any human remains are found at the site during construction, work would cease, and the remains would be handled pursuant to applicable law. With implementation of measure CUL-2, the project would not significantly disturb any human remains.

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

VI. ENERGY: Would the project;

a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?

b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

Discussion

a. Less than significant impact. Project construction would require temporary energy demands typical of other commercial projects that occur throughout the state and this development’s construction would not result in inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources beyond typical commercial construction. All new construction within the City of Bakersfield must adhere to modern building standards, including California Code of Regulations Title 24, which outlines energy efficiency standards for new commercial buildings to ensure that they do not wastefully, inefficiently, or unnecessarily consume energy. Therefore, the project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 22 of 44

b. Less than significant impact. There is no adopted plan by the City of Bakersfield for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As mentioned above, all new development projects within the City are required to adhere to modern building standards related to energy efficiency. Additionally, the City encourages applicants and developers to go beyond the required standards and make their developments even more efficient through programs such as LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, which is a green building rating system that provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient, and cost -saving green buildings. Other encouraged programs available to applicants and developers are Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards and 2005 building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project;
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Discussion

a. The following discusses the potential for the project to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects because of various geologic hazards. The City is within a seismically active area.

According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan , major active fault systems border the Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 23 of 44

southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these major active fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge -Kern County, Garlock, Pond Poso, and White Wolf faults. There are numerous additional smaller faults suspected to occur within the Bakersfield area, which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge -Kern County) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides.

i. No Impact. Ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of a fault during an earthquake. According to the California Department of Conservation’s (CDOC) Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map, the project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone (CDOC, n.d.) . 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.

iii. Less than significant impact. The most common seismic -related ground failure is liquefaction and lateral spreading. In both cases, during periods of ground motion caused by an event such as an earthquake, loose materials are transformed from a solid state to near-liquid state as a result of increased pore water pressure. Such ground failure generally requires a high -water table and poorly draining soils in order for such ground failure to occur.

Soils underlain the project site include s Milham sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 17 and Wasco sandy loam (USDA, n.d.). The potential for liquefaction at the project site is low. The site is not within an area with a high ground water. In addition, future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction.

iv. Less than significant impact. In Kern County, the common types of landslides induced by earthquake occur on steeper slopes found in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon; in these areas, landslides are generally associated with bluff and stream bank failure, rockslide, and slope slip on steep slopes. The project site is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade . Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides.

b. Less than significant impact. The relatively low precipitation in the project area [on average about 6 inches/year results in surface runoff that is intermittent and temporary in nature (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2025) .The erosion potential at the site and the fact that the soils are well drained coupled with low average rainfall in the area does not make the project site likely to have substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The project site’s soils have low susceptibility to erosion by rainfall and moderate susceptibility to erosion by wind (USDA, n.d.).

Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 24 of 44

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

During operation, the soils would be sufficiently compacted to required engineered specifications, revegetated in compliance with City requirements, or paved over with impervious surfaces such that the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

c. Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the project site’s soils would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides.

Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low -density materials that collapse and compact under the addition of water or excessive loading. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

d. No impact. The soils identified on site Milham sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 17 and Wasco sandy loam , do not have a high potential to be expansive (USDA, n.d.) . Additionally, future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property.

e. No impact. The project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because the project would connect to existing City sewer services in the area.

Therefore, there would be no impacts related to soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.

f. No impact. According to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the MCGP, the city has a very low potential to contain paleontological resources. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on unique paleontological resources, sites or unique geologic features.

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

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project;

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the

Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 25 of 44

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 with mitigation incorporated . The City may rely on a qualitative analysis or performance- based standards to analyze the significance of a project’s GHG emissions for purposes of CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (a).) Here, the City has elected to rely on a qualitative analysis to analyze the significance of GHG emissions, consistent with SJVAPCD guidance. (SJVAPCD Guidance for Valley Land -use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts for New Projects under CEQA.)

In determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions, the CEQA lead agency should consider the following factors: (1) the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environment; (2) whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; and (3) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for reducing or mitigating GHG emissions. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (b).)

The City may also rely on a qualitative assessment of project consistency with statewide or regional policy goals to “fill the gap” between statewide and project -level reductions. ( City of Long Beach v. City of Los Angeles (2018)19 Cal.App.5 th 465; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (b)(3).)

Here, the Project will result in an increase in GHG emissions relative to existing conditions that is potentially significant. This conclusion is supported by the findings of the Kern Council of Government Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2022) RTP/SCS PEIR. The 2022 RTP/SCS concludes that GHG impacts from foreseeable development within Kern County, including residential uses, would be potentially significant. For purposes of analyzing cumulative GHG impacts, the 2022 RTP/SCS PEIR considered GHG emissions within California, not just within the County. (PEIR, Table 10 -1.) The SCS used the most recent planning assumptions available at the time, considering local general plans and development patterns. Notably, a portion of the Project site was upzoned to allow R -2 densities following Kern COG’s certification of the 2022 RTP/SCS PEIR. The project proposes an increase in dwelling units relative to the original project proposal, which further increases GHG emissions anticipated from project construction and operation.

A VTTM 7451 Air Quality Study Memorandum was prepared for the project (Trinity Consultants, 2026). The project would generate GHG emissions; Table 4 presents the estimated operational GHG emissions with these measures incorporated.

Table 4 Operational GHG Emissions with Mitigation Incorporated

Operational GHG Emissions (MT/Year)
Category CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants CO2e
Mobile 2,710 0.13 0.14 3.73 2,758
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 26 of 44

Area 3.88 0.00 0.00 - 3.89
Energy 57.68 0.01 0.00 - 58.25
Water 13.44 0.41 0.01 - 26.78
Waste 25.15 2.51 - - 87.98
Refrigeration - - - 0.72 0.72
Total 2,811 3.07 0.15 4.45 2,936
Source: (Trinity Consultants, 2026)

Table 5 Operational GHG Emissions without Mitigation Incorporated

Operational GHG Emissions (MT/Year)
Category CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants CO2e
Mobile 2,710 0.13 0.14 3.73 2,758
Area 3.88 0.00 0.00 - 3.89
Energy 916.93 0.10 0.01 - 921.40
Water 13.44 0.41 0.01 - 26.78
Waste 25.15 2.51 - - 87.98
Refrigeration - - - 0.72 0.72
Total 3,670 3.16 0.15 4.45 3,799
Source: (Trinity Consultants, 2026)

The project would generate GHG emissions from electricity use and vehicle travel; however, the project would incorporate onsite solar, which would reduce operational GHG emissions over time. Electricity and transportation fuels in California are regulated under state programs such as the AB 32 Scoping Plan, Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), and Cap -and-Trade Program.

Mitigation measures GHG -1 through GHG -9 are recommended for land use projects recommended in the 2022 RTP/SCS PEIR is proposed to be incorporated.

With t he inclusion of solar and all -electric development, total project emissions would be reduced/avoided by 22.6 percent in reliance on on-site GHG mitigation measures. In addition, the Project proposes to purchase offsets to achieve a net-zero emissions reduction standard. For the above reasons, project emissions would be consistent with applicable state GHG reduction plans and policies.

Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. b. Less than significant impact. The City of Bakersfield has not adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan or completed the necessary steps such as a GHG inventory or target -setting to allow for CEQA streamlining under SB 97 or the 2018 CEQA Guidelines amendments. While the SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Change Action Plan, it does not contain measures applicable to individual development projects and therefore cannot be applied to this project. In the absence of a local or regional GHG reduction plan, the project’s consistency with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plans, including the 2008 Scoping Plan ,2017 and 2022 Updates, and with the Kern Council of Government’s 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy was evaluated.

The project site has a current zone classification of R -2 (Small Lot Single -Unit Dwelling), with land use designations of LR (Low Density Residential) and HMR (High Medium Density Residential). The project includes construction of 313 single -family homes, which follows the HMR designation density. Since the project is consistent with existing zoning and land use regulations, its contributions to cumulative environmental impacts are within the scope of those previously analyzed in the Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR). The RTP provides goals and policy actions to achieve the goals within strategic action elements for mobility, accessibility, reliability, efficiency, livability, sustainability, and equity in the region. The project is aligned with the population, housing units, households, and Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 27 of 44

employment goals established in the RTP to improve economic vitality, transportation patterns and air quality throughout the region. As defined in CEQA §15355, cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The FPEIR evaluated cumulative air quality and GHG impacts of all transportation and land development projects anticipated under the 2022 RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), including those related to climate change. The Project incorporates onsite GHG mitigation measures recommended in the RTP/SCS and has further committed to mitigate GHG emissions to net zero through the purchase of carbon offsets. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to result in any additional cumulative air quality or GHG impacts beyond those previously evaluated in the RTP/SCS FPEIR.

The project would comply with existing regulations and implementation of applicable design features. Based on the project’s emissions and alignment with statewide strategies and regional for reducing GHG emissions across key sectors, the project is considered consistent with State GHG and regional reduction goals and would not result in a significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA.

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?

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?

Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 28 of 44

Discussion

a. Less than significant impact. The project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act.

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

The project is the development of up to 313 single family residential units, one multi -use trail lot, and one park lot . Day-to-day activities in residences do not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. Maintenance of residences would require the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides. Residential users should follow any instructions for use and storage provided on product labels carefully to prevent any accidents at home. Users should also read product labels for disposal directions to reduce the risk of products exploding, igniting, leaking, mixing with other chemicals, or posing other hazards on the way to a disposal facility. Additionally, residential hazardous waste can be dropped off at Metro Kern County Special Waste Facility located at 4951 Standard Street or at one-day hazardous waste collection events that take place throughout the year. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

b. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response VIX.a. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment.

c. No impact. The closest school is Frontier High School located approximately 0.6 mile east of the project site. Therefore, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school.

d. No impact. The EnviroStor (DTSC, 2025 ) and Cortese lists (DTSC, n.d.) pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65962.5 were reviewed. No portion of the project site is identified on either list, which provides the location of known hazardous waste concerns. Therefore, the project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to GC Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

e. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area (Kern County, 2011). The closest airport to the project site is the Meadows Field Airport, which is located approximately 4 miles east of the project site. Therefore, the project would not Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 29 of 44

result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The project is not located within a distance an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted.

f. Less than significant impact. Access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period, and appropriate detours would be provided in the event of potential temporary road closures. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in a substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield, and is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (City of Bakersfield, 1996) . This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

g. Less than significant impact. The project site is not located within a “very high,” “high,” or “moderate” fire hazard severity zone (City of Bakersfield, 2025) . The site is surrounded by extensively developed land, and its vicinity is agricultural and urban and does not possess high fuel loads that have a high potential to cause a wildland fire. The project site would be developed with hardscapes and irrigated landscaping, which would further reduce fire potential at the site. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project;
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:

d. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? e. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?

f. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 30 of 44

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

b. Less than significant impact. Potable water from the project would be supplied by California Water Service (Cal Water). Cal Water provided a “Will Serve Letter” for the project, and therefore groundwater levels have already been accounted for in the UWMP with the project (a future entitlement) (CalWater, 2024) . Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.

c. The following discusses whether the project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces.

i. Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain any blue -line streams or other surface water features and therefore, the project would not alter the course of a river or stream. The project site would be graded and, as a result, the internal drainage pattern at the site would be altered from the baseline condition. Additionally, the project would result in increased impervious surfaces (i.e., building pads, sidewalks, asphalt parking area, etc.) at the site, which would reduce percolation to ground and result in greater amounts of storm water runoff concentrations at the site. If uncontrolled, differences in drainage patterns and increased impervious surfaces could result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or offsite. However, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit during construction and MS4 permit during operation. In order to comply with the MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with adopted building codes, including complying with an approved drainage plan, which avoids on - and offsite flooding, erosion, and siltation problems. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 31 of 44

ii. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.c.i. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite.

iii. Less than significant impact. In order to comply with the City’s MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with an approved drainage plan that would avoid on - and offsite flooding thus, the project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

iv. Less than significant impact. A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Maps, shows the project site is located in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1 -percent and 0.2 -percent-annual-chance floodplain (FEMA, n.d.). Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows.

d. Less than significant impact. The City of Bakersfield is located within Central California and is not near a coastal environment that risks flood inundation. In addition, the City is not located within a tsunami zone as identified by the California Department of Conservation’s Tsunami Map. As mentioned above, the project site is located in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1 - percent and 0.2 -percent-annual-chance floodplain. The project site, like most of the City, is located within the Lake Isabella flood inundation area ( USACE, n.d ), which is the area that would experience flooding in the event that there was a catastrophic failure of the Lake Isabella Dam. There is an approved Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan (Kern County Fire Department, 2009) ) that establishes a process and procedures for the mass evacuation and short-term support of populations at risk below the Lake Isabella Dam. The City would utilize the Evacuation Plan to support its Emergency Operations Plans. Due to the project’s location and implementation of related emergency safety plans, the project would not likely risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones.

e. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.c.i. There is currently no adopted groundwater management plan for the project site or its vicinity. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan

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 or is an infill development. The project is not a long and linear feature, such as a freeway, railroad Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 32 of 44

track, block wall, etc., that would have the potential to divide a community. The project is the development of a finite 40.77-acre project site that does not impede existing or future movement or development of the City. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community.

b. No impact. The project does not require any land use or zoning change. The proposed single - family residential development is consistent with the Low -Density and High -Medium Density designation of the MBGP and R -2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) zone on the site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

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 oildfield. There is one abandoned plugged oi l well found on the site (CDOC, n.d. ). Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.

b. No impact. The project site is currently designated LR (Low Density Residential) and HMR (High - Medium Density Residential). No portion of the site is designated for a potential mineral resource extraction use such as R -MP (Mineral and Petroleum). Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

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

XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:

a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 33 of 44

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 noise during construction by the use of construction equipment. Typical construction equipment generates sound levels between 80 and 85 A -weighted decibels (dBA), which is a decibel system reflective of human hearing characteristics. At 80 to 85 dBA, the human response to such a sound level is annoyance and difficulty hearing conversation. Using the rule of thumb that noise attenuates 7.5 dBA per a doubling of distance away from the sound -emitting source, it would require 800 feet away from an 85-dBA sound-emitting source to obtain a 55 dBA sound level, which is considered “quiet” to the human ear. There are sensitive receptors (existing SFR) approximately 1900 feet to the south of the project site. However, project construction would be limited to 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends per Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 9.22 (Noise).

Project operations would generate sound levels typical of single -family residential land uses and residents would have to comply with Bakersfield Municipal Code regarding noise. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

b. Less than significant impact. Some 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 neighborhood commercial use would not generate ground -borne vibration. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive ground -borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.

c. No impact. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.

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
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 34 of 44

elsewhere?

Discussion

a. Less than significant impact. The project would accommodate population growth in this area through the development of new homes , and the project is the logical extension of existing urban development. The project would also require the extension of infrastructure. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on growth. b. No impact. The project site is currently used as agricultural land and proposes the development of new homes. Therefore, the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

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

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in:

a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:

i. Fire protection?

ii. Police protection?

iii. Schools?

iv. Parks?

v. Other public facilities?

Discussion

a. The following discusses whether the project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts to public services. The need for additional public service is generally directly correlated to population growth and the resultant additional population’s need for services beyond what is currently available.

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

Potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 35 of 44

ii. Less than significant impact. Police protection for the project would be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department. Potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection.

iii. Less than significant impact. The project would produce up to 313 units to accommodate approximately 999 residents and generate approximately 150 school- aged children as indicated in Table 5 below.

Table 5 Generation of School Aged Children
Number and Type
of Dwelling Units Elementary (K-8) High School (9-
12) Total Pupils
313 single-family
units 313 x 0.31 313 x 0.17 150
Totals 97 53

This increase may necessitate the construction of additional school facilities. However, the need for additional schools can be paid for by existing school impact fees and increased property tax revenues. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools.

iv. Less than significant impact. The project proposes a population increase of 999 and a park lot. In addition, t he parkland requirements for the proposed project are calculated based on the General Plan and City Ordinance park standards of 2.5 acres for every 1,000 people and therefore, the park acreage estimated for the project is 2.49 acres. In addition, every residential unit must pay a park land development fee at the time of the issuance of building permits. Compliance with the park acreage dedication ordinance and the park development fee ordinance ensures that parks are dedicated and built in accordance with City standards to accommodate the increased population. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks.

v. Less than significant impact. The project and eventual buildup of this area would result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City. Though the project may necessitate increased maintenance for other public facilities, this potential increase can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or ph ysically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 36 of 44

environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities.

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

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 . Construction workers traveling to and from the project site as well as construction material delivery would result in additional vehicle trips to the area’s roadway system. Construction material delivery may require a number of trips for oversized vehicles that may travel at slower speeds than existing traffic and, due to their size, may intrude into adjacent travel lanes. These trips may temporarily degrade level of service Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 37 of 44

(LOS) on area roadways and at intersections. Additionally, the total number of vehicle trips associated with all construction -related traffic (including construction worker trips) could temporarily increase daily traffic volumes on local roadways and intersections. The project may require temporary lane closures or the need for flagmen to safely direct traffic on roadways near the project site. However, once the project is built, it would not result in any permanent traffic - related effects.

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

Prevent streets and intersections from degrading below Level of Service “C” where possible due to physical constraints (as defined in a Level of Service standard) or when the existing Level of Service if below “C” prevent where possible further degradation due to new development or expansion of existing development with a three -part mitigation program:
adjacent right-of-way dedication, access improvements and/or an area -wide impact fee.

The area-wide impact fee would be used where the physical changes for mitigation are not possible due to existing development and/or the mitigation measure is part of a larger project, such as freeways, which will be built at a later date.

Policy 36 of the Circulation Element of the MBGP requires the City to prevent streets and intersections from degrading below a level of service C, where possible, through dedication of adjacent right -of-way, access improvements, or an area wide impact fee. In addition, the Subdivision Ordinance requires all on -site street improvements and a proportional share of boundary street improvements to be built at the time the property is developed.

Mitigation measure TRAN-1 would require that the applicant/developer participation in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) Program and the payment of Local Mitigation fees.

With implementation of th is mitigation measure, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.

b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated . Please refer to response XVII.a. With implementation of measure TRAN-1, the project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.

c. Less than significant impact. The project would have to comply with all conditions placed on it by the City Traffic Engineering Division in order to comply with accepted traffic engineering standards intended to reduce traffic hazards, including designing the roads so that they do not result in design feature hazards. The project is with the City limits and surrounded by compatible existing and planned land uses and land use designations . Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.

d. Less than significant impact . There is the potential that, during the construction phase, the project would impede emergency access. For projects that require minor impediments of a short duration (e.g., pouring a new driveway entrance), the project would be required to obtain a street permit from City Public Works. If a project requires lane closures and/or the diversion of traffic, then a Traffic Control Plan, subject to Public Works approval, would be required. During operations, the project would have t o comply with all applicable City policies and requirements to ensure adequate emergency access. The need for such permits is determined by the Public Works Department during the permitting and construction phases of their permitting process. In Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 38 of 44

addition, the site plans have been designed in accordance with all City development standards. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

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

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project result in:

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?

b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?

Discussion

a. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated . A Cultural Resources Records Search was conducted for the project site (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, 2014). The Cultural Resources Records Search determined that there are no cultural resources within the project site . Additionally, no portion of the site is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, 2014). However, in the event that any unknown resources are encountered, measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 would be implemented. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on tribal cultural resources.

b. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorpora ted. See response XVII.a. above. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 39 of 44

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

XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project result in:

a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

c. Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?

d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion

a. Less than significant impact . The project would require the construction of new water, storm water drainage, sewer facilities; above and/or belowground electrical facilities, natural gas facilities, and telecommunications (e.g., cable, fiber optics, phone, etc.) typical of residential development. Water, storm water, and sewer structures would have to be designed to meet the City’s Current Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual (City of Bakersfield, 1989) . Compliance with the Design Manual would ensure that the such facilities would not result in significant environmental effects. Electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities would be placed by the individual serving utilities; these entities already have in place safety and siting protocols to ensure that placement of new utilities to serve new construction would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

b. Less than significant impact. The Cal Water has provided a “Will Serve Letter” stating that water service can be supplied to the development (Cal Water , 2024). The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Therefore, the project would have sufficient water supplies available from existing entitlements and resources, and new or expanded entitlements would not be needed.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 40 of 44

c. Less than significant impact. Wastewater as a result of the project would be treated at the North of the River Sanitary District (NORSD). NORSD has a capacity of 7.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and treats an average inflow of 5.6 MGD . NORSD is proposing an expansion of the existing wastewater treatment plant to service its existing and planned population. It has sufficient capacity to serve the project (ESA, 2025) . As a result, it has been determined that the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

d. Less than significant impact. It is assumed that solid waste generated as a result of the project would be disposed at the Bena Landfill located at 2951 Neumarkel Road, Bakersfield, CA 93307 .

In accordance with city standards which are designed to achieve State waste stream reduction and recycling goals, the Solid Waste Division of Public Works will conduct a detailed review of the facility at the time of development to incorporate appropriate on -site trash facilities, subject to city approval . Therefore, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.

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.

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 located in an urbanized area and access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The project is typical of u rban development in Bakersfield, and is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Bakersfield , Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 41 of 44

1996). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

b. Less than significant impact. As mentioned above, the project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Additionally, the project site is relatively flat, not near wildlands, the site and its surrounding do not possess high fuel loads (i.e., lots of vegetation and other burnable material) to exacerbate wildfire risks and therefore, fire -related pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfires and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors.

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. Therefore, the project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

d. Less than significant impact. The project site is relatively flat, is not within a floodplain, and is not in a moderate - to high-risk area for wildfires. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

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?

Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 42 of 44

Discussion

a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project must comply with listed plant and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), as directed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, respectively. In addition, measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would be implemented to avoid any impacts to special status species. There are no important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory found at the site.

However, measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 would be implemented to avoid any potential impacts to cultural or historical resources. Therefore, with the implementation of measures, the project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

b. Less than significant impact. Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” This section further states that cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”

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 would be required to undergo a separate environmental analysis and mitigate any project - or site-specific potential impacts, as necessary. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described in the responses above, the project, with mitigation, would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 43 of 44

References
Caltrans. (n.d.). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Retrieved from California Department of Transportation:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa
CalWater. (2024). WIll Serve Letter.

CDOC. (2022). California Important Farmland FInder. Retrieved from California Department of Conservation: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ CDOC. (n.d.). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Retrieved from Department of Conservation California Geological Survey:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/ CDOC. (n.d.). Well Finder. Retrieved from California Department of Conservation:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/
City of Bakersfield. (1989). Subdivision and Engineering Design Policy Manual. Bakersfield. Retrieved from https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/ca-bakersfield/e1fc107e-67a1-4264-8cad- 21b263cfe3e8/subdivision-engineering-design-manual-1989-pdf-.pdf?sq=cb0ab94f-1777-ce46- 5822-690d8a00f8f2&scope=all
City of Bakersfield. (1996). Hazardous Materials Area Plan. Bakersfield.

City of Bakersfield. (2022, July 26). Historic Buildings and Sites in Bakersfield. Retrieved from https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/eb1b154414724e1d8b39ef7ff1ee46a2 City of Bakersfield. (2025). Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area. Bakersfield. Retrieved from https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/1cb624df-5c64-473b-95e4- c6b51c7537ea?cache=1800
DTSC. (2025). Envirostor. Retrieved from California Department of Toxic Substances Control:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
DTSC. (n.d.). Department of Toxic Substances Control. Retrieved from DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List): https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/ ESA. (2025). NORSD Wster Resource Recovery Facility Project. Retrieved from https://www.norsd.com/files/3133b4f0d/NORSD+WRRF+Project.pdf FEMA. (n.d.). FEMA Flood Map Service Center. United Stataes. Retrieved from https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home
Kern County. (2011). Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. California, Kern County. Retrieved from https://docs.bakersfieldcity.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=932206&page=1&cr=1 Kern County Fire Department. (2009, December). Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan. California, Kern County. Retrieved from https://kerncountyfire.org/wp-content/uploads/Isabella-Dam- Failure-Plan.pdf
Environmental Checklist and Analysis

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Draft_IS_MND_VTTM 7451_updated

5.26.26_final.docx Page 44 of 44

KernGIS. (2025, March 17). ArcGIS. Retrieved from Kern COunty WIlliamson Act- Active:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=49aeef8ba48e4159a64923306820a c69
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2025). NOW Data. Retrieved from National Weather Service: https://www.weather.gov/wrh/Climate?wfo=hnx PruettBio. (2025). Biological Clearance Survey – 40.77 Gross Acres, Tract 7451, Bakersfield, California.

Bakersfield.

SJVAPCD. (2015, March 19). Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Retrieved from https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf
Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. (2014). Cultural Resources Records Search. Bakersfield.

Trinity Consultants. (2025). Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Memorandum. Bakersfield.

Trinity Consultants. (2014). Air Quality Impact Analysis for VTTM 7218. Bakersfield.

USACE. (n.d). Anticipated areas to flood in unlikely failure of Isabella Dam. Californa, Kern County.

Retrieved from
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/bakersfield.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/edit orial/8/04/804257c6-3a0c-54aa-a8b0-c8feb01b5631/594469881bd09.pdf.pdf USDA. (n.d.). United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service .

Retrieved from Web Soil Survey: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx USFWS. (2023, April 25). National Wetlands Inventory Surface Waters and Wetlands. Retrieved from United States Fish and Wildlife Service:
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/

dtsc.ca.gov

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
February 10, 2026
Veronica Martinez
Associate Planner
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]
RE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7451 (PHASED) DATED FEBRUARY 6, 2026, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2026020227
Dear Veronica Martinez,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7451 (Phased). McIntosh & Associates, representing Diamond Farming Company (Owner), is proposing a vesting tentative tract map for 313 residential lots, 1 multi-use trail lot, and a parking lot on

40.77 acres. DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments:

1. When agricultural crops and/or land uses are proposed or rezoned for residential use, several contaminants of concern (COCs) can be present. The Lead Agency shall identify the amounts of Pesticides and Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) historically used on the property. If present, OCPs requiring further analysis are dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, toxaphene, and dieldrin. Additionally, any level of arsenic present would require further analysis and sampling and must meet approved local area baselines or thresholds. If they do not, remedial action must take place to mitigate them below those thresholds. Additional COCs may be found in mixing/loading/storage areas, drainage ditches, farmhouses, or any Veronica Martinez
February 10, 2026

Page 2 ends

other outbuildings and should be sampled and analyzed. If smudge pots had been routinely utilized, additional sampling for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and/or Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons may be required. These recommendations should be adhered to and become part of the environmental document. Please refer to the DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage for the most recent guidance and screening levels.

2. DTSC recommends all imported soil/fill material be tested to ensure all COCs meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual. Furthermore, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil/fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil/fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil/fill material are suitable for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the soil/fill and knowledge of prior land use.

DTSC would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the MND for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7451 (Phased). Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via our CEQA Review email for additional guidance.

Sincerely,

Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]

Veronica Martinez
February 10, 2026

Page 3 ends

cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Isabella Herrera
Project Manager
McIntosh & Associates
[email protected]
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP-Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
1 P.O. Box 3357
Bakersfield, CA 93385
March 9, 2026

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
Attention: Veronica Martinez
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301

Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7451

Dear Planners:

The Sierra Club offers several comments about the above project, a residential development proposing a tentative tract map for 313 residential lots, 1 multi-use trail lot, and 1 park lot on

40.77 acres, zoned R- 2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling).in northwest Bakersfield Several points need to be emphasized:

The Sierra Club is not opposed to new housing per se. The Sierra Club would be supportive of any new housing project that thoroughly addresses its cumulative impacts and its affordability issues. In the details below, we present evidence that the current Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) does not adequately address the many issues associated with this proposed project and that a full-fledged EIR must be written for this project.

Affordable Housing

The project should be addressing the affordability goals of the City’s new Housing Element Update. To meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 18,211 low, very low, and extremely low income level housing units must be built by 2031. Proposed lots for this project are small; the developer will likely indicate his intention to build affordable housing. In order to demonstrate its commitment to these affordable housing goals and in order to ensure that the new housing on this property will actually be affordable, the City should impose enforceable low, very low, and extremely low income level housing unit requirements on this project.

2 These requirements should include a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for owner-occupied housing, as defined in AB 130.

This project is not addressing its cumulative impacts to air pollution, the climate crisis, habitat loss, and other issues. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3), ““Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” Impacts on Air Pollution
“Past projects”: Right now, Bakersfield has arguably the dirtiest air in the nation, largely because of emissions resulting from past projects. The MND admits that “The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for ozone, particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5).” According to CalEnviroScreen, Tract 7451 is in the 85th percentile for ozone exposure and in the 98th percentile for PM2.5 exposure. This huge existing PM2.5 exposure, alone, poses a clear health risk, particularly to sensitive receptors (Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10) | California Air Resources Board).

Without any adequate discussion of the cumulative effects of the project’s emissions in in the context of the massive PM2.5 and ozone exposure from past projects, the MND improperly concludes that “the Project would not result in a significant health risk impact under CEQA” because the Project’s emissions are below the Air District’s thresholds for direct impacts and that “the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.” The City, however, cannot deny the existence of an existing pollution problem caused by local residents’ exposure to PM2.5 and ozone contamination. The MND thus also violates CEQA because it fails to propose any mitigation measures for the cumulative effects of the project’s emissions in connection with the massive PM2.5 and ozone exposure from past projects noted in CalEnviroScreen.

To assess the Project’s cumulative impact on air quality, the MND was required to consider “Current and probable future projects.” in addition to the Project at issue. The County’s EIR for the recently approved IPG project lists 51 such area projects. Moreover, maps in the City’s draft Housing Element Update also show numerous such projects in the vicinity of Tract 7451.

As we argue in detail in our previous submissions, the MND fails to address the cumulative impacts of this project in addition to the existing current and future projects on various issues Most of the air quality mitigation measures only require compliance with existing regulation and should not be considered mitigation. We are pleased that “The project shall be designed and constructed as an all-electric development.” The measure should specifically state that there will be no natural gas connection.
3 Given our dreadfully dirty air and given the fact that the SJVAPCD has failed to meet many national ambient air quality standards for years, cumulative air pollution impacts must be considered significant, which in turn requires consideration of potentially feasible mitigation measures and alternatives. We propose that the City require the applicant to reduce project emissions to zero by entering into a Developer Mitigation Contract with the SJVAPCD.

This is an established and proven feasible mitigation measure that other projects have been required to implement in order to help address cumulatively significant air quality impacts.

On page 16 of the MND, in the section meant to address the cumulative impact of the project, the MND states, “the project would not exceed the SJVAPCD significance thresholds with the incorporation of measures AQ-1 through AQ-4. Therefore, the project would not have substantial adverse effects related to criteria pollutants.” The City illogically asserts that project-specific insignificance implies cumulative insignificance, violating the very meaning of cumulative impacts.

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

The MND for this project is defective in that it has not computed or addressed the cumulative emissions from this and other planned projects, cumulative emissions which almost certainly would exceed air quality standards and should be considered significant. In the interest of public health, cumulative emissions computations must include emissions from other planned projects, not just from this project. We include a cumulative list of several of the additional current proposed new projects in the Bakersfield area:
4 • The DEIR for the IPG Industrial Park Project lists 51 projects in its list of cumulative projects.
• Expansion of the Wonderful Industrial Park on Seventh Standard Road • Tentative Parcel Map 12447
• General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424
• Vesting Tentative Tracts 7450, 7471, 7386, 7427, 7495, 7408, 7415, 6839, 6840, 6841, 6842, 6843 and 6844
• Conditional Use Permit Case No. 17, Map 121; Zone Variance No. 11, Map 121 (Kern County)
• GPA#6, Map #122; ZCC #15, Map #122; PD Plan#11, Map#122 (Kern County) • Rosedale Ranch projects
• Malibu Vineyards warehouse project adjacent to Highway 99 just north of Bakersfield • Hageman Industrial Park
• IPG Industrial Project in unincorporated Kern County
• Veteran’s Administration Outpatient Clinic
• CUP 20-0379, a truck stop project on 16 acres on Taft Highway west of Highway 99 There are likely other such projects of which we are not aware.

The cumulative impacts of this project, of those listed above, and of other area projects on air pollution, traffic, energy, climate change, biological resources, and other issues must be thoroughly addressed, including performance standards that are mandatory, specifically defined, and enforceable. Reducing project emissions to zero through an Air District contract would help address the potentially significant cumulative air quality impact of this project.

Impacts on Climate Change:

There is much important new information on climate change. For example:
• The IPCC AR6 synthesis report (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ ) includes warnings that the world is approaching “irreversible” levels of global heating, with catastrophic impacts rapidly becoming inevitable; and that it is “now or never” to take drastic action to avoid disaster.
• “A new study has revealed that the language used by the global climate change watchdog, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is overly conservative - and therefore the threats are much greater than the Panel's reports suggest.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190320102010.htm 5 • Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI) - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory (https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/) is also substantial and critically important new information. • Harmful tipping points in the natural world pose some of the gravest threats faced by humanity. Environmental stresses could become so severe that large parts of the natural world are unable to maintain their current state, leading to abrupt and/or irreversible changes. Global Tipping Points | Home (global-tipping-points.org) • UN secretary general, António Guterres, said,” This is climate breakdown, in real time.

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

In order to comply with CEQA and to avoid leaving an overheated and dysfunctional planet for future generations, the Project’s cumulative climate change impacts must be considered significant, and feasible mitigation must be required. Since the City has shelved adopting a Climate Action Plan, it must be extra diligent in assuring that individual projects like this one satisfy state goals and regulations and legal requirements through adoption of feasible mitigation measures such as those proposed in the CARB 2022 scoping plan, some of which are listed below.

Feasible potential mitigation measures include:
• A requirement that all buildings contain enough solar photovoltaics (PV) and solar water heating to offset energy usage to the maximum extent feasible, with a capacity that matches the maximum allowed for distributed solar connections to the grid.
• Green building measures should be required for all structures, including passive solar design and a requirement that buildings be at least 25% more energy efficient than Title 24 standards current when permits are pulled.
• Adopt appropriate Tier 2 requirements in CALGreen for new residential buildings.

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

Tree planting plays an essential role in achieving the goal of reaching net zero GHG emissions. One recent study found that California’s working and urban lands have the potential to absorb up to 103 MMT CO2e additional per year by 2030. https://theclimatecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/The-Climate-Center-Setting- an-Ambitious-Sequestration-Goal-for-CA-WL-Jan-22.pdf
• Facilitate and promote public transit by providing amenities such as contributing to public transit, facilitating ride-share programs, create incentives for ride-share and/or use of public transit. Homeowners’ Association fees should include public transit funding.

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

On page 23, the MND states,” project emissions would be consistent with applicable state GHG reduction plans and policies. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated related to applicable GHG reduction plans.” The MND is deficient because it fails to acknowledge and analyze the impacts of the Congressional decision (H.J. Res. 88) to revoke the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Act waiver to California. Under this waiver, California was able to adopt its own vehicle emission rules in lieu of federal standards. Relying on the waiver, California mandated that beginning in year 2026, zero emission vehicles must constitute 35% of each auto manufacturer’s sales of new motor vehicles. According to California regulations, by 2035 sales of new, fully gas-powered vehicles would have effectively been prohibited in California. The waiver also allowed other states to adopt California’s standards, which many did, including Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington. California’s waiver that led to the regulation of low-nitrogen oxide emissions from heavy-duty highway and off- road vehicles was also revoked. Without the ability to gradually phase out carbon-emitting cars and truck, California will not be able to meet its greenhouse gas (GHG) emission targets, which in turn would require greater emission reductions from every other sector, which could only be implemented through increasingly strict GHG mitigation measures. The MND fails to discuss the Federal Government’s revocation of California’s ability to set strict car and truck emission standards.

Without presenting evidence, on page 23 the MND states that the project is consistent with outdated 2008 and 2017 CARB Scoping Plans and is aligned with statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions. This unfounded declaration is not supported by substantial evidence. 7 The MND presents no arguments for consistency with any strategies whatsoever. Conclusions of project climate change insignificance based on these unfounded declarations must be withdrawn. In order to be serious about consistency with CARB Scoping Plans, the City should adopt some of the 2022 Scoping Plan measures listed above.

There has been no attempt to quantify the cumulative impact and that there is thus no data upon which to base a conclusion of insignificance. There are many closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects (for example, projects in the cumulative list above), and the cumulative impact of all these projects on climate change must be quantified and addressed. The MND is deficient in not having considered the cumulative impact of a list of area projects on climate change. It is deficient in concluding without these considerations that the project’s climate change impact is cumulatively insignificant.

Impact on Protected Species Habitat
One of the basic purposes of CEQA is to “inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.” Post-approval biological surveys do not satisfy CEQA’s informational requirements; the decision-makers need to know the results of the biological surveys in order to assess the Project’s potential biological impacts BEFORE deciding whether to approve the Project. Post- approval surveys cannot inform the City’s decision whether to approve the Project. Deferred mitigation violates CEQA if it lacks performance standards to ensure the mitigation goal will be achieved. To address biological resource issues a biological survey and consultation with the USFWS and CDFW should be required before project approval.

In the Cumulative Impact Section 5.2 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) Update EIR, it is stated, “MBHCP and implementing agreements and ordinances provide a method of collecting funds for the acquisition and enhancement of habitat lands for purposes of creating preserves. Development projects within the Planning area and County would pay mitigation fees that would be used to buy habitat lands.” Thus the 2002 MBGP depends upon the now-expired Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) for its biological resource cumulative insignificance conclusion. Now that the MBHCP is no longer in effect, the City can no longer rely on the MBGP and must therefore conduct its own analysis of project impacts on protected species and find alternatives or another way to effectively mitigate significant loss of protected species habitat.

As Bakersfield urban development continues to sprawl, and the surrounding habitat is permanently altered, species that were once abundant in the area are increasingly becoming extirpated. Where are the kit foxes and the burrowing owls supposed to go if we urbanize more and more of their habitat? Now that the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan has expired, the City must find another way to effectively address the project’s 8 contribution to an increasingly significant cumulative habitat loss. The MND must address this issue by discussing the significance of cumulative impacts to biological resources and should require viable mitigation measures for these impacts (including purchase of replacement habitat as in the past under the HCP).

The MND is defective and violates CEQA in that it has not described and assessed the significance of the cumulative effects of ongoing urbanization and habitat loss on protected species. Loss of habitat is a major reason for species decline. Moreover, now that the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan is no longer in effect, the City must find another way to effectively address the Project’s contribution to cumulative habitat loss. Many other current or proposed projects are urbanizing habitat for numerous species (see, e.g., the list in the previous section). Potentially significant cumulative impacts to biological resources and viable mitigation measures for these impacts (including purchase of replacement habitat) should be studied and addressed in a full EIR.

While many of these species may have been driven out of the project site by mowing and disking operations, an EIR should require reintroducing some of the native plant species by replanting them in project open space areas. The project’s landscaping should include drought-tolerant and/or native plants.

Mitigation measures should include requiring the project to plant trees that could serve as Swainson’s hawk nesting sites and requiring the project to purchase conservation easements on nearby Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.

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

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

Farmland Loss
9 On page 13, the MND mistakenly states, “State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15206 does not regard the cancellation of less than 100 acres of land from the Williamson Act to be of statewide, regional or areawide significance.” To the contrary, Section 15206 only applies to parcels of 100 acres or greater and says nothing about parcels like this one smaller than 100 acres. One only need note the massive area conversion of prime agricultural land to urban sprawl to recognize that the conversion of this project’s farmland to housing has a significant cumulative impact. The MND’s insignificance conclusion lacks substantial argument. The City must clearly describe its reasoning and identify substantial evidence that supports this conclusion. An agency's determination regarding a mitigation measure’s efficacy must be based on “evidence in the record showing it will be effective in remedying the identified environmental impact. (See Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1167-1170, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 154.

Environmental documents should address the potential for growth inducement from this project. This prime farmland property is surrounded by prime farmland. Its conversion to housing will almost certainly result in growth inducement, the conversion of other nearby farmland to non-agricultural use. The MND’s insignificance conclusion lacks substantial argument.

The MND fails altogether to address the cumulative impact of this and other projects on farmland loss. This cumulative impact must be considered significant and mitigation via developer funding of agricultural conservation easements on other similar farmland should be required.

Cumulative Impacts
On page 39, in the section meant to address the cumulative impacts of the project, the MND states, “there is no substantial evidence that there are cumulative effects associated with this project. In addition, any future development projects not identified above would be required to undergo a separate environmental analysis and mitigate any project- or site-specific potential impacts, as necessary. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.” Several points:
• The MND is wrong about no substantial evidence for cumulative effects. We have presented evidence above. For example, the IPCC report is substantial evidence that the climate crisis is inherently a cumulative impact. The American Lung Association report about our dreadful air and the CalEnviroScreen results are clear evidence of the cumulative air quality effects of hundreds of past and future projects. The cumulative effects of the many past and future sprawling west Bakersfield projects on farmland loss, habitat loss, and traffic are obvious and easily documented. • There are many future development projects in the pipeline. As noted above, the IPG EIR lists 51 such projects. While all of these projects must undergo environmental analysis, it is unlikely that all of them will reduce every impact to insignificance, and when an impact is significant, then its cumulative impact is significant. The MND is 10 deficient in seeming to assert with no evidence whatsoever that all future projects have insignificant project-specific impacts.
• The MND is asserting that potential project-specific impact insignificance for each of these future or current projects implies that the cumulative effect is insignificant, a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of cumulative impacts. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15355(b), “Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” The conclusion of cumulative insignificance must be withdrawn, or substantial evidence based on firm legal and rational ground must be presented.

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

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

Sincerely,
Gordon L. Nipp, Ph.D.

Vice-Chair
[email protected]
661-872-2432

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
320 WEST 4TH STREET, SUITE 500
LOS ANGELES, CA 90013

March 9, 2026 ENVR 20260300004

Veronica Martinez
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Ave
Bakersfield, CA 93301

Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7451 SCH 2026020227 –– Mitigated Negative Declaration

Dear Veronica Martinez,

The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission/CPUC) has regulatory jurisdiction over rail crossings (crossings) in California. CPUC ensures that crossings are safely designed, constructed, and maintained. The Commission’s Rail Crossings Engineering Branch (RCEB) is in receipt of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of a project described as “Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7451”. The City of Bakersfield (City) is the lead agency.

The City proposes development on the east side of the BNSF Railway (BNSF) Bakersfield Subdivision tracks, consisting of 313 residential lots, 1 multi-use trail lot, and 1park lot on 40.77 acres, zoned R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling). It is approximately 1200 feet of the Kratzmeyer/Olive Rd at-grade highway railroad crossing (crossing) (CPUC # 002-897.30, DOT # 028380R). The Central Valley Highway parallels the BNSF corridor approximately 60 feet to the west/south of the tracks. The intersection of Kratzmeyer/Olive Rd and the Central Valley highway is currently stop-controlled on all four legs of the intersection.

Given the multi-home residential development of the land, pedestrian and vehicular activity in the vicinity of this crossing and track can be expected to increase. The project team should investigate the impact of increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic at the crossing and any necessary measures to mitigate this increase, such as but not limited to signalization of the intersection of Kratzmeyer/Olive Rd and the Central Valley Highway, installing of a pre-signal at the crossing for the westbound lanes, sidewalks through the crossing area, lighting, and trespass-preventive fencing. These improvements can be accomplished through a capital project funded by the City or a condition of approval for the development and should also bring the crossing up to current standards.

Additionally, it is unclear whether there will be a future connection to the south to Reina Rd. The plans show a dashed outline of roadways south of the proposed Poplar Spring Avenue. If the City plans for the development (or future development) to provide access to Reina Rd, the Reina Rd at-grade highway crossing (CPUC #002-896.60, DOT# 028379W) should also be evaluated and treated with similar mitigations as the Kratzmeyer/Olive Rd at-grade highway crossing.

Any proposed crossing improvement project will require authorization from the CPUC through General Order 88-B and must also conform to the goals of the CPUC’s Environmental and Social Justice Action Plan. This includes improving safety and access to transportation, improving local air quality and public

Veronica Martinez
ENVR 20260300004
March 9, 2026

health, and expanding outreach and public participation opportunities in disadvantaged communities.

For more information, please visit https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/esjactionplan.

RCEB staff is available to discuss any potential safety impacts or concerns at the crossings and address any questions from the City.

If you have any questions, please contact Oliver Garcia at (213) 369-4674, or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Anh Truong, PE
Senior Utilities Engineer (Supervisor)
Rail Crossings Engineering Branch
Rail Safety Division

cc: State Clearinghouse, [email protected] Dionisio Martinez, BNSF Railway, [email protected]

MEMORANDUM
To: D.R. Horton
From: Trinity Consultants
Date: May 4, 2026
RE: VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum
Introduction
Trinity Consultants (‘Trinity’) was contracted to complete an air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impact memorandum for the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) Number (No.) 7451 project (Project) located between Olive Drive and Reina Road along Santa Fe Way in Bakersfield, CA, which is within San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District’s (SJVAPCD) jurisdiction.

The proposed Project’s construction would include the following criteria pollutant emissions: reactive organic gases (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), 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 GHG emissions.

Project Background
Trinity compared the air quality and GHG impacts between the previous Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 7218 project and the proposed VTTM No. 7451 project (Project) located in Bakersfield, CA. The Project is a revision of VTTM No. 7218, which previously had an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) completed in February 2014. The Project will include 313 single family residences, while VTTM No. 7218 previously consisted of 239 single family residences. Due to the increase in density, Trinity has conducted a new air quality analysis, greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis, and health risk assessment (HRA) according to SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). This includes a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliant evaluation that will meet the requirements of both the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code and SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI.

Trinity completed the AQIA for the previous VTTM No. 7218, which determined that air quality and GHG impacts from the proposed project were less than significant. The project’s construction and operational emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2 and EMFAC 2011 from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The results from the prior estimations are summarized in Table 1 below.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 2 of 45 Table 1. Project VTTM 7218 Emissions from Prior AQIA
Construction Emissions (Mitigated)
Year Pollutants (tons/yr)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2017 1.60 6.11 4.41 0.01 0.53 0.44
2018 2.11 6.49 5.16 0.01 0.55 0.44
2019 1.14 0.66 0.58 0.001 0.04 0.04
Maximum 2.11 6.49 5.16 0.01 0.55 0.44
Annual Threshold 10 10 - - 15 -
Operational Emissions (Mitigated)
Emission Source Pollutants (tons/yr)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area Emissions 2.11 0.02 1.77 0.0001 0.01 0.01
Energy Emissions 0.04 0.35 0.15 0.0022 0.03 0.03
Mobile Emissions 1.39 1.65 13.17 0.0301 2.28 0.62
Total 3.54 2.01 15.09 0.0324 2.32 0.66
Annual Threshold 10 10 - - 15 -

1. SJVAPCD did not have significance thresholds for CO, SOx, or PM2.5 at the time of this AQIA.

As shown in Table 1 above, both the construction and operational emissions were below applicable significance thresholds at the time the AQIA was prepared, which means that the project would have a less than significant impact on the surrounding area.

Reevaluation of emissions against the significance thresholds is required for VTTM No. 7451 due to the density increase as well as SJVAPCD’s threshold updates. For VTTM No. 7451, criteria, GHG, and air toxics emissions were estimated to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed Project. The following sections summarize the methodology and results of these impacts.

Environmental Setting
Air Quality
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 (O
3), 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.

SJVAPCD’s attainment plans are a regional component of the SIP, which accounts for annual increases in air pollutant emissions resulting from regional growth. The GAMAQI also explains how the District’s attainment plans demonstrate that project specific emissions below the offset thresholds will have a less than significant impact on air quality.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 3 of 45 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 2 provides the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Table 2. Federal & California Air Quality Standards
1 Pollutant Averaging Time
NAAQS1 CAAQS2
Concentration3
Ozone (O3)
8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3)
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
8-hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
1-hour 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) 20 ppm (23 mg/m3)
Nitrogen Dioxide
(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)
Sulfur Dioxide
(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
Lead (Pb)
Rolling Three-Month Average 0.15 µg/m3
30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide
(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) 4
Note:

1. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard.

For PM
10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard.

1 CARB Table of Ambient Air Quality Standards. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 08/AAQS%20Table_ADA_FINAL_07222024.pdf, SJVAPCD Ambient Air Quality Standards & Attainment Status. https://www.valleyair.org/air-quality-information/ambient-air-quality-standards-valley-attainmnet-status/ May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 4 of 45

2. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

3. Concentration units: ppm = parts per million, ppb = parts per billion, mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter, and µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

4. In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard 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.

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 provides the SJVAB’s designation and classification based on the various criteria pollutants under both NAAQS and CAAQS.

Table 3. SJVAB Attainment Status2
Pollutant Designation/Classification
Federal Standards1 State Standards2
O3, 1-hour Revoked6 Nonattainment/Severe
O3, 8-hour Nonattainment/Extreme5 Nonattainment
PM10 Attainment3 Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment4 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
Note:

1. See 40 CFR Part 81

2. See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210

3. On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan.

4. 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).

5. 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).

6. 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). The District Governing Board adopted the 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request and submitted to EPA in June of 2023. Although the standard is revoked, anti-backsliding provisions can be terminated upon final approval of the Maintenance Plan from EPA.

2 SJVAPCD Ambient Air Quality Standards & Attainment Status. https://www.valleyair.org/air-quality-information/ambient-air- quality-standards-valley-attainmnet-status/
May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 5 of 45 Existing Air Quality
SJVAPCD, in coordination with CARB, operates an air quality monitoring network that measures ambient concentrations of pollutants with established state or federal air quality standards. Data from these monitoring stations is available through the respective agency websites. The monitoring stations in the San Joaquin Valley are depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. SJVAPCD Ambient Air Monitoring Network

For the purposes of background data, this Memorandum relied on the three most recent years of available data from the CARB monitoring stations located closest to the Project site. Table 4 provides the background concentrations for O
3, particulate matter of 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), CO, NO2, SO2, and Pb. No background data is available for H2S, vinyl chloride or other toxic air contaminants in Kern County.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 6 of 45 Table 4. Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area3 Maximum Concentration Days Exceeding Standard
Pollutant and
Monitoring Station Location 2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024 O3 – 1-hour CAAQS (0.09 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.093 0.088 0.099 0 0 2 Oildale – 3311 Manor Street 0.106 0.089 0.101 4 0 3
Shafter – Walker Street 0.095 0.090 0.096 1 0 1
O3 – 8-hour CAAQS (0.070 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.076 0.079 0.089 7 7 38 Oildale – 3311 Manor Street 0.091 0.083 0.089 54 14 47
Shafter – Walker Street 0.082 0.080 0.086 27 8 27
O3 – 8-hour NAAQS (0.070 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.076 0.079 0.089 4 7 36 Oildale – 3311 Manor Street 0.090 0.082 0.088 51 13 47
Shafter – Walker Street 0.081 0.079 0.086 21 6 24
PM10 – 24-hour CAAQS (50 µg/m3)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 133.0 180.2 130.5 135 106 110 Bakersfield – Golden State Highway 167.0 235.0 142.5 178 146 158 Oildale – 3311 Manor Street 146.3 266.0 115.8 127 102 104 PM10 – 24-hour NAAQS (150 µg/m3)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 134.7 181.3 129.7 0 1 0 Bakersfield – Golden State Highway 64.7 236.3 141.1 0 1 0 Oildale – 3311 Manor Street 149.4 270.4 118.6 0 1 0
PM2.5 – 24-hour NAAQS (35 µg/m3)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 58.1 63.7 71.9 34 9 15 Bakersfield – Golden State Highway 58.6 58.0 66.5 33 9 15 CO – 8-Hour CAAQS & NAAQS (9.0 ppm)
No data collected * * * * * *
NO2 – 1-Hour CAAQS (0.18 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.053 0.057 0.056 0 0 0 Bakersfield – Westwind 0.067 0.055 0.045 0 0 0
NO2 – 1-Hour NAAQS (0.10 ppm)
Bakersfield – 5558 California Ave 0.054 0.058 0.057 0 0 0 Bakersfield – Westwind 0.068 0.056 0.046 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 10.8 9.5 4.6 * * *
Notes: ppm= parts per million
* There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.

The following is a description of criteria air pollutants, typical sources, health effects, and the recently documented pollutant levels in the Project vicinity.

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

3 CARB Background Emissions Data. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 7 of 45 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 4 shows that the area exceeded the 1-hour average ambient O3 CAAQS and the 8-hour average ambient O3 NAAQS and CAAQS during the data period.

Ozone Health Impacts
High levels of O3 cause eye irritation and can impair respiratory functions. O3 can cause chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath, and throat irritation; it can also worsen chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma and compromise the ability of the body to fight respiratory infections. 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.

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 fume- producing 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 4 shows that PM
10 levels exceeded the CAAQS and NAAQS and PM2.5 levels exceed the NAAQS at the monitoring stations over the data period. Similar levels can be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site.

Suspended Particulate Matter Health Impacts
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.

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 May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 8 of 45 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 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 4 reports no CO data is available for the data period; historically Bakersfield area data for CO has been below the CAAQS and NAAQS.

Carbon Monoxide Health Impacts
CO does not irritate the respiratory tract but passes through the lungs directly into the blood stream, and by interfering with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood, deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen, thereby aggravating cardiovascular disease, causing fatigue, headaches, and dizziness. CO is not known to have adverse effects on vegetation, visibility, or materials.

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 NO
2 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 4 shows that the area did not exceed the 1-hour average ambient NO 2 NAAQS and CAAQS during the
data period. Hydrocarbons are not currently monitored.

Nitrogen Dioxide and Hydrocarbons Health Impacts
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.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 9 of 45 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.

Table 4 shows no data has been reported over the data period in Kern County.

Sulfur Dioxide Health Impacts
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, result 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.

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 4 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.

Lead and Suspended Sulfate Health Impacts
Pb affects most organs in the body, and children are most susceptible to the effects of Pb. In children, Pb can cause behavior and learning problems, slowed growth, anemia, and hearing problems. In adults, Pb can lead to decreased kidney function, reproductive problems, and cardiovascular effects, such as increased blood pressure and incidence of hypertension. Suspended sulfates are part of PM

2.5 and therefore have
similar health effects. These health effects include reduced lung function, aggravated asthmatic symptoms, and increased risk of emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and death in people who have chronic heart or lung disease.

Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are compounds, released by natural sources or formed from secondary reactions, in the atmosphere that influence the Earth's energy balance by absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation.

This process, similar to how a greenhouse retains heat, helps regulate the Earth's temperature. However, human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and vehicle emissions have increased GHG concentrations, contributing to long-term global temperature rise.

Scientific consensus links rising GHG emissions to climate change, though debate exists regarding the rate and extent of human-caused impacts. Regulated GHGs in California are carbon dioxide ( CO2), methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), while others, like water vapor, remain unregulated. Addressing GHG emissions is an ongoing environmental issue due to growing concerns about GHG emissions and their adverse impacts on the world’s climate and on the environment.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 10 of 45 To quantify the impact of specific GHGs, each gas is assigned a global warming potential (GWP). Individual GHG compounds have varying GWP and atmospheric lifetimes. The GWP of a GHG is a measure of how much a given mass of the GHG is estimated to contribute to global warming relative to CO2, which is assigned a GWP of 1.0. The GWP is used to determine the carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) mass of each GHG. Calculation of CO2e is the accepted methodology for comparing GHG emissions since it normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent reference gas, CO2. For example, CH4’s GWP of 25 indicates that the global warming effect of CH4 is 25 times greater than that of CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis. CO2e is the mass emissions of an individual GHG multiplied by its GWP. Table 5 lists GHGs, GWPs, a description of each GHG, and sources for each of the GHGs.

Table 5. GWPs, Properties, and Sources of GHGs4
GHG GWP Descriptions, Physical Properties, and Sources
CO2 1
► CO2 is an odorless, colorless, naturally occurring GHG. ► Natural sources of CO2 include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic out gassing.
► Anthropogenic (man-made) sources are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.

CH4 25
► CH4 is an organic, colorless, naturally occurring, flammable gas. Its atmospheric concentration is less than CO2, and its lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10-12 years) compared to other GHGs. ► CH4 is released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice production (at the roots of the plants).
► Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of CH

4. Other anthropogenic sources include fossil-fuel and
biomass combustion, as well as landfilling and wastewater treatment.

N2O 298
► N2O, commonly referred to as “laughing gas,” is a colorless, nonflammable GHG. It is a powerful oxidizer and breaks down readily in the atmosphere.
► Nitrous oxide is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions that occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. ► In addition to agricultural sources, industrial processes (e.g., fossil fuel power plants, nylon and nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) contribute to its atmospheric load. It is also used as an aerosol propellant, in food packaging, and in rocket and race car engines.

HFCs 92 - 14,900
► HFCs are synthetic man-made chemicals that form one of the GHGs with the highest global warming potential.
► HFCs are man-made for applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants.

4 CARB California Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 2000 to 2023, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/nc- 2000_2023_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf
May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 11 of 45 PFCs 6,288 - 17,700
► PFCs are colorless, non-flammable, dense gases with stable molecular structures, giving them lifetimes of 10,000 to 50,000 years in the atmosphere.
► The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacture.

SF6 22,800
► SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. ► SF6 is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.

NF3 17,200 ► NF3 is an inorganic, colorless, odorless, nonflammable gas. ► NF3 is used primarily in the plasma etching of silicon wafers.

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 (CO 2) and
other compounds cumulatively termed greenhouse gases. 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). It is indicated that the increased amount of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere is the primary result of human-induced warming.

Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2008 were 30.1 billion metric tons of CO 2e 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 May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 12 of 45 China. The primary GHG emitted by human activities was CO2, representing approximately 76% of total global GHG emissions (U.S. EPA 2019).

CARB is responsible for developing and maintaining the California GHG emissions inventory and for implementing California regulations aimed at reducing statewide GHGs. The 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 2022 and is based on fuel use, equipment activity, industrial processes, and other relevant data (e.g., housing, landfill activity, and agricultural lands).

CARB estimates that in 2023, the transportation sector accounted for approximately 37.1% of California’s GHG emissions, followed by industrial sources at 18.6%. Additional contributions came from the electricity sector (15.9%), the combined residential and commercial sector (12.0%), and agricultural activities (8.1%) (CARB 2025a). Within the available GHG data, the residential sub-sector alone represented an estimated

7.9% of 2023 emissions, an increase of 7.1% compared to 2022. This rise is attributed to higher heating degree days, which serve as a proxy for the additional energy required for space heating, based on data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Degree Days Statistics. While an increase was observed, CARB also notes that on a per housing unit basis, emissions have generally decreased compared to 2020.

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.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 13 of 45 ► 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.5
► 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. ► 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.

Air Quality and GHG Analysis Methods
This section describes the methodology used in this analysis to estimate air emissions from the Project.

Construction Emissions
The Project has an anticipated development of four (4) phases over two years. Phase 1 includes site preparation, grading, and paving for the entire Project site; Phases 2, 3, and 4 include the vertical construction and architectural coating of 116, 119, and 78 dwelling units, respectively. Additionally, Phase 4 includes the construction of a neighborhood park. Table 6 provides the land use type, subtype, size, units, and lot acreage that were entered into CalEEMod, and the construction schedule for the proposed Project is provided in Table 7. Construction emissions were conservatively estimated as if construction started in April 2026, and Project operations are estimated to begin during year 2026 for Phase 2 and 2027 for Phases 3 and 4. Construction in later years would be predicted to have lower emissions than presented here because CalEEMod assumes cleaner (i.e., lower emissions generated) construction equipment and vehicles over time.

The dates entered into the CalEEMod program do not represent the actual dates the equipment will operate; however, the dates reflect anticipated construction durations for various construction phases, and therefore, all estimated emission totals are conservative (i.e., tending to overstate emissions) and reflect a reasonable and legally sufficient estimate of potential impacts.

5 This condition would not affect the Proposed Project area, as it is a significant distance away from coastal areas.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 14 of 45 Table 6. CalEEMod Land Use Selection
Phase Land Use
Type Land Use Subtype Size Size Unit Lot Acreage
1 Residential Grading/Site Prep 40.77 Acres 40.77
2 Residential Single Family Housing 116 Dwelling Unit 14.84 3 Residential Single Family Housing 119 Dwelling Unit 15.23 4 Residential Single Family Housing 78 Dwelling Unit 9.98 Recreational Park 0.72 Acres 0.72
Table 7. Construction Schedule
Phase Start Date End Date
1 03/15/2026 04/15/2026
2 04/15/2026 10/14/2026
3 10/15/2026 04/14/2027
4 05/12/2027 10/13/2027
CalEEMod’s default construction equipment amounts and types were used and are shown in Table 8 below.

Table 8. CalEEMod Construction Equipment
Equipment Type1
Number of
Equipment per
Day
Hours per
Day Horsepower Load Factor
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.40
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37
Grading
Graders 1 8 148 0.41
Excavators 2 8 36 0.38
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37
Scrapers 2 8 423 0.48
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.40
Building Construction
Forklifts 3 8 82 0.20
Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74
Cranes 1 7 367 0.29
Welders 1 8 46 0.45
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37
Paving
Pavers 2 8 81 0.42
Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38
Architectural Coatings
Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48

1. Conservatively assuming all construction equipment is diesel fueled.

Additionally, the SJVAPCD requires the following dust control measures for all projects, and the analysis assumes the following construction measures:

► Measure C-10-A: Water unpaved construction roads;
May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 15 of 45 ► Measure C-10-B: Water exposed areas three (3) times per day; and ► Measure C-11: Reduce vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour.

The construction emissions for the Project are provided in Table 10 under the Results section of this Memorandum.

Operational Emissions
Vehicle Exhaust Emissions
Project operations and visitation will involve vehicle trips from residents, deliveries, and service, all of which will generate air pollutant emissions. Emissions were quantified in CalEEMod using trip rates, fleet mix percentages, and emission factors by vehicle type and adjusted for the Project as discussed below. The trip generation rates for weekdays, Saturday, and Sunday are based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11 th
edition for Single-Family Detached Housing and are provided in Table 9 below.

Table 9. Mobile Trip Rates
Day Project Trip Generation Rate
(per dwelling unit/day)
Weekday 9.43
Saturday 9.48
Sunday 8.48

CalEEMod includes emission factors for each vehicle type based on the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) EMFAC 2021. The fleet mix percentages were based on SJVAPCD’s Residential Fleet Mix for each operational year.

Road Dust Emissions
CalEEMod calculates off-site road dust emissions according to the methodology described in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) AP-42, Section 13.2.1, Paved Roads, and Section

13.2.2, Unpaved Roads. The calculations include the following parameters: road silt loading, average vehicle weight (tons), material silt content, material moisture content, and mean vehicle speed (miles per hour).

CalEEMod assumes 100% paved road travel based on the Project location.

Hearths
CalEEMod calculates emissions from wood stoves and fireplaces for residential land uses. Available wood stove fuel types are conventional, catalytic, non-catalytic, and pellet. The fireplace fuel types are wood, gas, propane, and electric. Based on applicant provided data, there will be no wood stoves or fireplaces for the Project; therefore, all options were entered in as zero in CalEEMod to account for the electric development.

Consumer Products (Non -Industrial Solvents)
CalEEMod calculates fugitive volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from three types of consumer products (non-industrial solvents): general category, pesticides/fertilizers, and parking degreasers. As specified in Appendix C of the CalEEMod User Guide, the general category emission factor is used for the Single Family Residential land use type. The general category emission factor is based on statewide VOC emission data collected by CARB’s Consumer Product Emission Inventory. The parking degreasing emission factor is based on CARB’s California Emissions Projection Analysis Model (CEPAM2019v1.03).

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 16 of 45 Architectural Coatings
CalEEMod calculates VOC off-gassing emissions that result from evaporation of solvents contained in surface coatings such as in paints and primers. A ten percent (10%) reapplication rate per year (full reapplication every 10 years) is assumed in the model, along with SJVAPCD specific nonresidential exterior and non- residential interior VOC emission factors. CalEEMod calculates the building surface area as two times the building square footage for non-residential land use; seventy-five percent (75%) of the building surface area is assumed to be the interior, and the remaining twenty-five percent (25%) is assumed to be the exterior.

Landscape Equipment
The Project site is estimated to be developed with landscaped area, per CalEEMod’s default assumptions, that would require periodic management from the use of landscape equipment that would generate air pollutant emissions. CalEEMod calculates fuel combustion emissions from landscape maintenance, which includes equipment such as lawn mowers, shredders/grinders, leaf blowers, and equipment associated with snow removal. CalEEMod uses emission factors developed through CARB’s Small Off-Road Engines Model v1.1 (SORE2020) to calculate landscape equipment emissions. The emission factor for residential landscape equipment is in grams per dwelling unit per day. The emission factor is then multiplied by the number of snow days and the number of summer days for the Project location. There are zero (0) days of snowfall estimated, and the number of summer days is based on the CalEEMod default for Kern County (180 days).

Although some portion of landscape equipment would be expected to be electric powered, this analysis conservatively assumes that all landscape equipment would be gas powered.

Energy Emissions
CalEEMod calculates criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. CalEEMod differentiates between electricity usage subject to Title 24 standards, which is generally building usage and electricity usage that is not subject to Title 24 standards. CalEEMod’s default ratio of Title 24 to non-Title 24 electricity usage was applied to the Project’s total estimated electricity usage. CalEEMod only calculates GHG emissions associated with electricity usage; the GHG emission factors are specific to the electric utility.

Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Emissions
CalEEMod calculates indirect GHG emissions from the electricity used to supply, distribute, and treat water and wastewater generated by land use development projects (CAPCOA 2022b). CalEEMod estimates the annual water usage from both indoors, using the Residential End Uses of Water published by the Water Research Foundation (WRF) (2016) and outdoors, using the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) method established under the California Department of Water Resources’ 2015 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). CalEEMod uses default water energy-intensity factors based on a study published by the Pacific Institute. The factors, which are reported in kilowatt hours per million gallons of water used (kWh/MG), represent the electricity required to supply and convey water from the source, treat the water to usable standards, and distribute the water to the individual user. The report calculated the energy intensity factors based on the hydrologic region of the Project. These factors assume water is supplied from the source, which involves groundwater pumping and water delivery. The use of the CalEEMod default energy-intensity factors accounts for the electricity that would be used by the Project for supplying water.

For wastewater treatment emissions, CalEEMod has default emission factors for the type of treatment process: septic tank, aerobic, or facultative lagoons. CalEEMod’s statewide default treatment distribution was utilized in the model. CalEEMod utilizes CARB’s Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) to calculate the GHG emission factors for each type of wastewater treatment.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 17 of 45 Solid Waste Emissions
CalEEMod calculates the indirect GHG emissions associated with waste that is disposed of at a landfill. The model uses annual waste disposal rates from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) data for individual land use types.

Mitigation Measures
Additionally, the following project design measures were included in the model as mitigation measures in CalEEMod, which will reduce emissions from operations:

► Measure E-10-B: Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power; ► Measure E-15: Require an all-electric development.

The operational emissions are provided in Table 12 under the Results section of this Memorandum.

Health Risk Assessment
The Project would result in emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) and would be located near existing residents and other receptors (i.e. Frontier High School); therefore, an assessment of the potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of hazardous air pollutants from the Project was performed to determine whether the Project would result in a significant health risk impact.

To predict the potential health risk to the population attributable to emissions from TACs 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 two (2) year construction timeline. Similarly, predicted concentrations were used to calculate non-cancer chronic and acute hazard indexes (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 TACs.

Air Dispersion Modeling (AERMOD)
Air dispersion modeling is used to estimate off-site air concentrations of chemicals associated with facility emissions. Developed to replace the Industrial Source Complex Short-Term Version 3 (ISCST3) model, AERMOD is a steady-state Gaussian plume model that can be used to assess ground level pollutant concentrations from a wide variety of sources (point, line, area, or volume) for distances up to approximately fifty (50) kilometers, including urban and rural terrain. AERMOD can calculate ground level concentrations for various averaging periods, such as acute short-term exposures (1-hour averages), chronic long-term exposures (annual averages), or other required meteorological data periods (i.e., 3-hour, 8-hour, 24-hour). The assumptions used for this model are listed below.

► AERMOD Version 24142
► Projection Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)
► Datum World Geodetic System (WGS84)
► UTM Zone 11
► Hemisphere Northern
► Selection Hourly and Period
► AERMOD File .AMI and .AMZ
► AERMOD Output File Plot File by Source
► Use Regulatory Default? Yes
► Urban or Rural? Rural
► Building Downwash? Not Applicable
May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 18 of 45

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. Assumptions used to calculate the emission rates for the proposed Project are outlined below.

Sources
To assess health risk impacts associated with Project construction emissions, combustion emissions from diesel on-site construction equipment and heavy heavy duty (HHD) trucks from hauling and vendor trips were modeled as an area source for on-site construction activity on the property. A unit emission rate of 1 grams/second (g/sec) was input to AERMOD as a normalized emission rate. This normalized emission rate generates a file that contains the partial contribution of each source to the total air concentration in units of micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3) at each receptor. This AERMOD output file is then used as an input file into HARP2.

Receptors
Health risk levels were modeled for discrete receptor points along the boundary of the Project site.

Additionally, a receptor grid was modeled over areas in proximity to the Project site that contains the nearest residential and other receptor locations, as shown in Figure 2 below. A total of 3,118 discrete off- site receptors were analyzed. Elevated terrain options were employed to account for the topography of the Project vicinity.

Figure 2. Off-site Receptor Locations

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 19 of 45 Meteorological Data
SJVAPCD provides AERMET UStar processed, AERMOD-ready meteorological data. The Bakersfield monitoring data set has been identified as the most applicable for the Project based on proximity and similarity in terrain, elevation, land use, and other surface characteristics. The data set for calendar years 2018 through 2022 was input to AERMOD. 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 Project site is considered "rural" under the Auer land use classification method.

HARP2
Plot files generated by AERMOD were uploaded to the Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Assessment Tool (ADMRT) program in HARP2. 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).

Toxic Emissions Quantification
Diesel particulate matter (DPM) was calculated using CalEEMod for on-site construction equipment. The model conservatively assumes all PM10 emissions from diesel combustion are diesel particulate matter.

Exposure
HARP2 site parameters were set for the mandatory minimum pathways (inhalation, soil ingestion, dermal, and mother’s milk) and homegrown produce. As required by the SJVAPCD, time away from home adjustments were not applied in HARP2. Risk reports were generated using the derived OEHHA analysis method for carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic chronic and acute risk. Site parameters are included in the HARP2 output files. Total cancer risk was predicted for each receptor. A hazard index was computed for chronic non-cancer health effects for each applicable endpoint and each receptor. A hazard index for acute non-cancer health effects was not computed since DPM does not have a risk exposure level for acute risk.

Results
Construction Emissions
Ozone (O3) is primarily formed through photochemical reactions between precursor pollutants, VOCs and NOx; O3 is not directly produced from any of the Project activities. Because O3 is not directly emitted by most emission-producing activities, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) regulates its precursors, VOC and NOx. SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigation Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), dated March 19, 2015, identifies thresholds for VOCs (also commonly referred to as ROG) and NOx.

As described in Section 8.3.1 of the GAMAQI, SJVAPCD developed the thresholds of significance based on the New Source Review (NSR) offset thresholds. These thresholds were developed as part of SJVAPCD’s attainment strategy, consistent with the Clean Air Act, which requires SJVAPCD to adopt attainment plans that demonstrate how SJVAPCD will attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS are designed to provide public health protection. SJVAPCD’s plans are developed through a public process that requires adoption by the State and approval by the EPA. As the thresholds were developed in accordance with the Clean Air Act, SJVAPCD states that project specific emissions below the thresholds will have a less than significant impact on air quality. The SJVAPCD’s recommended CEQA significance thresholds are applied to evaluate regional impacts of project specific emissions of air May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 20 of 45 pollutants. The District’s attainment plans demonstrate that project specific emissions below the District’s thresholds will have a less than significant impact on air quality.

Table 10
and Table 11 present the estimated Project construction emissions based on the modeling methodology described in the previous section of this Memorandum.

Table 10. Project Construction Emissions – Unmitigated
Emissions Year Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2026 0.85 1.25 1.60 0.00 0.32 0.16
2027 1.31 0.94 1.41 0.00 0.08 0.04
Maximum 1.31 1.25 1.60 0.00 0.32 0.16
Annual Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Source: Trinity Consultants 2026
*Note: 0.00 could represent > 0.00
Table 11. Project Construction Emissions – Mitigated
Emissions Year Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2026 0.85 1.25 1.60 0.00 0.15 0.08
2027 1.31 0.94 1.41 0.00 0.08 0.04
Maximum 1.31 1.25 1.60 0.00 0.15 0.08
Annual Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Source: Trinity Consultants 2026
*Note: 0.00 could represent > 0.00

As identified in Table 10 and Table 11, the Project is not anticipated to exceed any of the criteria pollutants emissions thresholds specified by SJVAPCD during construction, nor result in any new potentially significant impacts; therefore, the proposed Project will have less than significant construction criteria pollutant emission impacts.

Operational Emissions
Once the Project is constructed and begins operations, criteria pollutant emissions would be generated by mobile and area sources. The estimated annual operational emissions are shown in Table 12 and Table

13. Table 12. Annual Operational Emissions – Unmitigated Emissions Source ► Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG ► NOX ► CO ► SOx ► PM10 ► PM2.5
Mobile 1.47 1.44 11.34 0.03 2.74 0.71
Area 2.72 0.02 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.03 0.56 0.24 0.00 0.05 0.05
Total 4.23 2.01 13.18 0.03 2.78 0.75
Annual Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Source: Trinity Consultants 2026
*Note: 0.00 could represent > 0.00

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 21 of 45 Table 13. Annual Operational Emissions – Mitigated
Emissions Source ► Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG ► NOX ► CO ► SOx ► PM10 ► PM2.5
Mobile 1.47 1.44 11.34 0.03 2.74 0.71
Area 2.72 0.02 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy - - - - - -
Total 4.19 1.45 12.94 0.03 2.74 0.71
Annual Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Source: Trinity Consultants 2026
*Note: 0.00 could represent > 0.00

For annual operational years of the Project, the criteria pollutants are under the significance thresholds specified by SJVAPCD; therefore, the proposed Project will have less than significant operational criteria pollutant emission impacts.

Health Risk Results
SJVAPCD has set the level of significance for carcinogenic risk at twenty in one million, which is understood as the possibility of causing twenty (20) 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 with a two (2) year exposure duration.

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 14 below.

Table 14. Maximum Potential Health Impacts
Value UTM East UTM North
Excess Cancer Risk 0.58 in a million 304236.3 3920764.2 Chronic Hazard Index 0.00034 304236.3 3920764.2
*There is not acute hazard index as there is no acute risk value associated with the diesel particulate matter.

All risk values and health hazard indexes are below the thresholds of significance and, therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on the toxic air contaminants in the surrounding areas. Modeling files are provided as an electronic attachment.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project is also expected to generate GHG emissions. As discussed previously, the Project includes several design measures, which will also reduce GHG emissions. Trinity has quantified the GHG emissions for the Project with and without these design measures to identify the GHG reductions associated with the design measures, as shown in Table 16 below. As indicated in Table 17 below, the Project’s selected design measures provide a 22.6% reduction in GHG emissions.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 22 of 45 Table 15. Construction GHG Emissions
Construction GHG Emissions
Year Emissions (MT/year)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants CO2e
2026 312.77 0.01 0.01 0.08 315.07
2027 270.84 0.01 0.01 0.08 273.27
Total 583.60 0.02 0.01 0.16 588.35
Amortized Total (30 -years) 19.45 0.00 0.00 0.01 19.61 T
able 16. Operational GHG Emissions
Operational GHG Emissions – Without Design Measures
Category Emissions (MT/year)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants CO2e
Mobile 2,710.39 0.13 0.14 3.73 2,758.19
Area 3.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.89
Energy 916.93 0.10 0.01 0.00 921.40
Water 13.44 0.41 0.01 0.00 26.78
Waste 25.15 2.51 0.00 0.00 87.98
Refrigeration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.72
Total 3,669.78 3.16 0.15 4.45 3,798.95
Operational GHG Emissions – With Design Measures
Category
Emissions (MT/year)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants CO2e
Mobile 2,710.39 0.13 0.14 3.73 2,758.19
Area 3.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.89
Energy 57.68 0.01 0.00 0.00 58.25
Water 13.44 0.41 0.01 0.00 26.78
Waste 25.15 2.51 0.00 0.00 87.98
Refrigeration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.72
Total 2,810.53 3.07 0.15 4.45 2,935.80
T
able 17. Operational GHG Reductions
Total GHG Reductions
Category Emissions (MT/year)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants CO2e
Construction - - - - -
Mobile - - - - -
Area - - - - -
Energy -859.25 -0.09 -0.01 - -863.15
Water - - - - -
Waste - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - -
Total -859.25 -0.09 -0.01 - -863.15
May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 23 of 45 Percent GHG Reductions
Category CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants CO2e
Construction - - - - -
Mobile - - - - -
Area - - - - -
Energy -93.71% -90.76% -82.66% - -93.68%
Water - - - - -
Waste - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - -
Total -23.29% -2.90% -3.51% - -22.60%

The proposed Project will be subject to any new regulations developed by CARB to address GHG emissions.

The Project will be an all-electric development; substituting natural gas with electricity from a power grid that is increasingly supplied by renewable sources, consistent with California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and Cap-and-Invest Program, ensures that operational emissions will decline over time without the need for future retrofits or policy changes. The All-Electric Development project design is also synergistic with solar photovoltaic (PV) systems; although these homes will be grid-tied, they will self-generate most of their own energy in alignment with the California Building Standards Code, Green Building Standards Code, and Building Energy Efficiency Standards mandated under Title 24.

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 resident of California (including the residents 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 Project would be purchasing energy from the California market. Thus, the Project would have a less than significant impact on applicable GHG reduction plans.

Recommended GHG Mitigation Measures

GHG-1 The project shall install energy efficient lighting, heating and cooling systems, water heaters, appliances, equipment and control systems in compliance with Title 24 regulations.

GHG-2 The project shall include photovoltaic solar systems in compliance with Title 24 regulations.

GHG-3 The project shall encourage the use of clean electric landscape equipment by including electrical outlets on the exterior of project buildings.

GHG-4 The project shall use high efficiency building materials and multiple glazing.

GHG-5 The project shall install electric vehicle capable/ready charger(s) in each dwelling unit.

GHG-6 The project shall incorporate bicycle lane accessibility and parking to the subdivision.

GHG-7 The project shall install landscape trees along roadway frontages.

GHG-8 The applicant shall incorporate best management practices (BMPs) to reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible as listed in SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI and Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts Under CEQA.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 24 of 45

The applicant shall demonstrate its reduction of GHG emissions through the retirement of carbon offset credits provided that the following conditions are satisfied:

• The applicant shall provide proof to the Development Services Director, or his or her designee, that the carbon offset credits were issued by a registry meeting the following requirements:
o The registry shall account for and quantify emission reductions using clear and defined standards and incorporating recognized principles of GHG emissions reduction accounting, including those set forth in ISO 14064 and the WRI/WBCSD Greenhouse Gas Protocol for Project Accounting;
o The registry shall use clear information sufficient for reviewers to assess credibility of GHG emission reductions underlying the carbon offset credits. Upon request by the City’s Development Services Director, or his or her designee, any governmental entity, or any stakeholder, the registry shall provide the following information within a reasonable time period in connection with any carbon offset credit retired by the applicant: (i) the applicable quantification protocol; and (ii) all third-party confirmation or verification reports issued in connection with the carbon offset credits. Such information shall be sufficient to monitor compliance by the project applicant with this mitigation measure. • The carbon offset credits retired by the applicant for the purpose of mitigating GHG emissions shall represent GHG emission reductions that are real, permanent, additional, quantifiable, verifiable and enforceable.

Prior AQIA Results Comparison
The results of the Project’s air quality and GHG potential impacts were compared against those of the AQIA study of VTTM No. 7218. The Project is a revision of VTTM No. 7218, in which the revised Project proposed 313 single family residences from the original 239 single family residences. The proposed Project construction and operational emissions and the VTTM No. 7218 construction and operational emissions are compared in Table 18 and Table 19 below.

Table 18. Comparison of Project (VTTM No. 7451) to VTTM No. 7218 – Criteria Pollutants Construction Emissions (Mitigated)
Project Pollutants (tons/yr)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
VTTM 7218 Maximum Annual Emissions 2.11 6.49 5.16 0.01 0.55 0.44 Project Maximum Annual Emissions 1.31 1.25 1.60 0.00 0.15 0.08 Average Annual Emissions Increase -0.80 -5.24 -3.56 -0.01 -0.40 -0.36

Operational Emissions (Mitigated)
Emission Source Pollutants (tons/yr)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
VTTM 7218 Annual Emissions 3.54 2.01 15.09 0.03 2.32 0.66 Project Annual Emissions 4.19 1.45 12.94 0.03 2.74 0.71 Average Annual Emissions Increase 0.65 -0.56 -2.15 0.00 0.42 0.05 May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 25 of 45 Table 19. Comparison of Project (VTTM No. 7451) to VTTM No. 7218 – GHGs Construction Emissions (Mitigated)
Project Pollutants (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
VTTM 7218 Maximum Annual Emissions 686.00 0.17 0.00 690.00 Project Maximum Annual Emissions 312.77 0.01 0.01 315.07 Average Annual Emissions
Increase -373.23 -0.16 0.01 -374.93

Operational Emissions (Mitigated)
Emission Source
Pollutants (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
VTTM 7218 Annual Emissions 3,078.00 4.00 0.02 3,169.00
Project Annual Emissions 2,810.53 3.07 0.15 2,935.80
Average Annual Emissions
Increase -267.47 -0.93 0.13 -233.20

The Project is estimated to have less construction emissions when compared to the prior project’s estimated emissions. This is due to differences in CalEEMod emission factors between model versions to account for improvements to construction equipment technology over time.

The Project is estimated to have a slight increase of operational emissions when compared to the prior project’s estimated emissions. This is due to the slight increase in density and differences in CalEEMod emission factors and data between model versions.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project is located on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 463-040-13. The site has a current zone classification of R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling), with land use designations of LR (Low Density Residential) and HMR (High Medium Density Residential). The Project includes construction of 313 single- family homes, which follows the HMR designation density. Since the Project is consistent with existing zoning and land use regulations, its contributions to cumulative environmental impacts are within the scope of those previously analyzed in the Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR). As defined in CEQA §15355, cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The FPEIR evaluated cumulative air quality and GHG impacts of all transportation and land development projects anticipated under the 2022 RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), including those related to climate change. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to result in any additional cumulative air quality or GHG impacts beyond those previously evaluated in the RTP FPEIR.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15183, “projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” The Project is consistent with the City’s Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP), the Western Rosedale Specific Plan (WRSP), the Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC, including Title 17, Zoning Ordinance), and the regional land use pattern May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 26 of 45 established in the Kern COG 2022 RTP/SCS. In addition to being consistent with the current plans and ordinances, the Project-specific air quality impacts were quantified, evaluated and presented in this Memorandum. As with some projects, discussed in CEQA §15130(c), “the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-by-project basis.”

Although the standalone Project as proposed would not have a significant impact on air quality, global warming, or climate change, the Project would contribute to cumulative air pollutants and GHG emissions in California, as well as related health effects. As presented in this Memorandum, the Project emissions would only be a very small fraction of the air basin wide criteria pollutant emissions and statewide GHG emissions.

CEQA acknowledges that the more severe the environmental problem, the lower the threshold for determining whether a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts is significant. At the same time, CEQA Guidelines §§15065(a)(3) and 15130 require agencies to evaluate whether a project’s incremental contribution is cumulatively considerable, while allowing lead agencies discretion in the choice of methodology. In light of these uncertainties, CEQA directs lead agencies to base their determinations on the best available information and substantial evidence. Given the Project’s individual emissions are less than significant and the Project is consistent with local zoning, land use designations and regional planning datasets, as well as the discretion of the Lead Agency, there is substantial evidence to support that the Project’s contribution to cumulative air quality and GHG impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

The Lead Agency (City of Bakersfield) identified the scientific data used and provided analysis supporting its conclusion that the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable, as consistent with CEQA. A summary of the Project’s consistency with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan per AB 32 is shown in Table 20 below.

Table 20. Summary of Project Consistency with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan Sector Action
Statutes, Executive
Orders, Other Direction,
Outcome
Project Consistency
GHG Emissions
Reductions Relative to
the SB 32 Target
40% below 1990 levels
by 2030
► SB 32: Reduce
statewide GHG
emissions.
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
Not applicable. SB 32
and AB 197 set statewide
GHG reduction targets
implemented through
top‑down regulatory
programs that the Project
will comply with.

Smart Growth / Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT)

VMT per capita reduced
25% below 2019 levels
by 2030, and 30% below
2019 levels by 2045
► SB 375: Reduce
demand for fossil
transportation fuels and
GHGs, and improve air
quality
► In response to Board
direction and EJ
Advisory Committee
recommendations
Consistent. The Project
will incorporate EV‑ready
infrastructure, and
pedestrian‑oriented siting
and trails system,
supporting reduced VMT
and alignment with SB
375 smart‑growth
objectives.

Light-duty Vehicle
(LDV) Zero Emission
Vehicles (ZEVs)
100% of LDV sales are
ZEV by 2035
► EO N-79-20: Reduce
demand for fossil
transportation fuels and
GHGs and improve air
quality
Not applicable. The
Project will not impact
ZEV sales.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 27 of 45 Sector Action
Statutes, Executive
Orders, Other Direction,
Outcome
Project Consistency
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
► 2035 target aligns with
the EJ Advisory
Committee
recommendation
Truck ZEVs
100% of medium-duty
(MDV)/HDV sales are
ZEV by 2040 (AB 74
University of California
Institute of
Transportation Studies
report)
EO N-79-20: Reduce
demand for fossil
transportation fuels and
GHGs, and improve air
quality
AB 197: Direct emissions
reductions for sources
covered by the AB 32
Inventory
Not applicable. The
Project will not impact
ZEV sales.

Aviation
► 20% of aviation fuel
demand is met by
electricity (batteries)
or hydrogen (fuel
cells) by 2045
► Sustainable aviation
fuel meets most or
the rest of the
aviation fuel demand
that has not already
transitioned to
hydrogen or batteries
► Reduce demand for
petroleum aviation fuel
and reduce GHGs
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
► In response to
Governor Newsom’s
July 2022 letter to
CARB Chair Liane
Randolph
Not applicable. The
Project does not include
aviation fuel usage.

Ocean-going Vessels
(OGV)
► 2020 OGV At-Berth
regulation fully
implemented, with
most OGVs utilizing
shore power by 2027
► 25% of OGVs utilize
hydrogen fuel cell
electric technology by
2045
► Reduce demand for
petroleum fuels and
GHGs, and improve air
quality
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
Not applicable. The
Project does not include
OGVs.

Port Operations
► 100% of cargo
handling equipment
is zero-emission by
2037
► 100% of drayage
trucks are zero
emission by 2035
► Executive Order N-79-
20: Reduce demand for
petroleum fuels and
GHGs, and improve air
quality
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
Not applicable. The
Project does not include
port operations (e.g.,
cargo handling
equipment, drayage
trucks).

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 28 of 45 Sector Action
Statutes, Executive
Orders, Other Direction,
Outcome
Project Consistency
Freight and Passenger
Rail
► 100% of passenger
and other locomotive
sales are ZEV by
2030
► 100% of line haul
locomotive sales are
ZEV by 2035
► Line haul and
passenger rail rely
primarily on hydrogen
fuel cell technology,
and others primarily
utilize electricity
► Reduce demand for
petroleum fuels and
GHGs, and improve air
quality
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
Not applicable. The
Project does not include
freight or passenger rail
emissions.

Oil and Gas Extraction
Reduce oil and gas
extraction operations in
line with petroleum
demand by 2045
► Reduce GHGs and
improve air quality
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
Not applicable. The
Project does not include
oil and gas extraction.

Petroleum Refining
► CCS on majority of
operations by 2030,
beginning in 2028
► Production reduced in
line with petroleum
demand
► Reduce GHGs and
improve air quality
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
Not applicable. The
Project does not include
petroleum refining.

Electricity Generation
► Sector GHG target of
38 million metric tons
of carbon dioxide
equivalent
(MMTCO
2e) by 2030
and 30 MMTCO2e in
2035
► Retail sales load
coverage
► 20 gigawatts (GW) of
offshore wind by
2045
► Meet increased
demand for
electrification without
new fossil gas-fired
resources
► SB 350 and SB 100:

Reduce GHGs and
improve air quality
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
► In response to
Governor Newsom’s
July 2022 letter, Board
direction, and EJ
Advisory Committee
recommendation
Not applicable. The
Project does not include
electricity generation retail
sales.

New Residential and
Commercial Buildings
► All electric appliances
beginning 2026
(residential) and 2029
(commercial),
contributing to 6
million heat pumps
► Reduce demand for
fossil gas and GHGs,
and improve ambient
and indoor air quality
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
Consistent. The Project
will be an all-electric
development, including
electric appliances and
EV-ready infrastructure.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 29 of 45 Sector Action
Statutes, Executive
Orders, Other Direction,
Outcome
Project Consistency
installed statewide by
2030
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
► In response to
Governor Newsom’s
July 2022 letter
Existing Residential
Buildings
► 80% of appliance
sales are electric by
2030 and 100% of
appliance sales are
electric by 2035
► Appliances are
replaced at end of life
such that by 2030
there are 3 million all-
electric and electric-
ready homes—and by
2035, 7 million
homes—as well as
contributing to 6
million heat pumps
installed statewide by
2030
► Reduce demand for
fossil gas and GHGs,
and improve ambient
and indoor air quality
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
► In response to
Governor Newsom’s
July 2022 letter
Not Applicable. The
Project is new residential
construction.

Existing Commercial
Buildings
► 80% of appliance
sales are electric by
2030, and 100% of
appliance sales are
electric by 2045
► Appliances are
replaced at end of
life, contributing to 6
million heat pumps
installed statewide by
2030
► Reduce demand for
fossil gas and GHGs,
and improve ambient
and indoor air quality
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
► In response to
Governor Newsom’s
July 2022 letter
Not Applicable. The
Project does not include
any existing commercial
buildings.

Food Products

7.5% of energy demand
electrified directly and/or
indirectly by 2030; 75%
by 2045
► Reduce demand for
fossil gas and GHGs,
and improve air quality
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
Not Applicable. The
Project does not include
food production.

Construction Equipment
25% of energy demand
electrified by 2030 and
75% electrified by 2045
► Reduce demand for
fossil energy and GHGs,
and improve air quality.
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
Consistent. The Project
will comply with rules,
regulations, and laws
promulgated under AB
197, if applicable.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 30 of 45 Sector Action
Statutes, Executive
Orders, Other Direction,
Outcome
Project Consistency
Chemicals and Allied
Products; Pulp and
Paper
► Electrify 0% of boilers
by 2030 and 100% of
boilers by 2045
► Hydrogen for 25% of
process heat by 2035
and 100% by 2045
► Electrify 100% of
other energy demand
by 2045
► Reduce demand for
fossil energy and GHGs,
and improve air quality
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
Not applicable. The
Project does not include
chemical or allied product
manufacturing nor pulp
and paper manufacturing.

Stone, Clay, Glass, and
Cement
► CCS on 40% of
operations by 2035
and on all facilities by
2045
► Process emissions
reduced through
alternative materials
and CCS
► SB 596: Reduce
demand for fossil
energy, process
emissions, and GHGs,
and improve air quality.
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
Not applicable. The
Project does not include
stone, clay, glass, or
cement manufacturing.

Other Industrial
Manufacturing
0% energy demand
electrified by 2030 and
50% by 2045
► Reduce demand for
fossil energy and GHGs,
and improve air quality
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
Not applicable. The
Project does not include
other industrial
manufacturing.

Combined Heat and
Power Facilities retire by 2040
► Reduce demand for
fossil energy and GHGs,
and improve air quality
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
Not applicable. The
Project does not include
heat and power facilities.

Agriculture Energy Use
25% energy demand
electrified by 2030 and
75% by 2045
► Reduce demand for
fossil energy and GHGs,
and improve air quality
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
Not applicable. The
Project does not include
agricultural energy use.

Low Carbon Fuels for
Transportation
Biomass supply is used
to produce conventional
and advanced biofuels,
as well as hydrogen
► Reduce demand for
petroleum fuel and
GHGs, and improve air
quality
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
Not applicable. The
Project does not include
manufacturing of fuels.

Low Carbon Fuels for
Buildings and Industry
► In 2030s biomethane
blended in pipeline
► Reduce demand for
fossil energy and GHGs,
and improve air quality
Not applicable. The
Project does not include
manufacturing of fuels.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 31 of 45 Sector Action
Statutes, Executive
Orders, Other Direction,
Outcome
Project Consistency
► Renewable hydrogen
blended in fossil gas
pipeline at 7%
energy (~20% by
volume), ramping up
between 2030 and
2040
► In 2030s, dedicated
hydrogen pipelines
constructed to serve
certain industrial
clusters
► AB 197: Direct
emissions reductions
for sources covered by
the AB 32 Inventory
Non-combustion
Methane Emissions
► Increase landfill and
dairy digester
methane capture
► Some alternative
manure management
deployed for smaller
dairies
► Moderate adoption of
enteric strategies by
2030
► Divert 75% of organic
waste from landfills
by 2025
► Oil and gas fugitive
methane emissions
reduced 50% by
2030 and further
reductions as
infrastructure
components retire in
line with reduced
fossil gas demand
SB 1383: Reduce short-
lived climate pollutants
Not applicable. The
Project does not emit non-
combustion methane.

High GWP Potential
Emissions
Low GWP refrigerants
introduced as building
electrification increases,
mitigating HFC emissions
SB 1383: Reduce short-
lived climate pollutants
Consistent. The Project
will comply with all rules,
regulations, and laws
promulgated under SB
1383, if applicable.

Source: Table 2-1: Actions for the Scoping Plan Scenario: AB 32 GHG Inventory sectors

As discussed above, the Project is consistent with the City’s current zoning ordinances, general plan, and specific plan. The Project is also consistent with regional plans, including the Kern COG 2022 RTP/SCS FPEIR and a summary is presented in Table 21. The RTP incorporates goals for mobility, accessibility, reliability, efficiency, livability, sustainability, and equity and the SCS goals seek to improve economic vitality and improve air quality in the region. A summary of the Project’s consistency with the local land use Western Rosedale Specific Plan is presented in Table 22 below.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 32 of 45 Table 21. Summary of Project Consistency with Kern COG 2022 RTP/SCS FPEIR Goals Supported Policy/Action Strategic Action
Element Project Consistency
Mobility
Accessibility
Sustainability
Enhance and connect
existing and future
bikeways and pedestrian
walkways in the Kern
Region including
disadvantaged
communities.
► Active Transportation
► Air Emissions
Consistent. The
Project will incorporate
sidewalks and bicycle
lanes throughout the
development and
construct a
neighborhood park with
trails system for multi-
modal access.

Mobility
Accessibility
Encourage and with Kern
COG member jurisdictions
to update and implement
their adopted local bicycle
plans and to incorporate
bicycle facilities into local
transportation projects.
► Active Transportation
► Air Emissions
Consistent. The
Project will incorporate
sidewalks and bicycle
lane installation
pursuant to the City’s
Bicycle Transportation
Plan, supporting
reduced VMT and
alignment with SB 375
smart‑growth
objectives.

Transit
Implement bus
improvements including
enhanced transit service
(rapid bus, Bus Rapid
Transit) in long range
transit plans that promote
service throughout the
county especially for
disadvantaged
communities.
► Transit
Consistent. The
Project conducted
discussion with Golden
Empire Transit (GET) to
incorporate transit
mobility hub
infrastructure near the
site.

Mobility
Accessibility
Implement traffic flow
improvements/railroad
grade separations.
► Air Emissions
Consistent. The
Project has designed
the subdivision
consistent with the
City’s Complete Streets
guidance and
regulations.

Mobility
Accessibility Promote park and ride lots. ► Air Emissions Not Applicable. The
Project does not include
construction of
commuter parking lots.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 33 of 45 Goals Supported Policy/Action Strategic Action
Element Project Consistency
Accessibility
Reliability/Safety
Livability/Quality of Life
Sustainability
Use the California
Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) review process to
inform stakeholders and
decision makers on the
impacts of future sensitive
land use developments near
vital transportation
infrastructure necessary to
handle increasing air traffic
and international cargo, as
well as increasing inland
port activity.
► Land Use
► Air Emissions
Consistent. The
Project will install park
and trail systems near
the adjacent railroad
tracks with berms and
walls incorporated into
the design to minimize
access noise.

Accessibility
Reliability/Safety
Livability/Quality of Life
Sustainability
Use the California
Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) review process to
inform stakeholders and
decision makers on the
impacts of future sensitive
land use developments near
vital transportation
infrastructure necessary to
handle increasing air traffic
and international cargo, as
well as increasing inland
port activity.
► Land Use
► Air Emissions
Not Applicable. The
Project is residential
and will not be
receiving air traffic,
international cargo, or
inland port activity.

Accessibility
Reliability/Safety
Livability/Quality of Life
Sustainability
Use the CEQA review
process to inform
stakeholders and decision
makers on the impacts of
sensitive land use
developments near vital
transportation infrastructure
necessary to handle
increasing local, intercity,
and interregional transit
use.
► Land Use
► Air Emissions
Not Applicable. The
Project is residential
and will not be
receiving air traffic,
international cargo, or
inland port activity.

Accessibility
Efficiency
Livability/Quality of Life
Sustainability
Encourage and assist with
the adoption of general plan
circulation elements that
address transit, bike, and
pedestrian modes. Consider
specific plan lines and form
based codes where
appropriate to implement
transit improvements along
designated transit corridors
that connect transit-priority
place types and centers and
other transit ready areas.
► Land Use
► Air Emissions
Consistent. The
Project is consistent
with the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan
Circulation Element and
includes the
construction of bicycle
lanes, multi-use trail
system and parks also
consistent with the
Western Rosedale
Specific Plan Circulation
Element.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 34 of 45 Goals Supported Policy/Action Strategic Action
Element Project Consistency
Accessibility
Efficiency
Livability/Quality of Life
Sustainability
Work with GET, KT, other
local transit providers, and
local land use planners to
preserve existing and future
transit opportunities from
the encroachment of low-
density land uses within
transit-priority place types
and centers and other
transit ready areas.
► Land Use
► Air Emissions
Consistent. The
Project has worked with
GET to incorporate
transit stops in the
project design. The site
is located outside of
GET’s current service
area.

Accessibility
Efficiency
Livability/Quality of Life
Sustainability
Encourage the expansion of
transportation choices and
transit usage by providing
housing choices that include
more compact and mixed
land uses within walking
distance to transit priority
place types and centers and
other transit ready areas in
all communities including
disadvantaged
communities.
► Land Use
► Air Emissions
Consistent. The
Project is located near
commercial land uses
and includes pedestrian
siting near high and
elementary schools.

Accessibility
Efficiency
Livability/Quality of Life
Sustainability
Provide convenient and safe
walking and bike paths to a
fixed transit hub at each
transit priority place type
and other transit ready
areas.
► Land Use
► Air Emissions
Consistent. The
Project includes the
construction of bicycle
lanes, multi-use trail
system to link the site
to nearby transit.

Accessibility
Efficiency
Livability/Quality of Life
Sustainability
Promote more compact and
mixed-use centers along
transit corridors, where
appropriate, to support
more intense transit options
such as BRT, light rail and
active transportation as
areas become revitalized
and in other transit ready
areas.
► Land Use
► Air Emissions
Not Applicable. The
Project is residential
and will not be a mixed-
use center.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 35 of 45 Goals Supported Policy/Action Strategic Action
Element Project Consistency
Accessibility
Efficiency
Livability/Quality of Life
Sustainability
Encourage cities and the
county to provide land use
intensities where
appropriate at levels that
will promote use of transit
and support pedestrian and
bicycle activity. A general
threshold for transit-
supportive residential uses
is 10 to 15 units per acre
within ½ mile of a high-
frequency transit stop (15
min. headways or less).

This density can be lower,
however, if the urban
environment supports easy
pedestrian/bike access to
transit. Nonresidential uses
with a floor area ratio (FAR)
of 0.5 provide a baseline
that can support viable
transit ridership levels.

Local land use plans should
provide flexibility to
maximize the intensity of
development in transit
priority place types to be
more responsive to
changing market conditions.
► Land Use
► Air Emissions
Not Applicable. The
Project site is zoned R-2
residential and will not
be a high density,
mixed-use center.

Accessibility
Efficiency
Livability/Quality of Life
Sustainability
Encourage the adoption of
general plan circulation
elements with specific plan
lines as appropriate to
preserve goods movement
corridors and high
frequency transit corridors.
► Land Use
► Air Emissions
Not Applicable. The
Project is residential
and will not consist of
moving goods on transit
corridors.

Accessibility
Efficiency
Livability/Quality of Life
Sustainability
The transportation and
circulation framework
should define compact
districts and corridors that
are characterized by high
connectivity of streets to
not overly concentrate
traffic on major streets and
to provide more direct
routes for pedestrians, good
access to transit, and
streets that are designed
for pedestrians and
bicycles, as well as for
vehicles.
► Land Use
► Air Emissions
Consistent. The
Project complies with
the City’s Complete
Streets guidance and
regulations and
supports multiple
entrance points for
improved circulation
throughout the tract.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 36 of 45 Goals Supported Policy/Action Strategic Action
Element Project Consistency
Accessibility
Efficiency
Livability/Quality of Life
Sustainability
New residential
developments should
include streets that provide
connectivity. New
development and revitalized
areas should include streets
that provide connectivity for
pedestrian/bicycle access
and public transit.
► Land Use
► Air Emissions
Consistent. The
Project complies with
the City’s Complete
Streets guidance and
regulations and
supports multiple
entrance points for
improved circulation
throughout the tract.

The Project will also
install bicycle lanes and
multi-use trail system
for access.

Accessibility
Efficiency
Livability/Quality of Life
Sustainability
Streets should be designed
to support use by multiple
modes, including transit,
bicycles, and pedestrians,
through proper scaling and
provision of lighting,
landscaping, and amenities.

Amenities must be designed
to provide comfortable
walking environments.
► Land Use
► Air Emissions
Consistent. The
Project complies with
the City’s Complete
Streets guidance and
regulations and
supports multiple
entrance points for
improved circulation
throughout the tract.

The Project will also
install bicycle lanes and
multi-use trail system
for access.

Accessibility
Efficiency
Livability/Quality of Life
Sustainability
Buildings should be human
scaled, with a positive
relationship to the street
(e.g. entries and windows
facing onto public streets,
and appropriate articulation
and signage).
► Land Use
► Air Emissions
Consistent. The
Project includes
residential structures up
to 35 feet in height, as
consistent with the
Bakersfield Municipal
Code, and will include
street facing windows in
accordance with design
regulations.

Livability/Quality of Life

During the project level
environmental process
perform local hot spot
analysis of air pollution in
accordance with the
proscribed federal process
to identify which
communities may be
impacted by proposed
transportation projects.
► Air Emissions
Consistent. The
Project screened below
the thresholds of
performing a traffic
study with LOS analysis
in which hot spot
analysis is conducted.

Source: Kern COG 2022 RTP/SCS FPEIR

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 37 of 45 Table 22. Summary of Project Consistency with Western Rosedale Specific Plan (WRSP) Sector Goal Policy Project Consistency
Western Rosedale
Specific Plan
► Improve the quality of
air, land, water, plant,
and animal life in the
Western Rosedale
Specific Plan area.
► Provide a range of
housing alternatives in
the WRSP area.
► Minimize urban
sprawl.

Provide for an orderly
outward expansion of new
“urban” development (any
residential development
having a density greater
than one unit per acre) so
that it maintains
continuity of existing
development, allows for
the incremental expansion
of infrastructure and
public service, minimizes
impacts on natural
environmental resources,
and provides a high-
quality environment for
living and business.

Consistent. The
Project will construct
single family residential
dwelling units on a
variety of lot sizes to
offer diverse range of
residential density
options. The Project is
located along arterial
streets providing
connectivity to existing
land uses including
schools and commercial
centers. The proposed
development is logical
with the established
development pattern in
the area and through
project design features
and mitigation
measures will improve
the area.

Western Rosedale
Specific Plan
► Provide public facilities
and services to serve
existing and future
development.
► Incorporate natural
environmental
features, including
open space,
agricultural resources,
and proximity to the
Kern River, into land
use planning for the
area.
► Enhance the character
by utilizing multi-use
trails and open space
where possible.
► Provide for the mitigation
of significant noise
impacts on sensitive uses
when adjacent to
transportation corridor
improvements.
► Provide transportation and
recreation opportunities
near schools.
► Promote schools as focal
points for neighborhood
areas and as planning
elements for new growth.

Consistent. The
Project will construct
multi-use trails to
accommodate
equestrian, pedestrian,
and bicycle circulation
within the WRSP area in
accordance with the
WRSP Circulation
Element. The Project
will install a linear park
to conserve open space
and use natural berms
and landscaping along
the BNSF railroad tracks
on the western Project
boundary. The Project is
located within 0.5 miles
of a school.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 38 of 45 Sector Goal Policy Project Consistency
Western Rosedale
Specific Plan
► Enhance the visual
appearance and rural
characteristics with an
exceptional use of
landscaping for all
developments and for
street improvements.
► Promote attractive
entrances into
neighborhoods along
major transportation
corridors.
► Maintain and enhance
Western Rosedale’s rural
community character and
visual image through use
of natural building
materials, earthtone
colors, and additional
landscaping for
development projects.
► Mitigate adverse
environmental impacts
within the Plan area to the
greatest extent possible.

Consistent. The
Project will install
landscaping along
roadways and a linear
park as a buffer to the
BNSF railroad tracks
with trails and
programmed space
pursuant to the rules
and regulations of North
of the River Recreation
and Park District (NOR).

NOR will operate and
maintain the park
facilities in perpetuity
for the benefit of the
community.

Biological Resources
Conserve and enhance
the Plan area’s
biological resources in
a manner that
promotes orderly
development and
reflects the
sensitivities and
constraints of these
resources.
► Implement effective and
feasible mitigation
measures when sensitive
areas will be impacted.
► Consolidate development
to minimize disruption and
aid in the protection of
sensitive biological
resources.

Consistent. The
Project has conducted
biological resource field
surveys for the site and
found to be void of
sensitive habitat. The
developer will conduct a
pre-clearance survey
within 30 days prior of
grading and earthwork
activities to ensure no
sensitive species are on-
site. Project
development will occur
in phases to minimize
disruption.

Mineral Resource
Protect land, water, air
quality, and visual
resources from
environmental damage
resulting from mineral and
energy resource
development.
► Minimize exposure of
future urban users to
contamination from sites
formerly involved in
petroleum recovery.
► Where discretionary
permits are required for
mineral and energy
exploration or
development, specify
compliance with state,
federal and local
standards and attainment
programs with respect to
air quality, protection of
rare, threatened or
endangered species,
conservation of water
Not applicable. The
Project does not include
mineral or energy
resources exploration or
development.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 39 of 45 Sector Goal Policy Project Consistency
quality, watersheds and
basins, and erosion
protection.

Soils and Agriculture
► Provide for the
planned management,
conservation, and wise
utilization of
agricultural land in the
Plan area.
► Establish urban
development patterns
and practices that
promote soil
conservation and that
protect areas of
agricultural production
of food and fiber
crops, and nursery
products.

► Protect areas designated
for agricultural use, which
include Class I and II
agricultural soils having
surface delivery water
systems, from the
encroachment of
residential and
commercial subdivision
development activities.
► Establish land grading
controls as necessary to
help reduce soil
erosion/siltation
commonly associated with
land development.

Consistent. The
Project site is
designated Prime
Farmland per DOC’s
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program
(FMMP) Important
Farmland Series Maps
and would comply with
all California Building
Standards Code (CCR
Title 24) and Bakersfield
Municipal Code
regulations related to
grading and residential
development standards.

The site was actively
farmed using soil
conservation practices
and will prevent soil
erosion for the
development when
possible.

Cultural Resources
Protect areas of significant
cultural or archaeological
potential for future use.
► Require developers to
demonstrate the
cultural/archaeological
potential for the project
sites.
► Encourage preservation of
any known sites of
cultural or archaeological
significance.

Consistent. The
Project applicant
conducted a cultural
resource survey
evaluating potential
resources of cultural or
archaeological
significance and none
were found on-site.

Compliance with
mitigation measures will
stop work and notify a
qualified specialist if
resources are found
during any ground
disturbing activities.

Water Resources
► Conserve and
augment the water
resources of the Plan
area.
► Assure that adequate
groundwater
resources remain
available to the Plan
area.
► Continue to develop and
maintain facilities for
groundwater recharge in
the Plan area.
► Protect Plan area
groundwater resources
from further quality
degradation.

Consistent. The
Project residences will
use less water than the
former agricultural uses,
thereby conserving
water in the Plan area.

Project compliance with
rules and regulations
will protect groundwater
resources.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 40 of 45 Sector Goal Policy Project Consistency
► Achieve and maintain
a balance between
competing demands
for water resource
usage.

Air Quality
► Promote air quality
that is compatible with
health, well-being, and
enjoyment of life.
► Work toward
attainment of O
3, PM10
and CO standards as
enforced by the
SJVUAPCD.
► Develop the plan area
in a way that
minimizes vehicle trips
and miles traveled to
reduce mobile source
emissions.
► Ensure that new
development within the
Plan area supports the
control measures and
implementing rules and
regulations of the
SJVUAPCD Air Quality
Attainment Plan to reduce
mobile sources of
emissions.
► Encourage land uses and
land use practices which
do not contribute
significantly to air quality
degradation.
► Require dust abatement
measures during grading
and construction
operations.
► Locate sensitive receptors,
such as schools, hospitals,
and housing
developments, to
minimize the impact of air
pollution sources.
► Participate in the
Transportation System
Management Program for
Metropolitan Bakersfield
to improve traffic flow,
reduce vehicle trips, and
increase street capacity.
► Promote the use of
bicycles by providing safe,
attractive bicycle paths.
► Encourage walking for
short distance trips
through the creation of
pedestrian friendly
sidewalks, street
crossings, and convenient
access to commercial
areas.

Consistent. The
Project will comply with
applicable rules and
regulations established
by SJVUAPCD to reduce
mobile source emissions
including siting the
Project near existing
schools and commercial
uses. The project will
also implement best
practices and
compliance with an
approved Fugitive Dust
Control Plan to limit
suspended particulates.

The applicant will
comply with ISR Rule
9510 through payment
of fees for further NOx
and PM
10 emissions
reductions from the
Project. Any
transportation impact
fees required for the
Project would be paid
when obtaining building
permits from the City of
Bakersfield Building
Division. By providing
bicycle paths and multi-
trails system, the
Project encourages
walking, bicycling and
alternate modes of
transportation to
minimize vehicle travel.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 41 of 45 Sector Goal Policy Project Consistency
► Promote a pattern of land
uses which locates
residential uses in close
proximity to employment
and commercial services
to minimize vehicular
travel.

Open Space
► Conserve and enhance
the unique aspects of
open space within the
Plan area.
► Create an integrated
system of open space
amenities in the Plan
area.
► Locate and site
development to
minimize the
disruption of open
space areas.
► Acquire new lands for
public open space.
► Promote the
establishment,
maintenance, and
protection of the Plan
area’s open space
resources.
► Development location/
siting should be sensitive
to its relationship to the
Kern River.
► Explore the feasibility for
the use of groundwater
recharge lands for
recreation, habitat, and
alternate resource uses.

Consistent. The
Project is dedicating
park space for public
recreation and installing
multi-use trails along
the frontage. The
Project site is not
located near the Kern
River Plan Element.

Circulation Plan
► Reduce Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) in the
Plan area.
► Reduce VMT between
the Plan area and the
rest of the
metropolitan area.
► Plan the circulation
system to facilitate public
transit when it becomes
cost effective.
► Establish a future land use
pattern which will support
a cost effective transit
system.

Source: Western Rosedale Specific Plan

Additionally, CEQA Guidelines §15130, which governs cumulative impacts analysis, allows agencies to rely on previously approved plans and certified EIRs when evaluating cumulative effects, provided the project’s contribution is not cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the lead and responsible agencies evaluated thresholds based upon analysis and consideration of incremental impacts of the Project to those established in the MBGP, WRSP, CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, and Kern COG 2022 RTP/SCS FPEIR. The proposed Project's consistency with these adopted plans and their associated program-level environmental analyses supports the conclusion that cumulative impacts have been adequately addressed under CEQA, and that the Project’s incremental contribution to such impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

GHG emissions were quantified for the Project and included in the original Air Quality Impact Analysis for the Project site. While this Memorandum includes the quantified GHG emissions, currently there is no quantitative threshold to use, given that SJVAPCD’s threshold is based on the year 2020. Since the threshold is outdated, the Lead Agency is responsible for making the determination of the threshold used in determining the significance of impacts. The proposed Project’s GHG emissions were quantified and presented in Table 16 above.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 42 of 45 SJVAPCD Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review
The Indirect Source Review (ISR) program is an SJVAPCD regulation (Rule 9510) designed to reduce emissions of NOx and PM10 from mobile and area sources associated with the construction and operation of new development projects in the San Joaquin Valley. The ISR program was developed as part of SJVAPCD’s 2003 PM10 Plan and the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan. As part of the program, developers identify and incorporate clean-air measures into their projects to reduce emissions at the project location and within surrounding communities. The ISR program is not a requirement of CEQA; per the 2005 Staff Report, SJVAPCD will not approve development projects. The approval for land use decisions lies with the local land use lead agency. The ISR regulation requires that all subject projects reduce emissions by the following amounts:

► Construction Equipment Emissions
• 20% of total NOx emissions from construction equipment exhaust • 45% of total PM10 emissions from construction equipment exhaust ► Operational Emissions
• 33.3% of the project’s operational baseline NOx emissions over a period of ten years • 50% of the project’s operational baseline PM10 emissions over a period of ten years

Emissions can be reduced by either On-Site Emission Reduction Measures or Off-Site Emission Reduction Measures. Per Rule 9510, On-Site Emission Reduction Measures are defined as “any feature activity, device, or control technology of a project, which is incorporated into the design of that project or through other means, which will avoid, minimize, reduce or eliminate the project’s emissions”. Off-Site Emission Reduction Measures are defined as “any feature, activity, or emission reduction project used, undertaken, or funded to compensate for a project’s emission that is not part of the development project”. The total amount of emission reductions required for a project is calculated per equations Rule 9510 that differ between NOx and PM10 as well as between construction and operation. Where the On-Site Emission Reduction Measures do not fully achieve the necessary reductions, the developer is required to pay an off-site mitigation fee to cover the remaining balance of required reductions.

The amount of off-site fees required is calculated per remaining tons to be reduced and a mitigation fee in pound per ton set in Rule 9510, which differs for NOx versus PM10. The entirety of these mitigation fees are used by SJVAPCD to fund emission reduction projects within the San Joaquin Valley that reduce NOx and PM10 emissions (through incentive grant programs). SJVAPCD regularly releases an annual report that includes the total amount of off-site fees received, the total amount spent, total amount remaining, a list of all projects funded, and the total amount of emission reductions realized.

The Project will be subject to the ISR program as the applicant is seeking final discretionary approval for a development project, which upon full buildout will include more than 50 residential units (Rule 9510, Section

2.1.1). The Project applicant is currently in the process of submitting the ISR Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application. At this time, the applicant is committed to the following Clean Air Measures, as defined by SJVAPCD, which will be selected in the AIA application:

► Clean Construction Equipment
► Solar Panels

The emissions modeling conducted for this assessment incorporates the additional GHG emissions reductions associated with solar panels. As part of the AIA application, the solar panels will reduce operational NOx emissions. These NOx reductions have been calculated per SJVAPCD’s ISR calculators and are provided in Table 23 below. While these NOx reductions have been quantified below, they are not accounted for in Table 12 for comparison against SJVAPCD’s criteria air pollutant thresholds under CEQA.

May 4, 2026 VTTM 7451 Air Study Memorandum Page 43 of 45 Table 23. ISR Program NOx Reductions
Clean Air Measure NOx Emission Reductions
(tons/year)
Solar Panels -0.5371

Additionally, the Clean Construction Equipment measure will reduce NOx and PM10 emissions from construction activities. Selecting this measure when submitting the AIA application automatically assumes that the Project will meet the required NOx and PM10 emission reductions for construction. However, the Clean Construction Equipment measure requires that the applicant submit a detailed list of the construction equipment that was used for construction, which includes details such as engine model year, engine tier level, contractor, equipment manufacturer, and equipment model. This information is entered into the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Construction Mitigation Tool spreadsheet, which then calculates the exact percent reduction in emissions. If at that time, SJVAPCD deems that the reductions are not sufficient, then the applicant will be required to pay the off-site mitigation fees for the remaining amount of reductions required to help offset emissions. The details necessary for the spreadsheet are not known at this time as these details cannot be determined until the applicant is able to select a contractor. Therefore, the emission reductions attributable to the applicant’s commitment to a clean construction fleet is not quantifiable at this time.

As the Project is subject to the emission reductions requirements of the ISR program, the applicant will pay the off-site mitigation fees for any remaining required emission reductions after implementation of the construction and operational Clean Air Measures. SJVAPCD will use the applicant’s off-site mitigation fees to fund various incentive programs within the San Joaquin Valley, which will subsequently achieve NOx and PM
10 emission reductions. As stated above, as many of the Project’s details for the ISR application have yet to be determined, the emissions shown in this assessment do not reflect the total required NOx and PM10 emission reductions.

Summary
Based on the air quality and greenhouse gas impact assessment above, Trinity has concluded the following:

► Both the previous VTTM No. 7218 and the proposed Project would have short-term air quality impacts due to construction activities as well as vehicular emissions. Both construction and mobile source emission impacts would be mitigated and were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation.
► Both the previous VTTM No. 7218 and the proposed Project would result in long-term air quality impacts due to operational and related emissions. These operational emission impacts were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation.
► Both the previous VTTM No. 7218 and the proposed Project would result in health risk impacts due to construction and operational activities. Health risk from TAC impacts were found to be less than significant.
► Both the previous VTTM No. 7218 and the proposed Project would result in individual and cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. These impacts were not found to be cumulatively considerable and with mitigation measures would decrease emissions as consistent with state and regional GHG reduction plans and policies. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant greenhouse gas emission impact with mitigation incorporated.

Attachment 1
CalEEMod Output Files
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 1 / 39
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions 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 Y ear

2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.2.2. Onsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.2.3. Offsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.2.4. Total Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

2.2.5. Onsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

2.2.6. Offsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026)
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 2 / 39

3.1.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.1.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.1.3. Onsite - Mitigated

3.1.4. Offsite - Mitigated

3.2. Grading (2026)

3.2.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.2.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.2.3. Onsite - Mitigated

3.2.4. Offsite - Mitigated

3.3. Paving (2026)

3.3.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.3.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.3.3. Onsite - Mitigated

3.3.4. Offsite - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

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 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 3 / 39

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

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
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 4 / 39

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

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

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 5 / 39

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

8.1. Justifications

8.3. Land Use

8.4. Construction

8.4.1. Construction Phases

8.6. Measure Input Overrides

8.6.1. Construction Measure Inputs
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 6 / 39

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions
Construction Start Date 4/15/2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70000
Precipitation (days) 18.0000
Location 35.418729544683956, -119.16611738041257
County Kern-San Joaquin
City Bakersfield
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2889
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.43

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
Single Family
Housing
313.000 Dwelling Unit 40.7700 610,350 1,015,358 — 1,008.00 — VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 7 / 39

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Transportation T-14* Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure * Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.82515 3.21972 29.2289 30.0226 0.06093 1.24251 19.8709 21.1134 1.14311 10.1526 11.2957 — 6,862.55 6,862.55 0.27075 0.06248 0.87046 6,888.81 Mit. 3.82515 3.21972 29.2289 30.0226 0.06093 1.24251 5.32473 6.56724 1.14311 2.67677 3.81989 — 6,862.55 6,862.55 0.27075 0.06248 0.87046 6,888.81 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 73% 69% — 74% 66% — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.45498 0.38293 3.37856 3.70027 0.00702 0.14121 1.27665 1.41786 0.12991 0.55772 0.68764 — 795.238 795.238 0.03141 0.00754 0.05529 798.326 Mit. 0.45498 0.38293 3.37856 3.70027 0.00702 0.14121 0.35820 0.49941 0.12991 0.15116 0.28107 — 795.238 795.238 0.03141 0.00754 0.05529 798.326 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 72% 65% — 73% 59% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.08303 0.06988 0.61659 0.67530 0.00128 0.02577 0.23299 0.25876 0.02371 0.10178 0.12549 — 131.661 131.661 0.00520 0.00125 0.00915 132.172 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 8 / 39
Mit. 0.08303 0.06988 0.61659 0.67530 0.00128 0.02577 0.06537 0.09114 0.02371 0.02759 0.05130 — 131.661 131.661 0.00520 0.00125 0.00915 132.172 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 72% 65% — 73% 59% — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear

2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated Includes both onsite and offsite emissions.

2.2.4. Total Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated Includes both onsite and offsite emissions.

Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 10 / 39
2026 3.82515 3.21972 29.2289 30.0226 0.06093 1.24251 5.32473 6.56724 1.14311 2.67677 3.81989 — 6,862.55 6,862.55 0.27075 0.06248 0.87046 6,888.81 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.45498 0.38293 3.37856 3.70027 0.00702 0.14121 0.35820 0.49941 0.12991 0.15116 0.28107 — 795.238 795.238 0.03141 0.00754 0.05529 798.326 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.08303 0.06988 0.61659 0.67530 0.00128 0.02577 0.06537 0.09114 0.02371 0.02759 0.05130 — 131.661 131.661 0.00520 0.00125 0.00915 132.172

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026)

3.1.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.74146 3.14387 29.1635 28.8082 0.04890 1.24251 — 1.24251 1.14311 — 1.14311 — 5,297.94 5,297.94 0.21491 0.04298 — 5,316.12 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.6570 19.6570 — 10.1024 10.1024 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.09226 0.07752 0.71910 0.71034 0.00121 0.03064 — 0.03064 0.02819 — 0.02819 — 130.634 130.634 0.00530 0.00106 — 131.082 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.48469 0.48469 — 0.24910 0.24910 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01684 0.01415 0.13124 0.12964 0.00022 0.00559 — 0.00559 0.00514 — 0.00514 — 21.6280 21.6280 0.00088 0.00018 — 21.7022 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.08846 0.08846 — 0.04546 0.04546 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.1.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08368 0.07585 0.06536 1.21437 0.00000 0.00000 0.21390 0.21390 0.00000 0.05014 0.05014 — 230.974 230.974 0.00270 0.00783 0.76165 234.137 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 13 / 39
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00189 0.00168 0.00180 0.02233 0.00000 0.00000 0.00521 0.00521 0.00000 0.00122 0.00122 — 5.19037 5.19037 0.00009 0.00020 0.00812 5.26102 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00035 0.00031 0.00033 0.00408 0.00000 0.00000 0.00095 0.00095 0.00000 0.00022 0.00022 — 0.85933 0.85933 0.00001 0.00003 0.00134 0.87102 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.1.3. Onsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.74146 3.14387 29.1635 28.8082 0.04890 1.24251 — 1.24251 1.14311 — 1.14311 — 5,297.94 5,297.94 0.21491 0.04298 — 5,316.12 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.11082 5.11082 — 2.62664 2.62664 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.09226 0.07752 0.71910 0.71034 0.00121 0.03064 — 0.03064 0.02819 — 0.02819 — 130.634 130.634 0.00530 0.00106 — 131.082 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.12602 0.12602 — 0.06477 0.06477 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.01684 0.01415 0.13124 0.12964 0.00022 0.00559 — 0.00559 0.00514 — 0.00514 — 21.6280 21.6280 0.00088 0.00018 — 21.7022 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.02300 0.02300 — 0.01182 0.01182 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.1.4. Offsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08368 0.07585 0.06536 1.21437 0.00000 0.00000 0.21390 0.21390 0.00000 0.05014 0.05014 — 230.974 230.974 0.00270 0.00783 0.76165 234.137 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 15 / 39
Worker 0.00189 0.00168 0.00180 0.02233 0.00000 0.00000 0.00521 0.00521 0.00000 0.00122 0.00122 — 5.19037 5.19037 0.00009 0.00020 0.00812 5.26102 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00035 0.00031 0.00033 0.00408 0.00000 0.00000 0.00095 0.00095 0.00000 0.00022 0.00022 — 0.85933 0.85933 0.00001 0.00003 0.00134 0.87102 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.2. Grading (2026)

3.2.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.62261 3.04400 27.2253 27.5707 0.06093 1.12137 — 1.12137 1.03166 — 1.03166 — 6,598.58 6,598.58 0.26767 0.05353 — 6,621.22 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.20359 9.20359 — 3.65375 3.65375 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 16 / 39
544.210—0.004400.02200542.349542.349—0.08479—0.084790.09217—0.092170.005012.266082.237690.250190.29775Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.75646 0.75646 — 0.30031 0.30031 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.05434 0.04566 0.40838 0.41356 0.00091 0.01682 — 0.01682 0.01547 — 0.01547 — 89.7920 89.7920 0.00364 0.00073 — 90.1002 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.13805 0.13805 — 0.05481 0.05481 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.2.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09564 0.08669 0.07469 1.38785 0.00000 0.00000 0.24446 0.24446 0.00000 0.05730 0.05730 — 263.970 263.970 0.00309 0.00895 0.87046 267.585 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 17 / 39
——————————————————Average
Daily
Worker 0.00721 0.00640 0.00684 0.08508 0.00000 0.00000 0.01986 0.01986 0.00000 0.00465 0.00465 — 19.7728 19.7728 0.00033 0.00077 0.03093 20.0420 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00132 0.00117 0.00125 0.01553 0.00000 0.00000 0.00362 0.00362 0.00000 0.00085 0.00085 — 3.27362 3.27362 0.00005 0.00013 0.00512 3.31818 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.2.3. Onsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.62261 3.04400 27.2253 27.5707 0.06093 1.12137 — 1.12137 1.03166 — 1.03166 — 6,598.58 6,598.58 0.26767 0.05353 — 6,621.22 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.39293 2.39293 — 0.94998 0.94998 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 18 / 39
544.210—0.004400.02200542.349542.349—0.08479—0.084790.09217—0.092170.005012.266082.237690.250190.29775Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.19668 0.19668 — 0.07808 0.07808 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.05434 0.04566 0.40838 0.41356 0.00091 0.01682 — 0.01682 0.01547 — 0.01547 — 89.7920 89.7920 0.00364 0.00073 — 90.1002 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.03589 0.03589 — 0.01425 0.01425 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.2.4. Offsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09564 0.08669 0.07469 1.38785 0.00000 0.00000 0.24446 0.24446 0.00000 0.05730 0.05730 — 263.970 263.970 0.00309 0.00895 0.87046 267.585 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 19 / 39
——————————————————Average
Daily
Worker 0.00721 0.00640 0.00684 0.08508 0.00000 0.00000 0.01986 0.01986 0.00000 0.00465 0.00465 — 19.7728 19.7728 0.00033 0.00077 0.03093 20.0420 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00132 0.00117 0.00125 0.01553 0.00000 0.00000 0.00362 0.00362 0.00000 0.00085 0.00085 — 3.27362 3.27362 0.00005 0.00013 0.00512 3.31818 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.3. Paving (2026)

3.3.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.90546 0.76084 7.11822 9.93804 0.01395 0.31987 — 0.31987 0.29428 — 0.29428 — 1,510.59 1,510.59 0.06128 0.01226 — 1,515.78 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

87.2090—0.000710.0035386.910786.9107—0.01693—0.016930.01840—0.018400.000800.571780.409540.043770.05209Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00951 0.00799 0.07474 0.10435 0.00015 0.00336 — 0.00336 0.00309 — 0.00309 — 14.3891 14.3891 0.00058 0.00012 — 14.4384 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.3.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07173 0.06501 0.05602 1.04089 0.00000 0.00000 0.18335 0.18335 0.00000 0.04298 0.04298 — 197.978 197.978 0.00231 0.00671 0.65285 200.689 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00378 0.00336 0.00359 0.04467 0.00000 0.00000 0.01043 0.01043 0.00000 0.00244 0.00244 — 10.3807 10.3807 0.00017 0.00041 0.01624 10.5220 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 21 / 39
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00069 0.00061 0.00066 0.00815 0.00000 0.00000 0.00190 0.00190 0.00000 0.00045 0.00045 — 1.71865 1.71865 0.00003 0.00007 0.00269 1.74204 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.3.3. Onsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.05209 0.04377 0.40954 0.57178 0.00080 0.01840 — 0.01840 0.01693 — 0.01693 — 86.9107 86.9107 0.00353 0.00071 — 87.2090 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 22 / 39

14.4384—0.000120.0005814.389114.3891—0.00309—0.003090.00336—0.003360.000150.104350.074740.007990.00951Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.3.4. Offsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07173 0.06501 0.05602 1.04089 0.00000 0.00000 0.18335 0.18335 0.00000 0.04298 0.04298 — 197.978 197.978 0.00231 0.00671 0.65285 200.689 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00378 0.00336 0.00359 0.04467 0.00000 0.00000 0.01043 0.01043 0.00000 0.00244 0.00244 — 10.3807 10.3807 0.00017 0.00041 0.01624 10.5220 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00069 0.00061 0.00066 0.00815 0.00000 0.00000 0.00190 0.00190 0.00000 0.00045 0.00045 — 1.71865 1.71865 0.00003 0.00007 0.00269 1.74204 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

4. Operations Emissions Details
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 23 / 39

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 24 / 39

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 25 / 39
——————————————————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) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. 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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 26 / 39
——————————————————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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 27 / 39
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/15/2026 4/27/2026 5.00000 9.00000 — Grading Grading 4/28/2026 6/8/2026 5.00000 30.0000 —
Paving Paving 6/9/2026 7/7/2026 5.00000 21.0000 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 148.000 0.41000 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 28 / 39
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 423.000 0.48000 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 81.0000 0.42000 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 89.0000 0.36000 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 148.000 0.41000 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 423.000 0.48000 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 81.0000 0.42000 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 89.0000 0.36000 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation Worker 17.5000 17.3000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 29 / 39
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.6000 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading Worker 20.0000 17.3000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.6000 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving Worker 15.0000 17.3000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.6000 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation Worker 17.5000 17.3000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.6000 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading Worker 20.0000 17.3000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.6000 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving Worker 15.0000 17.3000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.6000 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 30 / 39

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings

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 — — 13.5000 0.00000 0.00000
Grading — — 90.0000 0.00000 0.00000
Paving 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 3.44904

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Phase Name Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Paving Single Family Housing 3.44904 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00000 203.983 0.03300 0.00400

5.18. Vegetation
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 31 / 39

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

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

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 32 / 39

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 21.0800 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.00000 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00000 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 33 / 39
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 84.5800
AQ-PM 98.4443
AQ-DPM 34.7729
Drinking Water 97.8769
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 34 / 39
Lead Risk Housing 3.93195
Pesticides 95.9310
Toxic Releases 41.6479
Traffic 5.57500
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 33.8746
Groundwater 30.8816
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 74.7320
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00000
Solid Waste 35.7159
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 9.43420
Cardio-vascular 43.1580
Low Birth Weights 26.0713
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 36.9021
Housing 0.31686
Linguistic 0.92029
Poverty 5.35176
Unemployment 43.0895

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 88.68215065
Employed 79.81521879
Median HI 87.51443603
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 35 / 39
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 64.24996792
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 24.79147953
Transportation —
Auto Access 88.68215065
Active commuting 1.039394328
Social —
2-parent households 75.6704735
Voting 82.13781599
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 89.24675991
Park access 15.0006416
Retail density 6.711151033
Supermarket access 20.33876556
Tree canopy 2.181444886
Housing —
Homeownership 89.43924034
Housing habitability 94.81586039
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 77.74926216 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 94.57205184
Uncrowded housing 91.95431798
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 92.49326318
Arthritis 97.2
Asthma ER Admissions 85.0
High Blood Pressure 97.4
Cancer (excluding skin) 85.3
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 36 / 39
Asthma 58.2
Coronary Heart Disease 98.1
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 93.7
Diagnosed Diabetes 98.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 33.3
Cognitively Disabled 94.6
Physically Disabled 98.1
Heart Attack ER Admissions 44.5
Mental Health Not Good 58.7
Chronic Kidney Disease 97.1
Obesity 54.6
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 93.2
Stroke 97.8
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.7
Current Smoker 42.3
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 79.7
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 56.6
Elderly 81.3
English Speaking 86.6
Foreign-born 3.3
Outdoor Workers 45.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 81.1
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 37 / 39
Traffic Density 17.7
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 21.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 81.8

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 23.0000 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 75.0000 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data

8.1. Justifications
Screen Justification
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 38 / 39
Land Use Land use information scaled per site specific data.

Construction: Construction Phases Construction schedule per applicant provided data.

Operations: Fleet Mix SJVAPCD Residential Fleet Mix for 2026.

Operations: Hearths Assuming all units may have a gas fireplace. Wood stoves not allowed per SJVAPCD Rule 4901.

8.3. Land Use
Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value
Lot Area acre 101.623 40.7700
Landscape Area sq. ft 3,666,124 1,015,358

8.4. Construction

8.4.1. Construction Phases
Phase Type Phase Name Model Parameter Default Value New Value Site Preparation Site Preparation Start Date 6/25/2026 4/15/2026 Site Preparation Site Preparation End Date 8/6/2026 4/27/2026 Site Preparation Site Preparation Work Days per Phase 30.0000 9.00000 Grading Grading Start Date 8/7/2026 4/28/2026
Grading Grading End Date 11/20/2026 6/8/2026
Grading Grading Work Days per Phase 75.0000 30.0000
Paving Paving Start Date 9/23/2029 6/9/2026
Paving Paving End Date 12/9/2029 7/7/2026
Paving Paving Work Days per Phase 55.0000 21.0000

8.6. Measure Input Overrides

8.6.1. Construction Measure Inputs
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 1 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 39 / 39
Measure Number and Input
Name
Construction Phase Equipment Type Model Parameter Default Value New Value C-10-A - Water Exposed
Surfaces
— — Watering Frequency 2 3
C-11 - Limit Vehicle Speeds
on Unpaved Roads
— — PM10 Percent Reduction 44.0000 66.7
C-11 - Limit Vehicle Speeds
on Unpaved Roads
— — PM2.5 Percent Reduction 44.0000 66.7
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 1 / 60
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions 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 Y ear

2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.2.2. Onsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.2.3. Offsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.2.4. Total Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

2.2.5. Onsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

2.2.6. Offsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.4. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 2 / 60

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Building Construction (2026)

3.1.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.1.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.1.3. Onsite - Mitigated

3.1.4. Offsite - Mitigated

3.2. Architectural Coating (2026)

3.2.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.2.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.2.3. Onsite - Mitigated

3.2.4. Offsite - 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
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 3 / 60

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 4 / 60

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 5 / 60

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 6 / 60

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 7 / 60

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 8 / 60

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

8.1. Justifications

8.3. Land Use

8.4. Construction

8.4.1. Construction Phases

8.5. Operations

8.5.1. Mobile Sources

8.5.1.1. Vehicle Data

8.5.1.2. Fleet Mix

8.6. Measure Input Overrides

8.6.1. Construction Measure Inputs
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 9 / 60

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions
Construction Start Date 7/7/2026
Operational Y ear 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70000
Precipitation (days) 18.0000
Location 35.418729544683956, -119.16611738041257
County Kern-San Joaquin
City Bakersfield
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2889
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.43

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
Single Family
Housing
116.000 Dwelling Unit 14.8400 226,200 376,299 — 374.000 — VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 10 / 60

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Energy E-10-B Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power Energy E-15 Require All-Electric Development

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.49706 1.26464 10.4543 16.0074 0.02629 0.38445 0.62069 1.00514 0.35416 0.15011 0.50427 — 3,347.32 3,347.32 0.10795 0.09538 2.85350 3,381.29 Mit. 1.49706 1.26464 10.4543 16.0074 0.02629 0.38445 0.62069 1.00514 0.35416 0.15011 0.50427 — 3,347.32 3,347.32 0.10795 0.09538 2.85350 3,381.29 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 202.438 202.409 10.5213 15.0944 0.02629 0.38445 0.62069 1.00514 0.35416 0.15011 0.50427 — 3,280.05 3,280.05 0.11071 0.09630 0.07400 3,311.59 Mit. 202.438 202.409 10.5213 15.0944 0.02629 0.38445 0.62069 1.00514 0.35416 0.15011 0.50427 — 3,280.05 3,280.05 0.11071 0.09630 0.07400 3,311.59 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 11 / 60
Unmit. 4.30400 4.23676 3.00673 4.38180 0.00753 0.10999 0.17680 0.28679 0.10132 0.04273 0.14405 — 944.363 944.363 0.03142 0.02754 0.35442 953.708 Mit. 4.30400 4.23676 3.00673 4.38180 0.00753 0.10999 0.17680 0.28679 0.10132 0.04273 0.14405 — 944.363 944.363 0.03142 0.02754 0.35442 953.708 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.78548 0.77321 0.54873 0.79968 0.00137 0.02007 0.03227 0.05234 0.01849 0.00780 0.02629 — 156.350 156.350 0.00520 0.00456 0.05868 157.897 Mit. 0.78548 0.77321 0.54873 0.79968 0.00137 0.02007 0.03227 0.05234 0.01849 0.00780 0.02629 — 156.350 156.350 0.00520 0.00456 0.05868 157.897 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear

2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated Includes both onsite and offsite emissions.

Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.49706 1.26464 10.4543 16.0074 0.02629 0.38445 0.62069 1.00514 0.35416 0.15011 0.50427 — 3,347.32 3,347.32 0.10795 0.09538 2.85350 3,381.29 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 202.438 202.409 10.5213 15.0944 0.02629 0.38445 0.62069 1.00514 0.35416 0.15011 0.50427 — 3,280.05 3,280.05 0.11071 0.09630 0.07400 3,311.59 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 4.30400 4.23676 3.00673 4.38180 0.00753 0.10999 0.17680 0.28679 0.10132 0.04273 0.14405 — 944.363 944.363 0.03142 0.02754 0.35442 953.708 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.78548 0.77321 0.54873 0.79968 0.00137 0.02007 0.03227 0.05234 0.01849 0.00780 0.02629 — 156.350 156.350 0.00520 0.00456 0.05868 157.897 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 12 / 60

2.2.2. Onsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.27993 1.07101 9.85401 12.9664 0.02340 0.37865 0.00000 0.37865 0.34836 0.00000 0.34836 — 2,397.24 2,397.24 0.09724 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.47 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 202.402 202.377 9.85401 12.9664 0.02340 0.37865 0.00000 0.37865 0.34836 0.00000 0.34836 — 2,397.24 2,397.24 0.09724 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.47 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 4.24638 4.18637 2.82414 3.71626 0.00670 0.10833 0.00000 0.10833 0.09967 0.00000 0.09967 — 685.610 685.610 0.02781 0.00556 0.00000 687.962 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.77496 0.76401 0.51541 0.67822 0.00122 0.01977 0.00000 0.01977 0.01819 0.00000 0.01819 — 113.510 113.510 0.00460 0.00092 0.00000 113.900

2.2.3. Offsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.21713 0.19363 0.60031 3.04104 0.00290 0.00580 0.62069 0.62649 0.00580 0.15011 0.15590 — 950.077 950.077 0.01071 0.07594 2.85350 975.827 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.19670 0.17136 0.66734 2.12798 0.00290 0.00580 0.62069 0.62649 0.00580 0.15011 0.15590 — 882.811 882.811 0.01347 0.07686 0.07400 906.125 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.05761 0.05039 0.18259 0.66554 0.00083 0.00165 0.17680 0.17845 0.00165 0.04273 0.04438 — 258.753 258.753 0.00361 0.02197 0.35442 265.746 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 13 / 60
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.01051 0.00920 0.03332 0.12146 0.00015 0.00030 0.03227 0.03257 0.00030 0.00780 0.00810 — 42.8395 42.8395 0.00060 0.00364 0.05868 43.9973

2.2.4. Total Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated Includes both onsite and offsite emissions.

2.2.5. Onsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.27993 1.07101 9.85401 12.9664 0.02340 0.37865 0.00000 0.37865 0.34836 0.00000 0.34836 — 2,397.24 2,397.24 0.09724 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.47 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 202.402 202.377 9.85401 12.9664 0.02340 0.37865 0.00000 0.37865 0.34836 0.00000 0.34836 — 2,397.24 2,397.24 0.09724 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.47 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 14 / 60
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 4.24638 4.18637 2.82414 3.71626 0.00670 0.10833 0.00000 0.10833 0.09967 0.00000 0.09967 — 685.610 685.610 0.02781 0.00556 0.00000 687.962 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.77496 0.76401 0.51541 0.67822 0.00122 0.01977 0.00000 0.01977 0.01819 0.00000 0.01819 — 113.510 113.510 0.00460 0.00092 0.00000 113.900

2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.4043 10.0273 5.52509 36.8655 0.08339 0.16204 5.77441 5.93645 0.15751 1.46773 1.62523 65.3548 9,853.22 9,918.58 7.07143 0.47013 26.9490 10,262.4 Mit. 10.2709 9.96061 4.38542 36.3805 0.07611 0.06989 5.77441 5.84430 0.06536 1.46773 1.53309 65.3548 7,929.56 7,994.92 6.86623 0.45805 26.9490 8,330.02 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 15 / 60
%
Reduced
1% 1% 21% 1% 9% 57% — 2% 59% — 6% — 20% 19% 3% 3% — 19% Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9.27436 8.91432 6.01590 25.5986 0.07694 0.15889 5.77441 5.93330 0.15515 1.46773 1.62288 65.3548 9,211.84 9,277.20 7.11383 0.49427 2.27684 9,604.61 Mit. 9.14099 8.84764 4.87623 25.1136 0.06966 0.06675 5.77441 5.84116 0.06301 1.46773 1.53073 65.3548 7,288.18 7,353.53 6.90863 0.48219 2.27684 7,672.22 %
Reduced
1% 1% 19% 2% 9% 58% — 2% 59% — 6% — 21% 21% 3% 2% — 20% Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9.01107 8.66439 4.21267 27.6251 0.06746 0.13593 5.51307 5.64900 0.13277 1.39393 1.52670 65.3548 8,232.19 8,297.54 7.09244 0.35126 10.5774 8,590.11 Mit. 8.87770 8.59770 3.07300 27.1401 0.06019 0.04379 5.51307 5.55685 0.04062 1.39393 1.43456 65.3548 6,308.53 6,373.88 6.88724 0.33918 10.5774 6,657.72 %
Reduced
1% 1% 27% 2% 11% 68% — 2% 69% — 6% — 23% 23% 3% 3% — 22% Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.64452 1.58125 0.76881 5.04158 0.01231 0.02481 1.00613 1.03094 0.02423 0.25439 0.27862 10.8202 1,362.93 1,373.75 1.17423 0.05816 1.75120 1,422.19 Mit. 1.62018 1.56908 0.56082 4.95307 0.01098 0.00799 1.00613 1.01413 0.00741 0.25439 0.26181 10.8202 1,044.45 1,055.27 1.14026 0.05616 1.75120 1,102.26 %
Reduced
1% 1% 27% 2% 11% 68% — 2% 69% — 6% — 23% 23% 3% 3% — 22%

2.4. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.42659 4.14867 4.32190 29.8032 0.07583 0.06668 5.77441 5.84109 0.06294 1.46773 1.53067 — 7,762.60 7,762.60 0.28599 0.43302 25.3289 7,924.12 Area 5.84430 5.81194 0.06352 6.57725 0.00029 0.00322 — 0.00322 0.00242 — 0.00242 — 17.5957 17.5957 0.00074 0.00015 — 17.6576 Energy 0.13337 0.06668 1.13967 0.48497 0.00727 0.09214 — 0.09214 0.09214 — 0.09214 — 2,052.53 2,052.53 0.22605 0.01461 — 2,062.53 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 16 / 60
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.01311 20.4981 29.5112 0.92751 0.02236 — 59.3623 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 56.3416 0.00000 56.3416 5.63115 0.00000 — 197.120 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62005 1.62005 Total 10.4043 10.0273 5.52509 36.8655 0.08339 0.16204 5.77441 5.93645 0.15751 1.46773 1.62523 65.3548 9,853.22 9,918.58 7.07143 0.47013 26.9490 10,262.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.91242 3.61907 4.87623 25.1136 0.06966 0.06675 5.77441 5.84116 0.06301 1.46773 1.53073 — 7,138.81 7,138.81 0.32913 0.45730 0.65679 7,283.97 Area 5.22857 5.22857 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.13337 0.06668 1.13967 0.48497 0.00727 0.09214 — 0.09214 0.09214 — 0.09214 — 2,052.53 2,052.53 0.22605 0.01461 — 2,062.53 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.01311 20.4981 29.5112 0.92751 0.02236 — 59.3623 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 56.3416 0.00000 56.3416 5.63115 0.00000 — 197.120 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62005 1.62005 Total 9.27436 8.91432 6.01590 25.5986 0.07694 0.15889 5.77441 5.93330 0.15515 1.46773 1.62288 65.3548 9,211.84 9,277.20 7.11383 0.49427 2.27684 9,604.61 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.34548 3.08144 3.04167 23.8965 0.06005 0.04220 5.51307 5.55527 0.03943 1.39393 1.43336 — 6,150.48 6,150.48 0.30738 0.31422 8.95731 6,260.76 Area 5.53222 5.51626 0.03133 3.24357 0.00014 0.00159 — 0.00159 0.00120 — 0.00120 — 8.67734 8.67734 0.00036 0.00007 — 8.70787 Energy 0.13337 0.06668 1.13967 0.48497 0.00727 0.09214 — 0.09214 0.09214 — 0.09214 — 2,052.53 2,052.53 0.22605 0.01461 — 2,062.53 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.01311 20.4981 29.5112 0.92751 0.02236 — 59.3623 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 56.3416 0.00000 56.3416 5.63115 0.00000 — 197.120 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62005 1.62005 Total 9.01107 8.66439 4.21267 27.6251 0.06746 0.13593 5.51307 5.64900 0.13277 1.39393 1.52670 65.3548 8,232.19 8,297.54 7.09244 0.35126 10.5774 8,590.11 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.61055 0.56236 0.55510 4.36112 0.01096 0.00770 1.00613 1.01384 0.00720 0.25439 0.26159 — 1,018.28 1,018.28 0.05089 0.05202 1.48299 1,036.54 Area 1.00963 1.00672 0.00572 0.59195 0.00003 0.00029 — 0.00029 0.00022 — 0.00022 — 1.43663 1.43663 0.00006 0.00001 — 1.44169 Energy 0.02434 0.01217 0.20799 0.08851 0.00133 0.01682 — 0.01682 0.01682 — 0.01682 — 339.820 339.820 0.03742 0.00242 — 341.476 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.49222 3.39369 4.88591 0.15356 0.00370 — 9.82810 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 9.32800 0.00000 9.32800 0.93230 0.00000 — 32.6355 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 17 / 60
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26822 0.26822 Total 1.64452 1.58125 0.76881 5.04158 0.01231 0.02481 1.00613 1.03094 0.02423 0.25439 0.27862 10.8202 1,362.93 1,373.75 1.17423 0.05816 1.75120 1,422.19

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.42659 4.14867 4.32190 29.8032 0.07583 0.06668 5.77441 5.84109 0.06294 1.46773 1.53067 — 7,762.60 7,762.60 0.28599 0.43302 25.3289 7,924.12 Area 5.84430 5.81194 0.06352 6.57725 0.00029 0.00322 — 0.00322 0.00242 — 0.00242 — 17.5957 17.5957 0.00074 0.00015 — 17.6576 Energy 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 128.870 128.870 0.02085 0.00253 — 130.144 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.01311 20.4981 29.5112 0.92751 0.02236 — 59.3623 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 56.3416 0.00000 56.3416 5.63115 0.00000 — 197.120 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62005 1.62005 Total 10.2709 9.96061 4.38542 36.3805 0.07611 0.06989 5.77441 5.84430 0.06536 1.46773 1.53309 65.3548 7,929.56 7,994.92 6.86623 0.45805 26.9490 8,330.02 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.91242 3.61907 4.87623 25.1136 0.06966 0.06675 5.77441 5.84116 0.06301 1.46773 1.53073 — 7,138.81 7,138.81 0.32913 0.45730 0.65679 7,283.97 Area 5.22857 5.22857 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 128.870 128.870 0.02085 0.00253 — 130.144 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.01311 20.4981 29.5112 0.92751 0.02236 — 59.3623 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 56.3416 0.00000 56.3416 5.63115 0.00000 — 197.120 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62005 1.62005 Total 9.14099 8.84764 4.87623 25.1136 0.06966 0.06675 5.77441 5.84116 0.06301 1.46773 1.53073 65.3548 7,288.18 7,353.53 6.90863 0.48219 2.27684 7,672.22 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.34548 3.08144 3.04167 23.8965 0.06005 0.04220 5.51307 5.55527 0.03943 1.39393 1.43336 — 6,150.48 6,150.48 0.30738 0.31422 8.95731 6,260.76 Area 5.53222 5.51626 0.03133 3.24357 0.00014 0.00159 — 0.00159 0.00120 — 0.00120 — 8.67734 8.67734 0.00036 0.00007 — 8.70787 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 18 / 60
Energy 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 128.870 128.870 0.02085 0.00253 — 130.144 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.01311 20.4981 29.5112 0.92751 0.02236 — 59.3623 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 56.3416 0.00000 56.3416 5.63115 0.00000 — 197.120 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62005 1.62005 Total 8.87770 8.59770 3.07300 27.1401 0.06019 0.04379 5.51307 5.55685 0.04062 1.39393 1.43456 65.3548 6,308.53 6,373.88 6.88724 0.33918 10.5774 6,657.72 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.61055 0.56236 0.55510 4.36112 0.01096 0.00770 1.00613 1.01384 0.00720 0.25439 0.26159 — 1,018.28 1,018.28 0.05089 0.05202 1.48299 1,036.54 Area 1.00963 1.00672 0.00572 0.59195 0.00003 0.00029 — 0.00029 0.00022 — 0.00022 — 1.43663 1.43663 0.00006 0.00001 — 1.44169 Energy 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 21.3359 21.3359 0.00345 0.00042 — 21.5468 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.49222 3.39369 4.88591 0.15356 0.00370 — 9.82810 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 9.32800 0.00000 9.32800 0.93230 0.00000 — 32.6355 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26822 0.26822 Total 1.62018 1.56908 0.56082 4.95307 0.01098 0.00799 1.00613 1.01413 0.00741 0.25439 0.26181 10.8202 1,044.45 1,055.27 1.14026 0.05616 1.75120 1,102.26

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Building Construction (2026)

1.27993 1.07101 9.85401 12.9664 0.02340 0.37865 — 0.37865 0.34836 — 0.34836 — 2,397.24 2,397.24 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.47 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 19 / 60
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.27993 1.07101 9.85401 12.9664 0.02340 0.37865 — 0.37865 0.34836 — 0.34836 — 2,397.24 2,397.24 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.47 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.36469 0.30516 2.80772 3.69453 0.00667 0.10789 — 0.10789 0.09926 — 0.09926 — 683.049 683.049 0.02771 0.00554 — 685.393 Onsite
truck

0.06656 0.05569 0.51241 0.67425 0.00122 0.01969 — 0.01969 0.01811 — 0.01811 — 113.087 113.087 0.00459 0.00092 — 113.475 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.1.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19969 0.18100 0.15596 2.89784 0.00000 0.00000 0.51044 0.51044 0.00000 0.11965 0.11965 — 551.170 551.170 0.00644 0.01869 1.81752 558.718 Vendor 0.01744 0.01263 0.44436 0.14320 0.00290 0.00580 0.11026 0.11605 0.00580 0.03046 0.03626 — 398.907 398.907 0.00426 0.05725 1.03598 417.109 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 20 / 60
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.18036 0.15982 0.19242 1.97986 0.00000 0.00000 0.51044 0.51044 0.00000 0.11965 0.11965 — 483.553 483.553 0.00921 0.01961 0.04715 489.675 Vendor 0.01635 0.01154 0.47492 0.14812 0.00290 0.00580 0.11026 0.11605 0.00580 0.03046 0.03626 — 399.258 399.258 0.00426 0.05725 0.02685 416.450 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05218 0.04633 0.04950 0.61583 0.00000 0.00000 0.14376 0.14376 0.00000 0.03367 0.03367 — 143.124 143.124 0.00236 0.00559 0.22389 145.072 Vendor 0.00474 0.00344 0.13242 0.04142 0.00083 0.00165 0.03111 0.03276 0.00165 0.00860 0.01025 — 113.703 113.703 0.00122 0.01631 0.12752 118.721 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00952 0.00845 0.00903 0.11239 0.00000 0.00000 0.02624 0.02624 0.00000 0.00614 0.00614 — 23.6958 23.6958 0.00039 0.00093 0.03707 24.0183 Vendor 0.00086 0.00063 0.02417 0.00756 0.00015 0.00030 0.00568 0.00598 0.00030 0.00157 0.00187 — 18.8248 18.8248 0.00020 0.00270 0.02111 19.6557 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

1.27993 1.07101 9.85401 12.9664 0.02340 0.37865 — 0.37865 0.34836 — 0.34836 — 2,397.24 2,397.24 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.47 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 21 / 60
2,405.47—0.019450.097242,397.242,397.24—0.34836—0.348360.37865—0.378650.0234012.96649.854011.071011.27993Off-Roa d
Equipm
Onsite
truck

0.36469 0.30516 2.80772 3.69453 0.00667 0.10789 — 0.10789 0.09926 — 0.09926 — 683.049 683.049 0.02771 0.00554 — 685.393 Onsite
truck

0.06656 0.05569 0.51241 0.67425 0.00122 0.01969 — 0.01969 0.01811 — 0.01811 — 113.087 113.087 0.00459 0.00092 — 113.475 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.1.4. Offsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19969 0.18100 0.15596 2.89784 0.00000 0.00000 0.51044 0.51044 0.00000 0.11965 0.11965 — 551.170 551.170 0.00644 0.01869 1.81752 558.718 Vendor 0.01744 0.01263 0.44436 0.14320 0.00290 0.00580 0.11026 0.11605 0.00580 0.03046 0.03626 — 398.907 398.907 0.00426 0.05725 1.03598 417.109 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.18036 0.15982 0.19242 1.97986 0.00000 0.00000 0.51044 0.51044 0.00000 0.11965 0.11965 — 483.553 483.553 0.00921 0.01961 0.04715 489.675 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 22 / 60
Vendor 0.01635 0.01154 0.47492 0.14812 0.00290 0.00580 0.11026 0.11605 0.00580 0.03046 0.03626 — 399.258 399.258 0.00426 0.05725 0.02685 416.450 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05218 0.04633 0.04950 0.61583 0.00000 0.00000 0.14376 0.14376 0.00000 0.03367 0.03367 — 143.124 143.124 0.00236 0.00559 0.22389 145.072 Vendor 0.00474 0.00344 0.13242 0.04142 0.00083 0.00165 0.03111 0.03276 0.00165 0.00860 0.01025 — 113.703 113.703 0.00122 0.01631 0.12752 118.721 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00952 0.00845 0.00903 0.11239 0.00000 0.00000 0.02624 0.02624 0.00000 0.00614 0.00614 — 23.6958 23.6958 0.00039 0.00093 0.03707 24.0183 Vendor 0.00086 0.00063 0.02417 0.00756 0.00015 0.00030 0.00568 0.00598 0.00030 0.00157 0.00187 — 18.8248 18.8248 0.00020 0.00270 0.02111 19.6557 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.2. Architectural Coating (2026)

0.14557 0.12031 0.85645 1.13283 0.00173 0.02315 — 0.02315 0.02130 — 0.02130 — 133.504 133.504 0.00542 0.00108 — 133.963 Architect
ural
Coating
s
202.257 202.257 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 23 / 60
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00279 0.00231 0.01643 0.02173 0.00003 0.00044 — 0.00044 0.00041 — 0.00041 — 2.56036 2.56036 0.00010 0.00002 — 2.56915 Architect
ural
Coating
s

3.87890 3.87890 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00051 0.00042 0.00300 0.00396 0.00001 0.00008 — 0.00008 0.00007 — 0.00007 — 0.42390 0.42390 0.00002 <

0.000005
— 0.42535
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.70790 0.70790 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.2.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03607 0.03196 0.03848 0.39597 0.00000 0.00000 0.10209 0.10209 0.00000 0.02393 0.02393 — 96.7107 96.7107 0.00184 0.00392 0.00943 97.9349 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 24 / 60
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00070 0.00062 0.00067 0.00829 0.00000 0.00000 0.00194 0.00194 0.00000 0.00045 0.00045 — 1.92667 1.92667 0.00003 0.00008 0.00301 1.95289 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00013 0.00011 0.00012 0.00151 0.00000 0.00000 0.00035 0.00035 0.00000 0.00008 0.00008 — 0.31898 0.31898 0.00001 0.00001 0.00050 0.32332 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

2.56915—0.000020.000102.560362.56036—0.00041—0.000410.00044—0.000440.000030.021730.016430.002310.00279Off-Roa d
Architect
ural
Coating
s

3.87890 3.87890 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00051 0.00042 0.00300 0.00396 0.00001 0.00008 — 0.00008 0.00007 — 0.00007 — 0.42390 0.42390 0.00002 <

0.000005
— 0.42535
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.70790 0.70790 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.2.4. Offsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03607 0.03196 0.03848 0.39597 0.00000 0.00000 0.10209 0.10209 0.00000 0.02393 0.02393 — 96.7107 96.7107 0.00184 0.00392 0.00943 97.9349 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 26 / 60
Worker 0.00070 0.00062 0.00067 0.00829 0.00000 0.00000 0.00194 0.00194 0.00000 0.00045 0.00045 — 1.92667 1.92667 0.00003 0.00008 0.00301 1.95289 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00013 0.00011 0.00012 0.00151 0.00000 0.00000 0.00035 0.00035 0.00000 0.00008 0.00008 — 0.31898 0.31898 0.00001 0.00001 0.00050 0.32332 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

4.42659 4.14867 4.32190 29.8032 0.07583 0.06668 5.77441 5.84109 0.06294 1.46773 1.53067 — 7,762.60 7,762.60 0.28599 0.43302 25.3289 7,924.12 Total 4.42659 4.14867 4.32190 29.8032 0.07583 0.06668 5.77441 5.84109 0.06294 1.46773 1.53067 — 7,762.60 7,762.60 0.28599 0.43302 25.3289 7,924.12 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

3.91242 3.61907 4.87623 25.1136 0.06966 0.06675 5.77441 5.84116 0.06301 1.46773 1.53073 — 7,138.81 7,138.81 0.32913 0.45730 0.65679 7,283.97 Total 3.91242 3.61907 4.87623 25.1136 0.06966 0.06675 5.77441 5.84116 0.06301 1.46773 1.53073 — 7,138.81 7,138.81 0.32913 0.45730 0.65679 7,283.97 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 27 / 60
1,036.541.482990.052020.050891,018.281,018.28—0.261590.254390.007201.013841.006130.007700.010964.361120.555100.562360.61055Single Family
Housing
Total 0.61055 0.56236 0.55510 4.36112 0.01096 0.00770 1.00613 1.01384 0.00720 0.25439 0.26159 — 1,018.28 1,018.28 0.05089 0.05202 1.48299 1,036.54

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.61055 0.56236 0.55510 4.36112 0.01096 0.00770 1.00613 1.01384 0.00720 0.25439 0.26159 — 1,018.28 1,018.28 0.05089 0.05202 1.48299 1,036.54 Total 0.61055 0.56236 0.55510 4.36112 0.01096 0.00770 1.00613 1.01384 0.00720 0.25439 0.26159 — 1,018.28 1,018.28 0.05089 0.05202 1.48299 1,036.54

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) VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 28 / 60
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 605.915 605.915 0.09802 0.01188 — 611.907 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 605.915 605.915 0.09802 0.01188 — 611.907 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 605.915 605.915 0.09802 0.01188 — 611.907 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 605.915 605.915 0.09802 0.01188 — 611.907 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 100.316 100.316 0.01623 0.00197 — 101.308 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 100.316 100.316 0.01623 0.00197 — 101.308

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 128.870 128.870 0.02085 0.00253 — 130.144 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 128.870 128.870 0.02085 0.00253 — 130.144 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 29 / 60
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 128.870 128.870 0.02085 0.00253 — 130.144 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 128.870 128.870 0.02085 0.00253 — 130.144 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 21.3359 21.3359 0.00345 0.00042 — 21.5468 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 21.3359 21.3359 0.00345 0.00042 — 21.5468

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.13337 0.06668 1.13967 0.48497 0.00727 0.09214 — 0.09214 0.09214 — 0.09214 — 1,446.62 1,446.62 0.12802 0.00272 — 1,450.63 Total 0.13337 0.06668 1.13967 0.48497 0.00727 0.09214 — 0.09214 0.09214 — 0.09214 — 1,446.62 1,446.62 0.12802 0.00272 — 1,450.63 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 30 / 60
240.168—0.000450.02120239.504239.504—0.01682—0.016820.01682—0.016820.001330.088510.207990.012170.02434Single Family
Housing
Total 0.02434 0.01217 0.20799 0.08851 0.00133 0.01682 — 0.01682 0.01682 — 0.01682 — 239.504 239.504 0.02120 0.00045 — 240.168

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Total 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Total 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

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) VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 31 / 60
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

4.84068 4.84068 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.38789 0.38789 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.61573 0.58337 0.06352 6.57725 0.00029 0.00322 — 0.00322 0.00242 — 0.00242 — 17.5957 17.5957 0.00074 0.00015 — 17.6576 Total 5.84430 5.81194 0.06352 6.57725 0.00029 0.00322 — 0.00322 0.00242 — 0.00242 — 17.5957 17.5957 0.00074 0.00015 — 17.6576 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

4.84068 4.84068 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.38789 0.38789 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 5.22857 5.22857 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.88342 0.88342 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.07079 0.07079 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 32 / 60
Landsca
Equipment

0.05542 0.05250 0.00572 0.59195 0.00003 0.00029 — 0.00029 0.00022 — 0.00022 — 1.43663 1.43663 0.00006 0.00001 — 1.44169 Total 1.00963 1.00672 0.00572 0.59195 0.00003 0.00029 — 0.00029 0.00022 — 0.00022 — 1.43663 1.43663 0.00006 0.00001 — 1.44169

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

4.84068 4.84068 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.38789 0.38789 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

4.84068 4.84068 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.38789 0.38789 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 5.22857 5.22857 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 33 / 60
Consum
Products

0.88342 0.88342 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.07079 0.07079 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.01311 20.4981 29.5112 0.92751 0.02236 — 59.3623 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.01311 20.4981 29.5112 0.92751 0.02236 — 59.3623 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.01311 20.4981 29.5112 0.92751 0.02236 — 59.3623 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.01311 20.4981 29.5112 0.92751 0.02236 — 59.3623 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 34 / 60

9.82810—0.003700.153564.885913.393691.49222———————————Single Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.49222 3.39369 4.88591 0.15356 0.00370 — 9.82810

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.01311 20.4981 29.5112 0.92751 0.02236 — 59.3623 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.01311 20.4981 29.5112 0.92751 0.02236 — 59.3623 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.01311 20.4981 29.5112 0.92751 0.02236 — 59.3623 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.01311 20.4981 29.5112 0.92751 0.02236 — 59.3623 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.49222 3.39369 4.88591 0.15356 0.00370 — 9.82810 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.49222 3.39369 4.88591 0.15356 0.00370 — 9.82810

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) VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 35 / 60
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 56.3416 0.00000 56.3416 5.63115 0.00000 — 197.120 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 56.3416 0.00000 56.3416 5.63115 0.00000 — 197.120 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 56.3416 0.00000 56.3416 5.63115 0.00000 — 197.120 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 56.3416 0.00000 56.3416 5.63115 0.00000 — 197.120 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.32800 0.00000 9.32800 0.93230 0.00000 — 32.6355 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.32800 0.00000 9.32800 0.93230 0.00000 — 32.6355

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 56.3416 0.00000 56.3416 5.63115 0.00000 — 197.120 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 56.3416 0.00000 56.3416 5.63115 0.00000 — 197.120 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 36 / 60
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 56.3416 0.00000 56.3416 5.63115 0.00000 — 197.120 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 56.3416 0.00000 56.3416 5.63115 0.00000 — 197.120 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.32800 0.00000 9.32800 0.93230 0.00000 — 32.6355 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.32800 0.00000 9.32800 0.93230 0.00000 — 32.6355

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62005 1.62005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62005 1.62005
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62005 1.62005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62005 1.62005
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 37 / 60
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26822 0.26822
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26822 0.26822

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62005 1.62005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62005 1.62005
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62005 1.62005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.62005 1.62005
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26822 0.26822
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26822 0.26822

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) VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 38 / 60
Equipm
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 39 / 60
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 40 / 60

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 41 / 60

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 42 / 60

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 43 / 60
——————————————————Sequest
ered
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 44 / 60
——————————————————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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 45 / 60
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Building Construction Building Construction 7/7/2026 11/27/2026 5.00000 104.000 — Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/30/2026 12/8/2026 5.00000 7.00000 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 82.0000 0.20000 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 14.0000 0.74000 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.000000 7.00000 367.000 0.29000 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 46.0000 0.45000 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 46 / 60
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 3.00000 7.00000 84.0000 0.37000 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.000000 6.00000 37.0000 0.48000

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 82.0000 0.20000 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 14.0000 0.74000 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.000000 7.00000 367.000 0.29000 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 46.0000 0.45000 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00000 7.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.000000 6.00000 37.0000 0.48000

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Building Construction Worker 41.7600 17.3000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 12.4004 10.6000 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 8.35200 17.3000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.6000 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 47 / 60
Building Construction Worker 41.7600 17.3000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 12.4004 10.6000 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 8.35200 17.3000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.6000 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 458,055 152,685 0.00000 0.00000 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

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

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 48 / 60
2026 0.00000 203.983 0.03300 0.00400

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Single Family
Housing
1,093.88 1,099.68 983.680 393,822 8,063.13 8,105.89 7,250.84 2,902,918

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Single Family
Housing
1,093.88 1,099.68 983.680 393,822 8,063.13 8,105.89 7,250.84 2,902,918

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
Land Use Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Mitigated (number) Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Gas Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing No Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Single Family Housing Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Single Family Housing Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Single Family Housing Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 49 / 60

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)
458,055 152,685 0.00000 0.00000 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00000
Summer Days day/yr 180.000

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00000
Summer Days day/yr 180.000

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 1,084,203 203.983 0.0330 0.0040 4,513,829

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 230,595 203.983 0.0330 0.0040 0.00000 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 50 / 60

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 4,703,551 7,501,156

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 4,703,551 7,501,156

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 104.542 0.00000

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 104.542 0.00000

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 51 / 60

1.0000000.000000.600000.115381,430.00R-134aSingle Family Housing Household refrigerators and/or
freezers

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 52 / 60

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

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

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 21.0800 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.00000 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 53 / 60
Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00000 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 54 / 60
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 84.5800
AQ-PM 98.4443
AQ-DPM 34.7729
Drinking Water 97.8769
Lead Risk Housing 3.93195
Pesticides 95.9310
Toxic Releases 41.6479
Traffic 5.57500
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 33.8746
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 55 / 60
Groundwater 30.8816
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 74.7320
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00000
Solid Waste 35.7159
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 9.43420
Cardio-vascular 43.1580
Low Birth Weights 26.0713
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 36.9021
Housing 0.31686
Linguistic 0.92029
Poverty 5.35176
Unemployment 43.0895

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 88.68215065
Employed 79.81521879
Median HI 87.51443603
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 64.24996792
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 24.79147953
Transportation —
Auto Access 88.68215065
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 56 / 60
Active commuting 1.039394328
Social —
2-parent households 75.6704735
Voting 82.13781599
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 89.24675991
Park access 15.0006416
Retail density 6.711151033
Supermarket access 20.33876556
Tree canopy 2.181444886
Housing —
Homeownership 89.43924034
Housing habitability 94.81586039
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 77.74926216 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 94.57205184
Uncrowded housing 91.95431798
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 92.49326318
Arthritis 97.2
Asthma ER Admissions 85.0
High Blood Pressure 97.4
Cancer (excluding skin) 85.3
Asthma 58.2
Coronary Heart Disease 98.1
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 93.7
Diagnosed Diabetes 98.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 33.3
Cognitively Disabled 94.6
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 57 / 60
Physically Disabled 98.1
Heart Attack ER Admissions 44.5
Mental Health Not Good 58.7
Chronic Kidney Disease 97.1
Obesity 54.6
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 93.2
Stroke 97.8
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.7
Current Smoker 42.3
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 79.7
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 56.6
Elderly 81.3
English Speaking 86.6
Foreign-born 3.3
Outdoor Workers 45.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 81.1
Traffic Density 17.7
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 21.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 81.8
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 58 / 60

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data

8.1. Justifications
Screen Justification
Land Use Land use information scaled per site specific data.

Construction: Construction Phases Construction schedule per applicant provided data.

Operations: Vehicle Data Trip rates per 11th Ed. ITE - 210 - Single-Family Detached Housing Operations: Fleet Mix SJVAPCD Residential Fleet Mix for 2026.

Operations: Hearths SJVAPCD Rule 4901.

VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 59 / 60

8.3. Land Use
Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value
Lot Area acre 37.6623 14.8400
Landscape Area sq. ft 1,358,691 376,299

8.4. Construction

8.4.1. Construction Phases
Phase Type Phase Name Model Parameter Default Value New Value Building Construction Building Construction Start Date 10/2/2026 7/7/2026 Building Construction Building Construction End Date 11/26/2027 11/27/2026 Building Construction Building Construction Work Days per Phase 300.000 104.000 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating Start Date 12/26/2027 11/30/2026 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating End Date 1/23/2028 12/8/2026 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating Work Days per Phase 20.0000 7.00000

8.5. Operations

8.5.1. Mobile Sources

8.5.1.1. Vehicle Data
Land Use Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value
Single Family Housing Weekday Trip Rate size/day 9.44000 9.43000 Single Family Housing Saturday Trip Rate size/day 9.54000 9.48000 Single Family Housing Sunday Trip Rate size/day 8.55000 8.48000

8.5.1.2. Fleet Mix
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 2 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 60 / 60
Land Use Season Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value Single Family Housing A Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks % 4% 2% Single Family Housing A Passenger Cars % 43% 51%
Single Family Housing A Light-Duty Trucks 1 % 4% 20%
Single Family Housing A Light-Duty Trucks 2 % 21% 18%
Single Family Housing A Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1 % 4% < 0.5% Single Family Housing A Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 2 % 1% < 0.5% Single Family Housing A Motorcycles % 2% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing A Medium-Duty Trucks % 19% 7%
Single Family Housing A Motor Homes % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing A Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks % 2% 1% Single Family Housing A Other Buses % < 0.5% 0%
Single Family Housing A School Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing A Urban Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%

8.6. Measure Input Overrides

8.6.1. Construction Measure Inputs
Measure Number and Input
Name
Construction Phase Equipment Type Model Parameter Default Value New Value C-10-A - Water Exposed
Surfaces
— — Watering Frequency 2 3
C-11 - Limit Vehicle Speeds
on Unpaved Roads
— — PM10 Percent Reduction 44.0000 66.7
C-11 - Limit Vehicle Speeds
on Unpaved Roads
— — PM2.5 Percent Reduction 44.0000 66.7
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 1 / 66
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions 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 Y ear

2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.2.2. Onsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.2.3. Offsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.2.4. Total Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

2.2.5. Onsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

2.2.6. Offsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.4. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 2 / 66

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Building Construction (2026)

3.1.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.1.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.1.3. Onsite - Mitigated

3.1.4. Offsite - Mitigated

3.2. Building Construction (2027)

3.2.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.2.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.2.3. Onsite - Mitigated

3.2.4. Offsite - Mitigated

3.3. Architectural Coating (2027)

3.3.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.3.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.3.3. Onsite - Mitigated

3.3.4. Offsite - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 3 / 66

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

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
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 4 / 66

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

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 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 5 / 66

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

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
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 6 / 66

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 7 / 66

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 8 / 66

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

8.1. Justifications

8.3. Land Use

8.4. Construction

8.4.1. Construction Phases

8.5. Operations

8.5.1. Mobile Sources

8.5.1.1. Vehicle Data
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 9 / 66

8.5.1.2. Fleet Mix

8.6. Measure Input Overrides

8.6.1. Construction Measure Inputs
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 10 / 66

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions
Construction Start Date 12/9/2026
Operational Y ear 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70000
Precipitation (days) 18.0000
Location 35.418729544683956, -119.16611738041257
County Kern-San Joaquin
City Bakersfield
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2889
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.43

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
Single Family
Housing
119.000 Dwelling Unit 15.2300 232,050 386,031 — 383.000 — VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 11 / 66

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Energy E-10-B Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power Energy E-15 Require All-Electric Development

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 207.660 207.636 9.97228 15.8155 0.02637 0.34252 0.63675 0.97927 0.31559 0.15399 0.46958 — 3,351.11 3,351.11 0.10822 0.09735 2.62518 3,385.45 Mit. 207.660 207.636 9.97228 15.8155 0.02637 0.34252 0.63675 0.97927 0.31559 0.15399 0.46958 — 3,351.11 3,351.11 0.10822 0.09735 2.62518 3,385.45 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.48172 1.24680 10.5386 15.1494 0.02637 0.38460 0.63675 1.02135 0.35431 0.15399 0.50830 — 3,302.88 3,302.88 0.11106 0.09829 0.07591 3,335.03 Mit. 1.48172 1.24680 10.5386 15.1494 0.02637 0.38460 0.63675 1.02135 0.35431 0.15399 0.50830 — 3,302.88 3,302.88 0.11106 0.09829 0.07591 3,335.03 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 12 / 66
Unmit. 4.31355 4.26393 2.36694 3.58083 0.00623 0.08080 0.14983 0.23064 0.07445 0.03621 0.11066 — 779.982 779.982 0.02577 0.02295 0.26875 787.735 Mit. 4.31355 4.26393 2.36694 3.58083 0.00623 0.08080 0.14983 0.23064 0.07445 0.03621 0.11066 — 779.982 779.982 0.02577 0.02295 0.26875 787.735 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.78722 0.77817 0.43197 0.65350 0.00114 0.01475 0.02734 0.04209 0.01359 0.00661 0.02019 — 129.135 129.135 0.00427 0.00380 0.04449 130.419 Mit. 0.78722 0.77817 0.43197 0.65350 0.00114 0.01475 0.02734 0.04209 0.01359 0.00661 0.02019 — 129.135 129.135 0.00427 0.00380 0.04449 130.419 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear

2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated Includes both onsite and offsite emissions.

Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 207.660 207.636 9.97228 15.8155 0.02637 0.34252 0.63675 0.97927 0.31559 0.15399 0.46958 — 3,351.11 3,351.11 0.10822 0.09735 2.62518 3,385.45 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.48172 1.24680 10.5386 15.1494 0.02637 0.38460 0.63675 1.02135 0.35431 0.15399 0.50830 — 3,302.88 3,302.88 0.11106 0.09829 0.07591 3,335.03 2027 1.40865 1.19812 10.0383 14.9485 0.02637 0.34252 0.63675 0.97927 0.31559 0.15399 0.46958 — 3,283.65 3,283.65 0.11011 0.09829 0.06812 3,315.76 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.06683 0.05627 0.47301 0.69012 0.00119 0.01731 0.02834 0.04565 0.01595 0.00685 0.02280 — 149.519 149.519 0.00496 0.00442 0.05695 151.018 2027 4.31355 4.26393 2.36694 3.58083 0.00623 0.08080 0.14983 0.23064 0.07445 0.03621 0.11066 — 779.982 779.982 0.02577 0.02295 0.26875 787.735 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.01220 0.01027 0.08632 0.12595 0.00022 0.00316 0.00517 0.00833 0.00291 0.00125 0.00416 — 24.7545 24.7545 0.00082 0.00073 0.00943 25.0027 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 13 / 66
2027 0.78722 0.77817 0.43197 0.65350 0.00114 0.01475 0.02734 0.04209 0.01359 0.00661 0.02019 — 129.135 129.135 0.00427 0.00380 0.04449 130.419

2.2.2. Onsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 207.625 207.601 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 0.00000 0.33657 0.30965 0.00000 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.30 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.27993 1.07101 9.85401 12.9664 0.02340 0.37865 0.00000 0.37865 0.34836 0.00000 0.34836 — 2,397.24 2,397.24 0.09724 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.47 2027 1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 0.00000 0.33657 0.30965 0.00000 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.30 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.05761 0.04821 0.44353 0.58361 0.00105 0.01704 0.00000 0.01704 0.01568 0.00000 0.01568 — 107.899 107.899 0.00438 0.00088 0.00000 108.270 2027 4.27087 4.22324 2.22125 3.05985 0.00553 0.07940 0.00000 0.07940 0.07305 0.00000 0.07305 — 565.475 565.475 0.02294 0.00459 0.00000 567.416 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.01051 0.00880 0.08094 0.10651 0.00019 0.00311 0.00000 0.00311 0.00286 0.00000 0.00286 — 17.8640 17.8640 0.00072 0.00014 0.00000 17.9253 2027 0.77943 0.77074 0.40538 0.55842 0.00101 0.01449 0.00000 0.01449 0.01333 0.00000 0.01333 — 93.6208 93.6208 0.00380 0.00076 0.00000 93.9421

2.2.3. Offsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.19574 0.18825 0.58134 2.87754 0.00297 0.00595 0.63675 0.64269 0.00595 0.15399 0.15994 — 954.028 954.028 0.01099 0.07790 2.62518 980.142 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 14 / 66
——————————————————Daily -
Winter
(Max)
2026 0.20179 0.17579 0.68459 2.18301 0.00297 0.00595 0.63675 0.64269 0.00595 0.15399 0.15994 — 905.642 905.642 0.01382 0.07884 0.07591 929.559 2027 0.17790 0.16824 0.64741 2.01057 0.00297 0.00595 0.63675 0.64269 0.00595 0.15399 0.15994 — 886.571 886.571 0.01288 0.07884 0.06812 910.456 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.00922 0.00807 0.02948 0.10651 0.00013 0.00027 0.02834 0.02861 0.00027 0.00685 0.00712 — 41.6193 41.6193 0.00058 0.00355 0.05695 42.7483 2027 0.04269 0.04069 0.14569 0.52098 0.00070 0.00140 0.14983 0.15123 0.00140 0.03621 0.03760 — 214.507 214.507 0.00283 0.01837 0.26875 220.320 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.00168 0.00147 0.00538 0.01944 0.00002 0.00005 0.00517 0.00522 0.00005 0.00125 0.00130 — 6.89055 6.89055 0.00010 0.00059 0.00943 7.07747 2027 0.00779 0.00743 0.02659 0.09508 0.00013 0.00025 0.02734 0.02760 0.00025 0.00661 0.00686 — 35.5140 35.5140 0.00047 0.00304 0.04449 36.4764

2.2.4. Total Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated Includes both onsite and offsite emissions.

Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 207.660 207.636 9.97228 15.8155 0.02637 0.34252 0.63675 0.97927 0.31559 0.15399 0.46958 — 3,351.11 3,351.11 0.10822 0.09735 2.62518 3,385.45 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.48172 1.24680 10.5386 15.1494 0.02637 0.38460 0.63675 1.02135 0.35431 0.15399 0.50830 — 3,302.88 3,302.88 0.11106 0.09829 0.07591 3,335.03 2027 1.40865 1.19812 10.0383 14.9485 0.02637 0.34252 0.63675 0.97927 0.31559 0.15399 0.46958 — 3,283.65 3,283.65 0.11011 0.09829 0.06812 3,315.76 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.06683 0.05627 0.47301 0.69012 0.00119 0.01731 0.02834 0.04565 0.01595 0.00685 0.02280 — 149.519 149.519 0.00496 0.00442 0.05695 151.018 2027 4.31355 4.26393 2.36694 3.58083 0.00623 0.08080 0.14983 0.23064 0.07445 0.03621 0.11066 — 779.982 779.982 0.02577 0.02295 0.26875 787.735 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 15 / 66
2026 0.01220 0.01027 0.08632 0.12595 0.00022 0.00316 0.00517 0.00833 0.00291 0.00125 0.00416 — 24.7545 24.7545 0.00082 0.00073 0.00943 25.0027 2027 0.78722 0.77817 0.43197 0.65350 0.00114 0.01475 0.02734 0.04209 0.01359 0.00661 0.02019 — 129.135 129.135 0.00427 0.00380 0.04449 130.419

2.2.5. Onsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 207.625 207.601 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 0.00000 0.33657 0.30965 0.00000 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.30 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.27993 1.07101 9.85401 12.9664 0.02340 0.37865 0.00000 0.37865 0.34836 0.00000 0.34836 — 2,397.24 2,397.24 0.09724 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.47 2027 1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 0.00000 0.33657 0.30965 0.00000 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.30 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.05761 0.04821 0.44353 0.58361 0.00105 0.01704 0.00000 0.01704 0.01568 0.00000 0.01568 — 107.899 107.899 0.00438 0.00088 0.00000 108.270 2027 4.27087 4.22324 2.22125 3.05985 0.00553 0.07940 0.00000 0.07940 0.07305 0.00000 0.07305 — 565.475 565.475 0.02294 0.00459 0.00000 567.416 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.01051 0.00880 0.08094 0.10651 0.00019 0.00311 0.00000 0.00311 0.00286 0.00000 0.00286 — 17.8640 17.8640 0.00072 0.00014 0.00000 17.9253 2027 0.77943 0.77074 0.40538 0.55842 0.00101 0.01449 0.00000 0.01449 0.01333 0.00000 0.01333 — 93.6208 93.6208 0.00380 0.00076 0.00000 93.9421

2.2.6. Offsite Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.19574 0.18825 0.58134 2.87754 0.00297 0.00595 0.63675 0.64269 0.00595 0.15399 0.15994 — 954.028 954.028 0.01099 0.07790 2.62518 980.142 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 16 / 66
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.20179 0.17579 0.68459 2.18301 0.00297 0.00595 0.63675 0.64269 0.00595 0.15399 0.15994 — 905.642 905.642 0.01382 0.07884 0.07591 929.559 2027 0.17790 0.16824 0.64741 2.01057 0.00297 0.00595 0.63675 0.64269 0.00595 0.15399 0.15994 — 886.571 886.571 0.01288 0.07884 0.06812 910.456 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.00922 0.00807 0.02948 0.10651 0.00013 0.00027 0.02834 0.02861 0.00027 0.00685 0.00712 — 41.6193 41.6193 0.00058 0.00355 0.05695 42.7483 2027 0.04269 0.04069 0.14569 0.52098 0.00070 0.00140 0.14983 0.15123 0.00140 0.03621 0.03760 — 214.507 214.507 0.00283 0.01837 0.26875 220.320 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.00168 0.00147 0.00538 0.01944 0.00002 0.00005 0.00517 0.00522 0.00005 0.00125 0.00130 — 6.89055 6.89055 0.00010 0.00059 0.00943 7.07747 2027 0.00779 0.00743 0.02659 0.09508 0.00013 0.00025 0.02734 0.02760 0.00025 0.00661 0.00686 — 35.5140 35.5140 0.00047 0.00304 0.04449 36.4764

2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.4445 10.0739 5.44436 36.2449 0.08394 0.16313 5.92361 6.08674 0.15869 1.50560 1.66429 66.9437 9,945.66 10,012.6 7.22935 0.47182 24.9729 10,358.9 Mit. 10.3077 10.0055 4.27521 35.7474 0.07648 0.06860 5.92361 5.99221 0.06416 1.50560 1.56976 66.9437 7,972.19 8,039.14 7.01883 0.45943 24.9729 8,376.49 %
Reduced
1% 1% 21% 1% 9% 58% — 2% 60% — 6% — 20% 20% 3% 3% — 19% Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9.33114 8.97898 5.91112 24.9124 0.07747 0.15999 5.92361 6.08360 0.15632 1.50560 1.66192 66.9437 9,302.32 9,369.26 7.26994 0.49532 2.26641 9,700.89 Mit. 9.19433 8.91057 4.74197 24.4149 0.07001 0.06546 5.92361 5.98907 0.06179 1.50560 1.56739 66.9437 7,328.85 7,395.80 7.05943 0.48293 2.26641 7,718.46 %
Reduced
1% 1% 20% 2% 10% 59% — 2% 60% — 6% — 21% 21% 3% 3% — 20% VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 17 / 66
——————————————————Average
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 9.08241 8.73985 4.12364 26.9237 0.06787 0.13738 5.65585 5.79323 0.13429 1.43002 1.56432 66.9437 8,309.30 8,376.25 7.25302 0.34676 9.85191 8,670.76 Mit. 8.94560 8.67145 2.95450 26.4262 0.06041 0.04285 5.65585 5.69871 0.03977 1.43002 1.46979 66.9437 6,335.84 6,402.78 7.04250 0.33437 9.85191 6,688.34 %
Reduced
2% 1% 28% 2% 11% 69% — 2% 70% — 6% — 24% 24% 3% 4% — 23% Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.65754 1.59502 0.75257 4.91358 0.01239 0.02507 1.03219 1.05726 0.02451 0.26098 0.28549 11.0833 1,375.70 1,386.78 1.20082 0.05741 1.63110 1,435.54 Mit. 1.63257 1.58254 0.53920 4.82278 0.01102 0.00782 1.03219 1.04001 0.00726 0.26098 0.26824 11.0833 1,048.97 1,060.05 1.16597 0.05536 1.63110 1,107.33 %
Reduced
2% 1% 28% 2% 11% 69% — 2% 70% — 6% — 24% 24% 3% 4% — 23%

2.4. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.31827 4.04909 4.21072 28.9915 0.07619 0.06539 5.92361 5.98901 0.06173 1.50560 1.56733 — 7,800.97 7,800.97 0.27855 0.43375 23.3110 7,960.50 Area 5.98945 5.95639 0.06449 6.75596 0.00029 0.00321 — 0.00321 0.00243 — 0.00243 — 18.0508 18.0508 0.00075 0.00015 — 18.1143 Energy 0.13682 0.06841 1.16915 0.49751 0.00746 0.09453 — 0.09453 0.09453 — 0.09453 — 2,105.61 2,105.61 0.23189 0.01498 — 2,115.88 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.24621 21.0282 30.2744 0.95149 0.02294 — 60.8975 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 57.6975 0.00000 57.6975 5.76665 0.00000 — 201.864 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66194 1.66194 Total 10.4445 10.0739 5.44436 36.2449 0.08394 0.16313 5.92361 6.08674 0.15869 1.50560 1.66429 66.9437 9,945.66 10,012.6 7.22935 0.47182 24.9729 10,358.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.83054 3.54678 4.74197 24.4149 0.07001 0.06546 5.92361 5.98907 0.06179 1.50560 1.56739 — 7,175.68 7,175.68 0.31990 0.45740 0.60447 7,320.59 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 18 / 66
Area 5.36379 5.36379 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.13682 0.06841 1.16915 0.49751 0.00746 0.09453 — 0.09453 0.09453 — 0.09453 — 2,105.61 2,105.61 0.23189 0.01498 — 2,115.88 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.24621 21.0282 30.2744 0.95149 0.02294 — 60.8975 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 57.6975 0.00000 57.6975 5.76665 0.00000 — 201.864 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66194 1.66194 Total 9.33114 8.97898 5.91112 24.9124 0.07747 0.15999 5.92361 6.08360 0.15632 1.50560 1.66192 66.9437 9,302.32 9,369.26 7.26994 0.49532 2.26641 9,700.89 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.27326 3.01542 2.92269 23.0945 0.06026 0.04127 5.65585 5.69712 0.03856 1.43002 1.46859 — 6,173.76 6,173.76 0.30260 0.30877 8.18997 6,281.53 Area 5.67234 5.65603 0.03181 3.33171 0.00014 0.00158 — 0.00158 0.00120 — 0.00120 — 8.90176 8.90176 0.00037 0.00007 — 8.93307 Energy 0.13682 0.06841 1.16915 0.49751 0.00746 0.09453 — 0.09453 0.09453 — 0.09453 — 2,105.61 2,105.61 0.23189 0.01498 — 2,115.88 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.24621 21.0282 30.2744 0.95149 0.02294 — 60.8975 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 57.6975 0.00000 57.6975 5.76665 0.00000 — 201.864 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66194 1.66194 Total 9.08241 8.73985 4.12364 26.9237 0.06787 0.13738 5.65585 5.79323 0.13429 1.43002 1.56432 66.9437 8,309.30 8,376.25 7.25302 0.34676 9.85191 8,670.76 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.59737 0.55031 0.53339 4.21475 0.01100 0.00753 1.03219 1.03972 0.00704 0.26098 0.26802 — 1,022.14 1,022.14 0.05010 0.05112 1.35594 1,039.98 Area 1.03520 1.03223 0.00580 0.60804 0.00003 0.00029 — 0.00029 0.00022 — 0.00022 — 1.47379 1.47379 0.00006 0.00001 — 1.47897 Energy 0.02497 0.01248 0.21337 0.09080 0.00136 0.01725 — 0.01725 0.01725 — 0.01725 — 348.608 348.608 0.03839 0.00248 — 350.307 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.53082 3.48146 5.01227 0.15753 0.00380 — 10.0823 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 9.55247 0.00000 9.55247 0.95474 0.00000 — 33.4209 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27515 0.27515 Total 1.65754 1.59502 0.75257 4.91358 0.01239 0.02507 1.03219 1.05726 0.02451 0.26098 0.28549 11.0833 1,375.70 1,386.78 1.20082 0.05741 1.63110 1,435.54

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 19 / 66
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Mobile 4.31827 4.04909 4.21072 28.9915 0.07619 0.06539 5.92361 5.98901 0.06173 1.50560 1.56733 — 7,800.97 7,800.97 0.27855 0.43375 23.3110 7,960.50 Area 5.98945 5.95639 0.06449 6.75596 0.00029 0.00321 — 0.00321 0.00243 — 0.00243 — 18.0508 18.0508 0.00075 0.00015 — 18.1143 Energy 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 132.145 132.145 0.02138 0.00259 — 133.452 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.24621 21.0282 30.2744 0.95149 0.02294 — 60.8975 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 57.6975 0.00000 57.6975 5.76665 0.00000 — 201.864 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66194 1.66194 Total 10.3077 10.0055 4.27521 35.7474 0.07648 0.06860 5.92361 5.99221 0.06416 1.50560 1.56976 66.9437 7,972.19 8,039.14 7.01883 0.45943 24.9729 8,376.49 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.83054 3.54678 4.74197 24.4149 0.07001 0.06546 5.92361 5.98907 0.06179 1.50560 1.56739 — 7,175.68 7,175.68 0.31990 0.45740 0.60447 7,320.59 Area 5.36379 5.36379 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 132.145 132.145 0.02138 0.00259 — 133.452 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.24621 21.0282 30.2744 0.95149 0.02294 — 60.8975 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 57.6975 0.00000 57.6975 5.76665 0.00000 — 201.864 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66194 1.66194 Total 9.19433 8.91057 4.74197 24.4149 0.07001 0.06546 5.92361 5.98907 0.06179 1.50560 1.56739 66.9437 7,328.85 7,395.80 7.05943 0.48293 2.26641 7,718.46 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.27326 3.01542 2.92269 23.0945 0.06026 0.04127 5.65585 5.69712 0.03856 1.43002 1.46859 — 6,173.76 6,173.76 0.30260 0.30877 8.18997 6,281.53 Area 5.67234 5.65603 0.03181 3.33171 0.00014 0.00158 — 0.00158 0.00120 — 0.00120 — 8.90176 8.90176 0.00037 0.00007 — 8.93307 Energy 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 132.145 132.145 0.02138 0.00259 — 133.452 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.24621 21.0282 30.2744 0.95149 0.02294 — 60.8975 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 57.6975 0.00000 57.6975 5.76665 0.00000 — 201.864 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66194 1.66194 Total 8.94560 8.67145 2.95450 26.4262 0.06041 0.04285 5.65585 5.69871 0.03977 1.43002 1.46979 66.9437 6,335.84 6,402.78 7.04250 0.33437 9.85191 6,688.34 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 20 / 66
Mobile 0.59737 0.55031 0.53339 4.21475 0.01100 0.00753 1.03219 1.03972 0.00704 0.26098 0.26802 — 1,022.14 1,022.14 0.05010 0.05112 1.35594 1,039.98 Area 1.03520 1.03223 0.00580 0.60804 0.00003 0.00029 — 0.00029 0.00022 — 0.00022 — 1.47379 1.47379 0.00006 0.00001 — 1.47897 Energy 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 21.8781 21.8781 0.00354 0.00043 — 22.0945 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.53082 3.48146 5.01227 0.15753 0.00380 — 10.0823 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 9.55247 0.00000 9.55247 0.95474 0.00000 — 33.4209 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27515 0.27515 Total 1.63257 1.58254 0.53920 4.82278 0.01102 0.00782 1.03219 1.04001 0.00726 0.26098 0.26824 11.0833 1,048.97 1,060.05 1.16597 0.05536 1.63110 1,107.33

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Building Construction (2026)

1.27993 1.07101 9.85401 12.9664 0.02340 0.37865 — 0.37865 0.34836 — 0.34836 — 2,397.24 2,397.24 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.47 Onsite
truck

0.05761 0.04821 0.44353 0.58361 0.00105 0.01704 — 0.01704 0.01568 — 0.01568 — 107.899 107.899 0.00438 0.00088 — 108.270 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 21 / 66
Onsite
truck

0.01051 0.00880 0.08094 0.10651 0.00019 0.00311 — 0.00311 0.00286 — 0.00286 — 17.8640 17.8640 0.00072 0.00014 — 17.9253 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.1.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.18502 0.16396 0.19739 2.03106 0.00000 0.00000 0.52364 0.52364 0.00000 0.12274 0.12274 — 496.059 496.059 0.00944 0.02012 0.04837 502.339 Vendor 0.01677 0.01184 0.48720 0.15195 0.00297 0.00595 0.11311 0.11905 0.00595 0.03125 0.03720 — 409.583 409.583 0.00438 0.05873 0.02755 427.221 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00846 0.00751 0.00802 0.09980 0.00000 0.00000 0.02330 0.02330 0.00000 0.00546 0.00546 — 23.1935 23.1935 0.00038 0.00091 0.03628 23.5092 Vendor 0.00077 0.00056 0.02146 0.00671 0.00013 0.00027 0.00504 0.00531 0.00027 0.00139 0.00166 — 18.4258 18.4258 0.00020 0.00264 0.02066 19.2391 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00154 0.00137 0.00146 0.01821 0.00000 0.00000 0.00425 0.00425 0.00000 0.00100 0.00100 — 3.83996 3.83996 0.00006 0.00015 0.00601 3.89222 Vendor 0.00014 0.00010 0.00392 0.00123 0.00002 0.00005 0.00092 0.00097 0.00005 0.00025 0.00030 — 3.05060 3.05060 0.00003 0.00044 0.00342 3.18525 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 22 / 66

1.27993 1.07101 9.85401 12.9664 0.02340 0.37865 — 0.37865 0.34836 — 0.34836 — 2,397.24 2,397.24 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.47 Onsite
truck

0.05761 0.04821 0.44353 0.58361 0.00105 0.01704 — 0.01704 0.01568 — 0.01568 — 107.899 107.899 0.00438 0.00088 — 108.270 Onsite
truck

0.01051 0.00880 0.08094 0.10651 0.00019 0.00311 — 0.00311 0.00286 — 0.00286 — 17.8640 17.8640 0.00072 0.00014 — 17.9253 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.1.4. Offsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 23 / 66
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.18502 0.16396 0.19739 2.03106 0.00000 0.00000 0.52364 0.52364 0.00000 0.12274 0.12274 — 496.059 496.059 0.00944 0.02012 0.04837 502.339 Vendor 0.01677 0.01184 0.48720 0.15195 0.00297 0.00595 0.11311 0.11905 0.00595 0.03125 0.03720 — 409.583 409.583 0.00438 0.05873 0.02755 427.221 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00846 0.00751 0.00802 0.09980 0.00000 0.00000 0.02330 0.02330 0.00000 0.00546 0.00546 — 23.1935 23.1935 0.00038 0.00091 0.03628 23.5092 Vendor 0.00077 0.00056 0.02146 0.00671 0.00013 0.00027 0.00504 0.00531 0.00027 0.00139 0.00166 — 18.4258 18.4258 0.00020 0.00264 0.02066 19.2391 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00154 0.00137 0.00146 0.01821 0.00000 0.00000 0.00425 0.00425 0.00000 0.00100 0.00100 — 3.83996 3.83996 0.00006 0.00015 0.00601 3.89222 Vendor 0.00014 0.00010 0.00392 0.00123 0.00002 0.00005 0.00092 0.00097 0.00005 0.00025 0.00030 — 3.05060 3.05060 0.00003 0.00044 0.00342 3.18525 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.2. Building Construction (2027)

1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 — 0.33657 0.30965 — 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.30 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 24 / 66

0.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000—0.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000Onsite truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 — 0.33657 0.30965 — 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.30 Onsite
truck

0.28902 0.24185 2.20531 3.03827 0.00549 0.07904 — 0.07904 0.07272 — 0.07272 — 562.915 562.915 0.02283 0.00457 — 564.846 Onsite
truck

0.05275 0.04414 0.40247 0.55448 0.00100 0.01442 — 0.01442 0.01327 — 0.01327 — 93.1969 93.1969 0.00378 0.00076 — 93.5168 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.2.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17813 0.17529 0.14176 2.73771 0.00000 0.00000 0.52364 0.52364 0.00000 0.12274 0.12274 — 554.012 554.012 0.00661 0.01917 1.67293 561.563 Vendor 0.01761 0.01296 0.43958 0.13983 0.00297 0.00595 0.11311 0.11905 0.00595 0.03125 0.03720 — 400.016 400.016 0.00438 0.05873 0.95225 418.578 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 25 / 66
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16112 0.15640 0.17916 1.86540 0.00000 0.00000 0.52364 0.52364 0.00000 0.12274 0.12274 — 486.193 486.193 0.00850 0.02012 0.04346 492.444 Vendor 0.01677 0.01184 0.46824 0.14516 0.00297 0.00595 0.11311 0.11905 0.00595 0.03125 0.03720 — 400.378 400.378 0.00438 0.05873 0.02466 418.013 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03806 0.03717 0.03757 0.47971 0.00000 0.00000 0.12155 0.12155 0.00000 0.02847 0.02847 — 118.596 118.596 0.00177 0.00450 0.16954 120.152 Vendor 0.00400 0.00291 0.10751 0.03343 0.00070 0.00140 0.02630 0.02770 0.00140 0.00727 0.00867 — 93.9732 93.9732 0.00103 0.01379 0.09644 98.2051 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00695 0.00678 0.00686 0.08755 0.00000 0.00000 0.02218 0.02218 0.00000 0.00520 0.00520 — 19.6350 19.6350 0.00029 0.00075 0.02807 19.8925 Vendor 0.00073 0.00053 0.01962 0.00610 0.00013 0.00025 0.00480 0.00506 0.00025 0.00133 0.00158 — 15.5583 15.5583 0.00017 0.00228 0.01597 16.2590 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 — 0.33657 0.30965 — 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.30 Onsite
truck

0.28902 0.24185 2.20531 3.03827 0.00549 0.07904 — 0.07904 0.07272 — 0.07272 — 562.915 562.915 0.02283 0.00457 — 564.846 Onsite
truck

0.05275 0.04414 0.40247 0.55448 0.00100 0.01442 — 0.01442 0.01327 — 0.01327 — 93.1969 93.1969 0.00378 0.00076 — 93.5168 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.2.4. Offsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17813 0.17529 0.14176 2.73771 0.00000 0.00000 0.52364 0.52364 0.00000 0.12274 0.12274 — 554.012 554.012 0.00661 0.01917 1.67293 561.563 Vendor 0.01761 0.01296 0.43958 0.13983 0.00297 0.00595 0.11311 0.11905 0.00595 0.03125 0.03720 — 400.016 400.016 0.00438 0.05873 0.95225 418.578 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16112 0.15640 0.17916 1.86540 0.00000 0.00000 0.52364 0.52364 0.00000 0.12274 0.12274 — 486.193 486.193 0.00850 0.02012 0.04346 492.444 Vendor 0.01677 0.01184 0.46824 0.14516 0.00297 0.00595 0.11311 0.11905 0.00595 0.03125 0.03720 — 400.378 400.378 0.00438 0.05873 0.02466 418.013 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 27 / 66
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03806 0.03717 0.03757 0.47971 0.00000 0.00000 0.12155 0.12155 0.00000 0.02847 0.02847 — 118.596 118.596 0.00177 0.00450 0.16954 120.152 Vendor 0.00400 0.00291 0.10751 0.03343 0.00070 0.00140 0.02630 0.02770 0.00140 0.00727 0.00867 — 93.9732 93.9732 0.00103 0.01379 0.09644 98.2051 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00695 0.00678 0.00686 0.08755 0.00000 0.00000 0.02218 0.02218 0.00000 0.00520 0.00520 — 19.6350 19.6350 0.00029 0.00075 0.02807 19.8925 Vendor 0.00073 0.00053 0.01962 0.00610 0.00013 0.00025 0.00480 0.00506 0.00025 0.00133 0.00158 — 15.5583 15.5583 0.00017 0.00228 0.01597 16.2590 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.3. Architectural Coating (2027)

0.13715 0.11335 0.83116 1.12539 0.00173 0.01905 — 0.01905 0.01752 — 0.01752 — 133.513 133.513 0.00542 0.00108 — 133.971 Architect
ural
Coating
s
207.488 207.488 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00263 0.00217 0.01594 0.02158 0.00003 0.00037 — 0.00037 0.00034 — 0.00034 — 2.56052 2.56052 0.00010 0.00002 — 2.56931 Architect
ural
Coating
s

3.97921 3.97921 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00048 0.00040 0.00291 0.00394 0.00001 0.00007 — 0.00007 0.00006 — 0.00006 — 0.42392 0.42392 0.00002 <

0.000005
— 0.42538
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.72621 0.72621 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.3.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03563 0.03506 0.02835 0.54754 0.00000 0.00000 0.10473 0.10473 0.00000 0.02455 0.02455 — 110.802 110.802 0.00132 0.00383 0.33459 112.313 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 29 / 66
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00062 0.00061 0.00061 0.00784 0.00000 0.00000 0.00199 0.00199 0.00000 0.00046 0.00046 — 1.93707 1.93707 0.00003 0.00007 0.00277 1.96248 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00011 0.00011 0.00011 0.00143 0.00000 0.00000 0.00036 0.00036 0.00000 0.00008 0.00008 — 0.32070 0.32070 <

0.000005

0.00001 0.00046 0.32491
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.00263 0.00217 0.01594 0.02158 0.00003 0.00037 — 0.00037 0.00034 — 0.00034 — 2.56052 2.56052 0.00010 0.00002 — 2.56931 Architect
ural
Coating
s

3.97921 3.97921 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00048 0.00040 0.00291 0.00394 0.00001 0.00007 — 0.00007 0.00006 — 0.00006 — 0.42392 0.42392 0.00002 <

0.000005
— 0.42538
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.72621 0.72621 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.3.4. Offsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03563 0.03506 0.02835 0.54754 0.00000 0.00000 0.10473 0.10473 0.00000 0.02455 0.02455 — 110.802 110.802 0.00132 0.00383 0.33459 112.313 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 31 / 66
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00062 0.00061 0.00061 0.00784 0.00000 0.00000 0.00199 0.00199 0.00000 0.00046 0.00046 — 1.93707 1.93707 0.00003 0.00007 0.00277 1.96248 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00011 0.00011 0.00011 0.00143 0.00000 0.00000 0.00036 0.00036 0.00000 0.00008 0.00008 — 0.32070 0.32070 <

0.000005

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.31827 4.04909 4.21072 28.9915 0.07619 0.06539 5.92361 5.98901 0.06173 1.50560 1.56733 — 7,800.97 7,800.97 0.27855 0.43375 23.3110 7,960.50 Total 4.31827 4.04909 4.21072 28.9915 0.07619 0.06539 5.92361 5.98901 0.06173 1.50560 1.56733 — 7,800.97 7,800.97 0.27855 0.43375 23.3110 7,960.50 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 32 / 66
Single
Family
Housing

3.83054 3.54678 4.74197 24.4149 0.07001 0.06546 5.92361 5.98907 0.06179 1.50560 1.56739 — 7,175.68 7,175.68 0.31990 0.45740 0.60447 7,320.59 Total 3.83054 3.54678 4.74197 24.4149 0.07001 0.06546 5.92361 5.98907 0.06179 1.50560 1.56739 — 7,175.68 7,175.68 0.31990 0.45740 0.60447 7,320.59 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.59737 0.55031 0.53339 4.21475 0.01100 0.00753 1.03219 1.03972 0.00704 0.26098 0.26802 — 1,022.14 1,022.14 0.05010 0.05112 1.35594 1,039.98 Total 0.59737 0.55031 0.53339 4.21475 0.01100 0.00753 1.03219 1.03972 0.00704 0.26098 0.26802 — 1,022.14 1,022.14 0.05010 0.05112 1.35594 1,039.98

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 621.585 621.585 0.10056 0.01219 — 627.732 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 621.585 621.585 0.10056 0.01219 — 627.732 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 621.585 621.585 0.10056 0.01219 — 627.732 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 621.585 621.585 0.10056 0.01219 — 627.732 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 102.911 102.911 0.01665 0.00202 — 103.928 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 102.911 102.911 0.01665 0.00202 — 103.928

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 34 / 66
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 132.145 132.145 0.02138 0.00259 — 133.452 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 132.145 132.145 0.02138 0.00259 — 133.452 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 132.145 132.145 0.02138 0.00259 — 133.452 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 132.145 132.145 0.02138 0.00259 — 133.452 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 21.8781 21.8781 0.00354 0.00043 — 22.0945 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 21.8781 21.8781 0.00354 0.00043 — 22.0945

0.13682 0.06841 1.16915 0.49751 0.00746 0.09453 — 0.09453 0.09453 — 0.09453 — 1,484.03 1,484.03 0.13134 0.00279 — 1,488.14 Total 0.13682 0.06841 1.16915 0.49751 0.00746 0.09453 — 0.09453 0.09453 — 0.09453 — 1,484.03 1,484.03 0.13134 0.00279 — 1,488.14 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.13682 0.06841 1.16915 0.49751 0.00746 0.09453 — 0.09453 0.09453 — 0.09453 — 1,484.03 1,484.03 0.13134 0.00279 — 1,488.14 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 35 / 66
Total 0.13682 0.06841 1.16915 0.49751 0.00746 0.09453 — 0.09453 0.09453 — 0.09453 — 1,484.03 1,484.03 0.13134 0.00279 — 1,488.14 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.02497 0.01248 0.21337 0.09080 0.00136 0.01725 — 0.01725 0.01725 — 0.01725 — 245.698 245.698 0.02174 0.00046 — 246.379 Total 0.02497 0.01248 0.21337 0.09080 0.00136 0.01725 — 0.01725 0.01725 — 0.01725 — 245.698 245.698 0.02174 0.00046 — 246.379

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Total 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

4.3. Area Emissions by Source
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 36 / 66

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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

4.96587 4.96587 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.39792 0.39792 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.62566 0.59259 0.06449 6.75596 0.00029 0.00321 — 0.00321 0.00243 — 0.00243 — 18.0508 18.0508 0.00075 0.00015 — 18.1143 Total 5.98945 5.95639 0.06449 6.75596 0.00029 0.00321 — 0.00321 0.00243 — 0.00243 — 18.0508 18.0508 0.00075 0.00015 — 18.1143 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

4.96587 4.96587 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.39792 0.39792 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 5.36379 5.36379 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.90627 0.90627 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 37 / 66
Architect
Coatings

0.07262 0.07262 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.05631 0.05333 0.00580 0.60804 0.00003 0.00029 — 0.00029 0.00022 — 0.00022 — 1.47379 1.47379 0.00006 0.00001 — 1.47897 Total 1.03520 1.03223 0.00580 0.60804 0.00003 0.00029 — 0.00029 0.00022 — 0.00022 — 1.47379 1.47379 0.00006 0.00001 — 1.47897

4.96587 4.96587 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.39792 0.39792 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

4.96587 4.96587 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 38 / 66
————————————————0.397920.39792Architect
ural
Coating
Total 5.36379 5.36379 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.90627 0.90627 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.07262 0.07262 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.24621 21.0282 30.2744 0.95149 0.02294 — 60.8975 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.24621 21.0282 30.2744 0.95149 0.02294 — 60.8975 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 39 / 66
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.24621 21.0282 30.2744 0.95149 0.02294 — 60.8975 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.24621 21.0282 30.2744 0.95149 0.02294 — 60.8975 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.53082 3.48146 5.01227 0.15753 0.00380 — 10.0823 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.53082 3.48146 5.01227 0.15753 0.00380 — 10.0823

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.24621 21.0282 30.2744 0.95149 0.02294 — 60.8975 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.24621 21.0282 30.2744 0.95149 0.02294 — 60.8975 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.24621 21.0282 30.2744 0.95149 0.02294 — 60.8975 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.24621 21.0282 30.2744 0.95149 0.02294 — 60.8975 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.53082 3.48146 5.01227 0.15753 0.00380 — 10.0823 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.53082 3.48146 5.01227 0.15753 0.00380 — 10.0823 VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 40 / 66

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 57.6975 0.00000 57.6975 5.76665 0.00000 — 201.864 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 57.6975 0.00000 57.6975 5.76665 0.00000 — 201.864 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 57.6975 0.00000 57.6975 5.76665 0.00000 — 201.864 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 57.6975 0.00000 57.6975 5.76665 0.00000 — 201.864 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.55247 0.00000 9.55247 0.95474 0.00000 — 33.4209 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.55247 0.00000 9.55247 0.95474 0.00000 — 33.4209

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
VTTM 7451 - ISR Phase 3 - Total Emissions Custom Report, 4/28/2026 41 / 66
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 57.6975 0.00000 57.6975 5.76665 0.00000 — 201.864 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 57.6975 0.00000 57.6975 5.76665 0.00000 — 201.864 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 57.6975 0.00000 57.6975 5.76665 0.00000 — 201.864 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 57.6975 0.00000 57.6975 5.76665 0.00000 — 201.864 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.55247 0.00000 9.55247 0.95474 0.00000 — 33.4209 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.55247 0.00000 9.55247 0.95474 0.00000 — 33.4209

Bakersfield City CouncilSeptember 16, 2026

Bakersfield City Council
September 16, 2026